John Freund's Posts

3077 Articles

Seqwater Case Overturned as Omni Bridgeway Stock Takes Hit

Omni Bridgeway's share price fell subsequent to an appeals judgment against Seqwater. The ruling overturned a 2019 judgment against the dam management company. The original ruling determined that Seqwater was liable for half of the compensation claims from floods in early 2011. Stockhead details that another appeal could be imminent. In the meantime, the case in question amounted to 4% of the company’s litigation assets—not counting Seqwater’s costs, which are as yet uncalculated. Omni Bridgeway's share price fell by 8%, which represents an AU $90 million decrease in market capitalization. CEO Andrew Saker affirms that while not devastating, the outcome was certainly less than ideal.
Read More

TikTok Again Accused of Violating Privacy Laws

A third Demark-based foundation has filed a case against TikTok media group over data they claim was harvested illegally. The suit impacted about 4.5 million Dutch users across all age demographics. Dutch News reports that the suit alleges that the TikTok app profits from detailed user information on a platform where user content and ads are virtually indistinguishable. The company is accused of seeking out countries with less rigorous standards for data protection—like the US or China. The case is being funded by IVO Capital, and led by Stichting, Massaschade & Consument—an independent non-profit legal organization.

Gately Announces GBP 20 Million Litigation Funding Facility

Gately, the first law firm to list publicly in the UK, recently announced a GBP 20 million litigation funding arm. Expected to begin in early 2022, the funding arm will specialize in claims related to insolvency, investor and shareholder disputes, fraud, and asset protection and recovery. Gately PLC has been a dominant force in insolvency litigation. It makes sense that their litigation funding facility will have a similar focus. Gately services domestic and international clients in a wide swath of jurisdictions including Russia and CIS, Gibraltar, Cyprus, BVI, and the Cayman Islands, among others. The firm's funding process will begin with a review of the case to determine its viability for funding. By providing non-recourse funding, Gately will enable companies to pursue meritorious litigation with no upfront cost to the company. Funders are paid from the results of a successful verdict or settlement. If the case is unsuccessful, funders may lose their investment, but the business does not suffer the loss.

Omni Bridgeway Files Appeal on Behalf of 1,000 Halifax Victims

Leading legal funder Omni Bridgeway recently announced that it is funding appeals over judgments against Halifax Investment services Pty Ltd, and another Halifax entity—both currently in liquidation. NZ Herald revealed that Danielle Funston, Maddocks Lawyers insolvency specialist, will be the lead attorney in the appeal. The result might impact more than 1,000 category 1 investors, which covers at least AU $82 million in investments, as of the time Halifax went into insolvency. The appeal will focus on whether the courts should have concluded that the liquidators were correct in valuing investor entitlements as of the administration date. 

UK Supreme Court Ruling Could Damage Enforceability of Follower Notice Penalties

Follower Notices have been in use since 2014, and refer to a notification given to someone who has used an “avoidance scheme” that was determined to be ineffective by a case against another user. This gives taxpayers an opportunity to adjust or amend their tax filings. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) issues these notices frequently, which is considered controversial for a variety of reasons. Field Fisher explains that Follower Notices are sometimes applied to situations wherein the link between the test case and the person being notified is highly tenuous. One case in particular, R Haworth v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2021] UKSC 25 could invalidate all Follower Notices issued by the HMRC since 2014. According to a Freedom of Information request, about 1.330 Follower Notices have been issued since this regime began in 2014, totaling about GBP 45 million. Not only that, but at least 13,000 people reportedly gave up on their tax appeal cases due to a Follower Notice that may not even be correctly applied, let alone legally enforceable. Ideally, anyone who has received a Follower Notice should contact their legal counsel. According to HMRC, a Follower Notice tells the subject that they may be liable for penalties of up to 50% of the tax dispute if their return isn’t amended or the dispute settled. If that seems threatening, it may be because it is. In the Haworth decision, courts specifically considered the word “would” as it pertains to the notices. HMRC asserted that by “would,” they meant “would likely.” Rather like the difference between “Yes,” and “Possibly,” which most people would agree is significant. This ruling calls the appropriateness of all issued Follower Notices into question. A group action is being assembled. Impacted parties are encouraged to contact Feldfisher attorneys George Gillham and Matthew Sharp for additional information.

Notice Of Investor Event Date

Burford Capital Limited, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, today announces that it will hold an investor event on Tuesday November 2, 2021 at 10.00am-12.30pm EDT / 2.00-4.30pm GMT / 3.00-5.30pm CET. The investor event will be hosted by Christopher Bogart, Chief Executive Officer and Co-Founder, and Jonathan Molot, Chief Investment Officer and Co-Founder, as well as other members of the senior management team. For institutional investors and analysts, the event will take place in person at the New York Stock Exchange, followed by a reception. There will be a simultaneous online real-time video webcast, from which registered participants will have the functional capability to put questions to the management team. Further details, including registration and participation, will be announced in due course. About Burford Capital
Burford Capital is the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law. Its businesses include litigation finance and risk managementasset recovery and a wide range of legal finance and advisory activities. Burford is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: BUR) and the London Stock Exchange (LSE: BUR), and it works with companies and law firms around the world from its principal offices in New YorkLondonChicagoWashingtonSingapore and Sydney. For more information, please visit www.burfordcapital.com. This communication shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any ordinary shares or other securities of Burford. This release does not constitute an offer of any Burford fund. Burford Capital Investment Management LLC ("BCIM"), which acts as the fund manager of all Burford funds, is registered as an investment adviser with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The information provided herein is for informational purposes only. Past performance is not indicative of future results. The information contained herein is not, and should not be construed as, an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any securities (including, without limitation, interests or shares in the funds). Any such offer or solicitation may be made only by means of a final confidential Private Placement Memorandum and other offering documents. Forward-looking statements
This announcement contains "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Section 21E of the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934 regarding assumptions, expectations, projections, intentions and beliefs about future events. These statements are intended as "forward-looking statements". In some cases, predictive, future-tense or forward-looking words such as "aim", "anticipate", "believe", "continue", "could", "estimate", "expect", "forecast", "guidance", "intend", "may", "plan", "potential", "predict", "projected", "should" or "will" or the negative of such terms or other comparable terminology are intended to identify forward-looking statements, but are not the exclusive means of identifying such statements. In addition, we and our representatives may from time to time make other oral or written statements which are forward-looking statements, including in our periodic reports that we file with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, other information sent to our security holders, and other written materials. By their nature, forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors because they relate to events and depend on circumstances that may or may not occur in the future. We caution you that forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and are based on  numerous assumptions and that our actual results of operations, including our financial condition and liquidity and the development of the industry in which we operate, may differ materially from (and be more negative than) those made in, or suggested by, the forward-looking statements contained in this announcement. Significant factors that may cause actual results to differ from those we expect include those discussed under "Risk Factors" in our Annual Report on Form 20-F filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2021. In addition, even if our results of operations, including our financial condition and liquidity and the development of the industry in which we operate, are consistent with the forward-looking statements contained in this announcement, those results or developments may not be indicative of results or developments in subsequent periods. Except as required by law, we undertake no obligation to update or revise the forward-looking statements contained in this announcement, whether as a result of new information, future events, a change in our views or expectations or otherwise. SOURCE: Burford Capital
Read More

Liti Capital Launches Staking for Token Holders

Liti Capital SA, a Swiss-based litigation funding provider that has opened up private equity investing to the masses through blockchain technology, is launching staking for its wLITI token.

Starting on September 13, wLITI token holders will be able to stake their tokens and receive wLITI in return. “Staking is a crucial tool to be attractive in the DeFi space and to reward our community for supporting us long term,” says Jonas Rey, Liti Capital’s co-founder. Token holders can stake their tokens by heading to the Liti Capital app, on the Liti Capital website, connecting a compatible wallet and selecting staking. The product does not require holders to go through any know-your-customer (KYC) checks. At launch there will be three options for users to stake their wLITI tokens:
  • 4% APY for 30 days
  • 6% APY for 60 days
  • 9% APY for 90 days
Users will be able to withdraw their tokens whenever they need to. If a user decides they want to un-stake their tokens, instead of losing all the rewards, the system calculates how much interest the user has accumulated and issues the relevant amount back to the token holder. “The community is one of the most important factors in the success of blockchain projects,” says Jaime Delgado, Liti Capital’s chief technology officer. “The staking program is one of the mechanisms by which the community is rewarded for its fidelity to the project and at the same time reduces the market share of wLITI in circulation which is beneficial for both the holders of wLITI and the company,” Delgado continues. More information on the staking program can be found at: https://liticapital.medium.com/liti-capital-launches-staking-rewards-61fef8437317 Liti Capital is spearheading an arbitration lawsuit on behalf of a group of traders who lost millions of dollars of trades on 19 May 2021 when Binance inexplicably froze their accounts for approximately one hour. It is believed that this case — the first ever group action case in the crypto sector — will be a landmark event in defining how organisations operating in the industry behave and treat their customers. Since the company’s launch in early 2021, it has raised USD 19 million to secure assets of up to USD 200 million, which if successful, will pay out a dividend to token holders.

About Liti Capital Switzerland-based Liti Capital is a Swiss limited liability company specializing in litigation finance and fintech. Liti Capital buys litigation assets to fund lawsuits and provides a complete strategic solution along with connections to top law firms to help clients win their cases. Tokenized shares of the company lower the barrier of entry for retail investors and give token holders a vote in the company’s decision-making process. Dividends are distributed to LITI token holders upon the success of the plaintiff. Jonas Rey, co-founder of Liti Capital, also heads Athena Intelligence, one of the most successful intelligence agencies in Switzerland. His two co-founders, Andy Christen and Jaime Delgado, bring operational, innovation and technical skills to round out the leadership team.

Liti Capital recently onboarded seasoned industry leader David Kay as chief information officer and executive chairman. Boasting more than a decade of experience as funding partner and portfolio manager of a billion-dollar private equity fund in the litigation financing space, Kay successfully enforced what was at the time the largest international arbitration award in history, bringing in over $1 billion in cash and securities.

For project information, please read the Whitepaper. For token distribution, please read Tokenomics. Liti Capital Official Channels Liti Capital Website: https://liticapital.com Liti Capital Telegram: https://t.me/Liti_Capital_Official Liti Capital Telegram Announcements: https://t.me/Liti_Capital_Official_ANN Liti Capital LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/liti-capital Liti Capital Twitter: https://twitter.com/liticapital Liti Capital Medium: https://medium.com/@liticapital Liti Capital Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/liticapital
Read More

Pretium Launches Legal Investment Group

Pretium, a specialized investment management firm with more than $26 billion in assets, today announced that it has established a legal opportunities investment team. Pretium's legal opportunities team will work with corporations and law firms to identify and invest in legal and commercial opportunities where its team has deep knowledge and experience and that offer attractive return potential for investors.  Areas of investment will include high value complex disputes between businesses, arbitrations, antitrust, patent and intellectual property, bankruptcy, distressed debt and insolvency and monetization of judgments and awards.  Pretium will not be investing in consumer litigation finance. Don Mullen, founder and CEO of Pretium, commented, "We are thrilled to further expand Pretium's capabilities into this fast-growing area of the market, where we believe our combination of scale, an exceptional team, and financial sophistication meets a growing need.  As many of today's fastest growing companies and industries mature, there will be increased demand for experienced and well-resourced firms to assist them in managing their legal risks particularly in areas of intellectual property, patents and technology.  With the expertise of our legal strategies team, we are excited to offer investors a diversifying investment with attractive returns that are minimally correlated to the broader economic cycle." The strategy will be led by Matthew Cantor, a Senior Managing Director who joined Pretium in May 2020 and has more than two decades of experience of creating value for investors in complex legal situations. This experience includes his tenure leading the highly successful resolution of the Lehman Brothers estate and time spent as both an investor and as a practicing attorney at leading global law firms. Also joining Pretium as a Senior Managing Director is Charles (Chad) Schmerler, who will serve as the head of Litigation Finance. Prior to joining Pretium, he was the CEO of Yorkside Capital, a litigation finance firm he founded following his tenure as a litigation partner at Norton Rose Fulbright.  He has over a decade of experience representing funders and clients seeking funding and is a recognized expert in the field. Mr. Cantor and Mr. Schmerler are joined by several seasoned investment, legal and financial professionals who bring a unique and diverse set of subject matter expertise in litigation finance, legal risk monetization, intellectual property, and forensic accounting and damages analysis that will differentiate Pretium from others in the space. Mr. Cantor added, "We look forward to working with law firms, corporations, and other sophisticated parties to utilize our deep knowledge and substantial capital to provide them with bespoke financing solutions that help them efficiently and effectively manage their legal risks and pursue commercial claims that fit within our investment criteria." About Pretium Pretium was founded in 2012 to capitalize on secular investment and lending opportunities arising as a result of structural changes, disruptions, and inefficiencies within the economy. Pretium has built an integrated analytical and operational ecosystem within the U.S. housing, residential credit, and corporate credit markets, and believes that its insight and experience within these markets create a strategic advantage over other investment managers. Pretium's platform has approximately $26 billion of assets under management as of June 30, 2021 and employs approximately 2,500 people across 29 offices. Please visit www.pretium.com for additional information.
Read More

Guido Demarco, new Director & Head of Legal Assets of Stonward Litigation Funding

Stonward Litgation Funding, boutique specialized in offering bespoke solutions to finance litigation both in Europe and the Americas, has a new director and Head of Legal Assets: Guido Demarco, a legal expert with extensive experience in debt restructuring (private and sovereign), NPL strategies and legal, banking and financial project management. Prior to joining Stonward, Guido worked for the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development as a legal advisor, where he had the opportunity to work closely with different governments and high-level stakeholders. Previously, he worked as an associate at Baker McKenzie, in the Buenos Aires office, where he worked on important cross-border operations and project transactions. Some projects that stand out in his track record include the design of a secondary market for trading NPLs in Kazakhstan, advising a large international fund on the acquisition of a majority share in a payment technology company (USD 724 million deal), and the development of a training program for judges and insolvency practitioners in Armenia. "This new opportunity is exciting. The work they have done at Stonward over the last year is fantastic and now it is our turn to continue growing along the same path. We plan to expand our team before the end of the year, deepen our focus on the Latin American and Spanish markets, where there is a lot of demand for financing, and strengthen ties with our strategic partners. In addition, we plan to expand our range of services to assist our clients in sales of non-performing loan portfolios," says Demarco about his incorporation. Stonward manages a $500 million claims portfolio and a $60 million NPL portfolio. Stonward, which has just been recognized in the Chambers & Partners directory in the Litigation Support Europe-Wide guide, has a clear vocation of service and assistance, it is a strategic ally that seeks funding to its clients and associates their demand or legal needs with the appropriate funder. With the arrival of Guido Demarco, Stonward strengthens its project, and seeks to expand its operations, with a clear focus on Spain and the Americas. Litigation funding is a legal tool whereby a third party outside the judicial or arbitration proceedings pays the costs in exchange for a portion of the recovery, previously agreed upon in a funding agreement. In the event that the claim or arbitration is unsuccessful, the funder does not recover the money invested. In addition to financially constrained claimants, litigation funding also allows companies to obtain off-balance sheet funding to monetize litigation, as well as law firms seeking to fund litigation portfolios or even the day-to-day operations of the firm. Litigation finance involves maximizing the value of legal assets - whether disputes, awards or judgments - of an individual, company or institution so that they can be monetized, while eliminating risk. Stonward, with offices in Paseo de la Castellana, Madrid, handles investment transactions in international commercial arbitration and litigation in multiple jurisdictions and before different arbitral institutions. The process at Stonward: Stonward receives a request from a client to access the litigation funding market to cover the costs related to a claim, the monetization of awards or judgements, a portfolio of cases, a practice at a law firm, etc. We talk about financing lawyers, attorney, expert witness, fees, costs and others. All exchange of information is done under the strictest confidentiality, and once all necessary information is gathered, Stonward reviews the merits and likelihood of success of the case. If the case has strong merits, a high probability of success and of being funded, a letter of engagement is signed that includes a success fee for the bespoke services. Then, depending on the characteristics of the case, appropriate litigation funds are contacted and the case is presented and explained to them. The funder proposes its financial conditions under which it would fund the case, always conditional upon the successful completion of the due diligence. The review of documentation is exhaustive to determine whether or not a case has sufficient merit. Once the parties have agreed, the Litigation Funding Agreement is signed and Stonward closely monitors everything that happens during the procedure. Once the case is successfully concluded, the Settlement Agreement is executed, bringing the claim to an end.
Read More

Mishcon de Reya Launches LitFin Arm with Support from Harbour

London-based law firm Mishcon de Reya has announced the launch of MDR Solutions, a new litigation funding venture. The finance arm was established with support from Harbour Litigation Funding, which has promised $200 million to the fund. Reuters reports that Mishcon joins the ranks of several other law firms to begin partnerships with prominent litigation funders over the last year. Longford Capital joined forces with Willkie Farr & Gallagher in June, while LCM announced a partnership with DLA Piper in August. The fund is expected to conduct business as a separate entity. Mishcon said that MDR Solutions will work with its existing team of nearly 300 arbitrators and litigators—currently based in its Singapore and London offices. The fund has a swath of case types in its sights, including IP disputes, complex fraud cases, and asset recovery. Cases originating with Mishcon will get first priority. One Mishcon dispute resolution partner, Richard Leedham, explained that the new partnership is the result of a desire to take more financial risk—benefiting the firm and its clients. The advantages of litigation funding are obvious, particularly now that clients are flocking to funders for help. Kevin Gold, Mishcon’s executive chair, explained his hope that MDR Solutions will be the first of many comparable partnerships in the future.

International Legal Finance Association appoints Executive Director and General Counsel

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) has appointed Gary Barnett as Executive Director and General Counsel.  Launched 12 months ago, ILFA (ilfa.com) is the first-ever global association devoted to the growing commercial legal finance industry.

Previously at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Barnett served in various roles since 2017, most recently as Senior Counselor to the Attorney General in the Office of the Attorney General. Barnett also served as the DOJ’s Acting Director in the Office of Victims of Crime and Acting Chief of Staff to the Attorney General. Prior to joining the DOJ, he was the Staff Director and Chief Counsel to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law. Barnett received his J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center and his B.A. in History and Economics from Boston University.

Gary Barnett, Executive Director and General Counsel of ILFA said: “I am honored to have the opportunity to lead ILFA and to help shape the future of this important and exciting global industry that provides untold benefits to businesses, consumers, and societies across the world, by supporting a just legal system and the rule of law.”

Leslie Perrin, Chair of ILFA said: “We are thrilled that Gary is leading the charge on behalf of  ILFA’s members to foster the sustainable development of the legal finance industry.  His vast experience within the US Department of Justice, his global perspective and commitment to the rule of law are a huge asset to the Association and its members, as well as users of legal finance around the world.”

ILFA membership includes the world’s leading commercial legal finance firms, who are founding members—Burford Capital, Harbour Litigation Funding, Longford Capital, Omni Bridgeway, Therium and Woodsford Litigation Funding. ILFA is the global voice of the commercial legal finance industry, representing its interests before governmental bodies, international organizations and professional associations and serving as a clearinghouse of relevant information, research and data about the uses and applications of commercial legal finance. Incorporated in Washington, D.C., ILFA also has a significant presence in London, Brussels and Australia.

Since launching in September 2020, eight additional members have joined: Law Finance Group, Nivalion, Parabellum Capital, Innsworth Advisors, D.E. Shaw & Company, Fortress Investment Group, TRGP Capital and Validity Finance. Membership is open to any professional commercial legal finance firm that satisfies ILFA’s membership criteria.

Read More

Calls for Disclosure Requirements Accompany Legal Funding Acceptance

Litigation funding existed for more than a decade before anyone thought to question whether disclosure mandates were needed. After Gawker was driven into bankruptcy by a single lawsuit, legal professionals and even the media began discussing whether disclosure rules were needed. Claims Journal details that several federal court districts, notably in New Jersey and California, now maintain legislation requiring disclosure of third-party funding contracts for plaintiffs and defendants. Even in places where disclosure laws don’t exist, judges are increasingly asking for details about funders and funding agreements. In a recent Texas case, Judge Roy Payne ruled that the identity of third-party funders was not relevant—thus refusing to hear testimony about the funding. In contrast, an Arizona judge required plaintiffs to offer defendants a list of everyone with a financial interest in the case’s outcome. If anything, this illustrates a need for uniformity in legislation regarding disclosure. In 2012, the US Chamber of Commerce's Institute for Legal Reform published a paper warning about the dangers of litigation funding. One oft-repeated “danger” is the possibility of “abusive litigation.” The idea is that lawyers will give deference to funders/investors rather than claimants—despite that being counter to established legal ethics. Another scare tactic about funding is that funders will push cases lacking in merit. This assertion makes little sense, since there’s no financial incentive in funding a case that’s destined to lose. Will disclosure requirements impede the growth of the legal funding industry? Probably not. In fact, given the fervent outsider distrust of the industry, expanding disclosure requirements add transparency, and therefore facilitate trust. Courts appear to be leaning toward increased disclosure requirements, while funders continue to argue against them. If that happens, steps should be taken to ensure that lawyers don’t inadvertently waive privilege by disclosing information to a funder—ostensibly a third party.

Intellectual Property Private Credit (Part 1 of 2)

The following article is part of an ongoing column titled ‘Investor Insights.’  Brought to you by Ed Truant, founder and content manager of Slingshot Capital, ‘Investor Insights’ will provide thoughtful and engaging perspectives on all aspects of investing in litigation finance.  Executive Summary
  • Despite its size, the Intellectual property (“IP”) asset class has eluded the attention of most asset managers due to its underlying legal complexities
  • The litigation finance industry understands the opportunity, but is solely focused on litigation involving IP
  • A void exists in the financing market, which IP-focused Private Credit managers have begun to fill via credit-oriented strategies designed to drive value maximization
Slingshot Insights:
  • Secular shifts in the economy have allowed IP to assume an increasing share of corporate value
  • IP is an emerging asset class that has begun to garner the attention of asset managers and insurers
  • There are various IP-centric investment strategies that do not involve litigation.
  • IP-focused Private Credit funds approach IP in a holistic fashion, leveraging numerous ways that IP creates value
  • Investors need to be aware that investing in IP presents unique risks that warrant input from operational and legal IP specialists
  • IP Credit provides a different risk/reward profile for investors as compared to commercial litigation finance, which tends to have more binary risk
When I started reviewing and assessing managers for potential investment in the commercial litigation finance asset class five years ago, there were a small number of managers that would consider the most complex area of intellectual property litigation, namely patent infringement.  Oh, how things have changed!  Today, there are many litigation finance managers who will at least consider making an investment in IP litigation, although still relatively few that will follow through on providing a commitment. One of the areas in which I am intrigued is the application of credit to intellectual property (“IP”) and using the value of patents (amongst other forms of intellectual property) as security for the loan, the so-called Intellectual Property Private Credit (“IP Credit”) asset class.  While this is, strictly speaking, a credit asset class (as you will see from this article), it sits adjacent to, and sometimes intersects with, commercial litigation finance.  Nevertheless, I do think it is a subset of the broader intangible finance market, and since value is inherently derived from intellectual property, and on occasion, litigation, it often gets lumped in within the legal finance category. In an effort to assess the IP Credit asset class, I reached out to an established manager, Soryn IP Capital (“Soryn”), to obtain a better understanding of how the sector operates and why investors should be interested in this asset class.  Soryn is co-founded by two well-known investors in the IP space, Michael Gulliford and Phil Hartstein, who have a combined four decades of IP experience. Background Despite a major shift in corporate balance sheet asset composition from tangible to intangible in recent decades, stemming largely from the secular shift to a knowledge based (i.e. technology) economy, there has been surprisingly little growth in the number of alternative asset managers with IP-focused investment strategies.  What growth has occurred with respect to IP-specific strategies has largely been confined to the IP litigation finance space.  There, non-recourse capital is advanced from a litigation funder to a claim holder to pursue what is often single event IP litigation, featuring a binary outcome set. The result has been an mis-allocation of risk-adjusted capital to companies and academic institutions in IP-intensive sectors that either do not plan to litigate, or that will be litigating, but only as part of a holistic and diversified business and/or IP licensing strategy.  While these IP owners may seek capital to finance objectives such as non-dilutive growth, technology licensing or royalty audits and monetization, often the IP owner must choose between a litigation funder that does not specialize in broader financial solutions, or a financing source that is not specialized in IP.  Neither option threads the needle to provide what these entities are looking for: an appropriately-structured and priced capital structure solution. Recently, IP-focused managers with credit-oriented strategies have come into focus, as they are targeting this gap in the market.  In addition to Soryn, the hedge fund manager Fortress has an existing IP Credit fund, and Aon is currently raising capital for a debut IP Credit fund (which may have ulterior motives rooted in intellectual property insurance, which is not to say the two can’t co-exist and complement one another). In many ways, these funds resemble a hybrid of private debt and specialty finance, as they have the flexibility to invest across the capital structure through highly-structured debt, preferred, equity, and other bespoke financial contracts. Reflecting their specialization, however, these funds’ management possess an interdisciplinary expertise in IP, and are concentrated on opportunities where the underlying asset value supporting the investment is intellectual property.  Given the flexibility within these strategies, and the skillset of those managing the capital, this new genre of IP-focused investor will likely be an important source of strategic capital available in IP-intensive sectors. IP VALUE PROPOSITION According to recent reports, intangible assets represent ~90% of the S&P 500 market value compared to ~30% in 1985.  Other studies estimate that intellectual property — a subset of the intangible asset class — represents more than a third of the market value of US publicly traded companies. Intellectual property refers to creations of the mind, such as inventions, literary/artistic works, designs and symbols/names/images used in commerce.  The primary forms of intellectual property are:
  • Patents: protect inventions and discoveries
  • Trade Secrets: protect valuable information that is intentionally kept secret
  • Copyright: protect artistic works in a fixed medium of expression
  • Trademarks: protect “signs” associating products and services to an owner
While each form of IP offers different protections, the value of each lies in its legally proscribed, exclusionary right that prohibits third parties from practicing or “infringing” the IP without permission.  It is this exclusionary right that promotes a healthy competition and innovation ecosystem by, for instance, incentivizing R&D, encouraging investment, protecting market share, and allowing the licensing of these rights to either a) promote synergistic business relationships or b) stop unauthorized copying. Several data points highlight the value attributable to IP licenses that are struck to promote synergistic business relationships, or to resolve enforcement scenarios. The following statistics help contextualize the significance of the IP value proposition. IP VALUE CREATION IP gains sufficient value to form the foundation for a financial transaction, when third party commercial actors have either begun to use the IP or desire to use it in the future.  When this situation occurs, IP rights can create value in several ways, including:
  • IP rights can be licensed to third parties that wish to practice or produce the technology associated with the underlying IP;
  • IP rights can be exploited to negotiate cross-licenses that allow IP owners access to sought-after technologies;
  • IP rights can be sold to third parties that wish to practice or produce the technology associated with the underlying IP;
  • IP rights can be enforced against third parties that are practicing the underlying IP without a license;
  • IP rights can serve as the basis for significant insurance policies;
  • IP rights can be the principal basis for an M&A transaction, and are a key driver of M&A activity;
  • IP rights can be central to value creation following a business separation or spin-off transaction;
  • IP rights can facilitate the formations of JVs for co-development of new technologies, which increase enterprise value;
  • IP rights can be monetized through the sale of all or part of contracted royalty payments associated with particular IP
In turn, IP owners and managers (e.g.  companies, academic and research institutions, and law firms), can leverage these sources of IP value to raise debt and equity capital in several ways, including: Although IP offers a unique and significant source of value, many owners and managers of IP experience difficulty when attempting to leverage their IP to achieve an appropriate risk-adjusted cost of capital due to the lack of IP expertise, and/or transactional flexibility among the investing community. As such, the new genre of IP Private Credit funds may prove to be an important source of strategic capital available in IP-intensive sectors.  IP CREDIT IP Credit generally involve highly structured, privately negotiated financial contracts of varying types.  Counterparties are often companies possessing valuable IP portfolios, which are underserved by the capital markets. The strategy seeks to provide these IP owners with differentiated financing solutions through flexible and creative structures that offer attractive risk-adjusted returns. Just as private debt funds take different shapes and sizes, so too does an IP Credit fund.  Portfolio composition, while manager or mandate-specific, focuses on financing opportunities across the capital structure wherein IP forms a material component of a transaction’s value proposition.  Where the underlying IP, and/or associated rights or income streams can be assigned predictable licensing, monetization, and/or sale value, various transactions can be structured to leverage or maximize the value of the associated IP. Investment Types Investment types in the Private Credit strategy include senior loans, loans secured by IP, loans secured by legal judgments, loans secured by insurance policies, convertible debt instruments, highly structured preferred equity, common equity, and warrants. The types of credit products involved in an IP Credit strategy are generally not limited. Deal Structuring The duration of Private Credit investments is generally one to five years, and expected returns on these investments will vary based on the existence of negotiated downside protections. The underlying investments in an IP-focused Private Credit Strategy can feature a plurality of terms and structures designed to solve for an appropriate risk-adjusted cost of capital, including:
  • Delayed draw funding schedules and performance-based milestone provisions
  • Events of default / material adverse event scenarios
  • Minimum cash / treasury requirements
  • Prepayment protection (make-wholes, yield maintenance, non-call provisions)
  • Structural and / or contractual seniority over IP or other assets
  • Affirmative and negative covenants / financial covenants
  • Warrants or other instruments with equity-like kickers
  • IP-backed securitizations
  • Credit enhancements via IP-related insurance policies
Industry Focus While the strategy is generally industry agnostic, investments are often placed in IP-intensive industry groups, including technology, life sciences, materials sciences, automotive, semiconductors, telecommunications, biotechnology, and pharmaceuticals.  The hallmark of foundational IP that may serve as the basis for an IP-focused investment are assets protecting key innovations in a field, which an entrant will need to license to practice the technology. Investment Team Managers of IP-focused funds often possess a multidisciplinary IP expertise, with additional expertise in credit or distressed strategies.  Such expertise allows management teams focused on IP-specific strategies to not only appropriately measure risk and value potential, but to appropriately structure such transactions to capture value and mitigate downside.  Management’s IP experience also serves as an advantage when sourcing deals from among counterparties seeking a value-add financial partner with a deep understanding of IP.  In Soryn’s case, for example, co-founders Michael and Phil possess investment, legal and executive experience which allows them to assist counterparties with their legal, operational, and financial strategy planning with the goal of improving the risk-reward profile of the underlying investments. Deal Sourcing Because multidisciplinary IP expertise is a prerequisite for managers in the IP space, barriers to entry remain high and competition for deals is less severe than that of other asset classes.  Typical counterparties involve operating companies (both private and public) and universities that own foundational IP or revenue streams associated with such IP, as well as law firms representing such entities. Use of Proceeds IP-focused Private Credit transaction proceeds may be used for general business purposes and IP-related expenses or investments.  This is an important distinction between IP Litigation Finance and an IP-focused Private Credit, with the latter allowing for significantly greater flexibility in terms of the use of proceeds. Insurability Demonstrating the quantifiable value of intellectual property, the insurance industry has recently introduced products aimed at insuring various aspects of intellectual property.  Such products include:
  • Collateral protection insurance for credit deals where IP serves as the collateral package;
  • Judgement preservation insurance, to insure against an adverse appellate result following an IP owner trial win; and
  • IP litigation insurance, to insure against the associated costs and expenses of being sued for patent infringement.
Not only do such products demonstrate the insurance industry’s growing comfort with IP as an asset class, they also present downside protection scenarios for a variety of IP-centric financings. In the next part of our 2-part series, we will be applying the theory above into practice by reviewing a case study of two financings by a public entity. Slingshot Insights Secular shifts in the economy should be forcing investors to think about value in different ways.  It’s indisputable that intellectual property is clearly the basis for technology company valuations, and therefore value must be attributable to IP when considering financing alternatives.  While understanding the value inherent in intellectual property can be difficult, fund managers with specific expertise exist to allow investors to allocate capital in an appropriate risk adjusted manner. The fact that the insurance industry is now providing insurance products geared toward intellectual property is a testament to how far the industry has come, and how significant the opportunity is, and perhaps much less risky than one would think, if approached prudently. I believe the IP Credit asset class has a bright future ahead, as existing players have had great success producing consistent returns in a sector that one might otherwise believe to be volatile. As always, I welcome your comments and counter-points to those raised in this article.  Edward Truant is the founder of Slingshot Capital Inc. and an investor in the consumer and commercial litigation finance industry.  Slingshot Capital inc. is involved in the origination and design of unique opportunities in legal finance markets, globally, investing with and alongside institutional investors. Soryn IP Capital Management LLC (“Soryn”) is an investment management firm focused on providing flexible financing solutions to companies, law firms and universities that own and manage valuable intellectual property (“IP”) assets.  Soryn’s approach employs strategies, including private credit, legal finance, and specialty IP finance, which enable it to invest across a diversity of unique IP-centric opportunities via investments structured as debt, equity, derivatives, and other financial contracts.  The Soryn team is comprised of seasoned IP and investment professionals, allowing the firm to directly source opportunities less travelled by traditional alternative asset managers. INFORMATION SOURCES
Read More

Claimants in Flint Water Case Cautioned Not to Take Settlement Advance

Claimants in the Flint water crisis case have been cautioned by a judge not to seek or accept deals for a cash advance on their share of the settlement. Claimants are set to share the $641 million settlement, though the agreement has not yet been given final approval. The Detroit News details that Judge Judith Levy issued the order after becoming aware of a website targeting claimants. MC Law Funding is offering advances on the expected payouts, inviting claimants to “get paid now.” MC Law has also pursued claimants via text message, according to co-lead class counsel for plaintiffs, Michael Pitt. The claimants, many of whom were personally damaged by the lead present in the city’s tap water, are being warned against excessive, and potentially predatory contracts in order to see their payout earlier. Michigan AG Dana Nessel suggested that accepting an early advance would actually inflict further hardship on those already dealing with the fallout of poisoning. Nessel expressed disappointment that an MC Law would seek to profit from claimants in this highly publicized case. According to Nessel, there are provisions within the settlement agreement that prohibit the use of legal funding for advances on the settlement. Should this type of provision catch on, it could negatively impact legal funders like MC Law Funding.

How Both Legal and Finance Teams Can Grow with Litigation Funding

When funding leader Burford Capital took a long look at the ways legal and finance teams manage legal assets for their companies, they learned a lot. Most vitally, there are three things companies can do to make better use of their legal assets. Burford Capital details that a strong first step is to develop actionable targets for the legal department. Too many companies aren’t making use of their legal assets, which can be used to enhance liquidity and financial stability. Burford, however, believes strongly in this method, and is able to partner companies with experts that can help asses current legal assets and prioritize which should be pursued. Timing is of the essence in legal cases and financial planning. Monetizing claims can allow businesses to predict and control when money comes in, so budgeting is more stable and effective. Duration risk is a real problem, but can be circumvented with monetization. Roughly half of financial officers stated that they did not pursue judgements in 2020 due to cost. Failing to enforce a judgement because of cost might make sense, unless the option exists to shift costs and risks in order to enforce worthwhile claims.

Are Investors Confusing Correlation with Risk?

It’s largely agreed that uncorrelated investments are in demand. Given the ongoing impact of COVID, as well as pending inflation, it makes sense to seek out uncorrelated assets. But SYZ Capital co-founder and managing partner Marc Syz, says that some investors may be confusing correlation with risk. International Adviser explains that uncorrelated assets are not impacted by instability in the markets, and are not exposed to macroeconomic volatility. But that does not make them low-risk. In fact, holding too much of the same type of uncorrelated asset can increase risk. As always, it’s safest to maintain a diverse portfolio with an array of traditional investments, as well as uncorrelated assets. Syz recommends three uncorrelated assets worth looking at. They are royalties, life settlements, and litigation finance. Litigation funding is a strong uncorrelated asset for several reasons. Investors can gain exposure to an array of legal case types, jurisdictions, and participants in the cases. Single cases and class actions are the most popular case types, though portfolio funding is increasingly common. Legal funding also increases access to justice when claimants cannot otherwise afford to take their case to court. This makes it a highly ethical investment with a potential for high returns. However, the risks are still very real.

Chinese Banks Found Not Liable in Nike Counterfeiting Cast

Six banks based in China have avoided liability in their role in the Nike Counterfeit case. The banks were cited for failing to freeze the assets of several hundred counterfeiters of Nike goods. Together, the banks faced sanctions of up to $150 million. Reuters reports that the entity that bought the rights to the default award from Nike, Next Investments LLC, did not abide by the asset freeze mandated by the courts. This went on for more than five years. Representatives of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan represented all but one of the banks, and are reportedly happy with the decision. In 2015, Nike (and their Converse Inc arm) won the default judgement against hundreds of companies and individuals for counterfeiting products. At the time, Judge Shira Scheindlin issued a restraining order freezing the assets of the defendants, and anyone acting in concert with them. Four years later, Next Investments filed to hold the banks in contempt and requested compensatory damages. The motion was rejected based on the separate entity rule. On appeal, Next Investments argued that the separate entity rule was not enacted to provide cover for illegal activity. Judges determined that ultimately, Next Investments did not establish that the Chinese banks were required to enforce the asset freeze.

New York Post Maligns “Evil” Legal Funding Industry

The Southern District in New York has unsealed indictments against several doctors and attorneys accused of engaging in fraudulent conduct. The defendants have been charged with mail and wire fraud in connection with a plot to gain fraudulent insurance reimbursements. The New York Post has laid the blame for this squarely at the feet of third-party litigation funding. Claims of blackmail, preying on vulnerable claimants, and nuisance claims are ongoing, but lack basis in verifiable fact. Increasingly, funders are experiencing increased regulation both in the US and also globally. It would behoove the ILFA and other professional funding groups to more assertively combat misinformation about the industry.

Investor Group Led By Litigation Funder Drumcliffe Acquires Additional Equity Stake in Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. (NASDAQ:OMEX)

An investor group led by asset recovery funder Drumcliffe LLC has purchased 1,138,245 shares in Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. (NASDAQ:OMEX) (“Odyssey”), from Epsilon Acquisitions LLC in a private transaction exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The purchase price was not disclosed. Odyssey will not receive any proceeds from this transaction. Odyssey is a deep-ocean exploration company that discovers, validates and develops high value seafloor resources in an environmentally responsible manner. Odyssey has a diversified mineral portfolio that includes projects controlled by it and other projects in which it is a minority owner and service provider. Odyssey is currently pursuing a nearly $3 billion NAFTA arbitration claim against the Republic of Mexico. The claim relates to Mexico’s denial of an off-shore dredging license previously granted to an Odyssey subsidiary for one of the largest untapped phosphate deposits in the world. Drumcliffe has been providing financing to Odyssey to support its arbitration efforts since 2019. “In our view, Odyssey’s recently published Reply to Mexico’s Counter-Memorial in the NAFTA arbitration only reinforces the merits of Odyssey’s claim and the restitution they deserve,” said James C. Little, Drumcliffe’s CEO. Several long-term Odyssey investors and investment funds, including major Odyssey investor FourWorld Capital Management, and Greywolf Capital Management LP are also part of the investor group. About Drumcliffe LLC Drumcliffe LLC is the world’s leading provider of asset recovery finance to the victims of global fraud, corruption, and abuse of power. Additional details can be found at www.drumcliffepartners.com. Forward Looking Information This Press Release may include "forward looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Act of 1934. Certain factors that could cause outcomes to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements are set forth in "Risk Factors" in Part I, Item 1A of Odyssey’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020, and Odyssey’s other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The possible outcomes of the matter described herein will depend upon unpredictable future events, many of which are beyond Odyssey's or Drumcliffe’s control and, accordingly, no assurance can be given that any desirable outcome will occur.
Read More

Who’s Who Legal’s Thought Leaders in Third-Party Funding

Who’s Who Legal recently assembled a list of movers and shakers in the third-party legal finance industry. They represent a global community of stakeholders advancing the acceptance and adaptability of the industry. Who's Who Legal's highlighted professionals include Julia Gewolb, Director of Underwriting at Validity Finance. Gewolb relies on her extensive legal experience to create an environment where clients can expect a speedy answer on funding compatibility. She emphasizes that legal funding isn’t just for those who struggle financially—it’s also a valued tool for companies looking to mitigate risk.  Co-founder of Profile Investments, Iain McKenny, enjoyed a lengthy career in international disputes before launching PI. He explains that many potential clients are unaware of the differences between legal funding and bank loans—to their detriment. McKenny seeks to educate the public on the benefits of the practice and to increase access to justice.  Alain Grec is also a co-founder of Profile Investments. He emphasizes the flexibility of portfolio funding as a means of money management. Grec is deeply involved in the growth and expansion of PI, as well as the debate between those who support external regulation and those who feel self-regulation is sufficient. Investment Manager and head of the Houston office for Validity Finance, Laina Hammond, is seeing increased demand for funding in oil and gas cases—largely arising from turbulence in the industry. She emphasizes building goodwill by establishing trust. The team at Validity is made up of experienced trial lawyers who put client needs first. Drumcliffe, a fund facilitating recovery of assets for victims of international corruption or fraud, is led by James Little. Little enjoys being a go-to source for fighting fraud. He is impressed by how well the legal industry has adapted to the challenges of COVID, and claims that this allowed Drumcliffe's funds to flourish despite tragedy.  David Kerstein is the Chief Risk Officer of Validity. In fewer than three years, Kerstein helped grow the company from a startup funder with few employees to having $100 million in committed capital, and over $400 million in raised capital. He welcomes the trend of funding being used by companies as a means of mitigating risks, in addition to more traditional funding applications. Validity Finance CEO and Founder, Ralph Sutton, is considered a pioneer in the funding industry. Sutton has lectured on civil justice at Stanford and Harvard Law, among others. He believes that the funding industry is not in need of increased regulation—and that regulation will hinder access to justice, rather than increase it. Ben Moss is a new addition to the team at Orchard Global Asset Management. His background in law and finance have combined to make him a valued asset to Orchard. He points out that the legal and financial merits of a case are equally important factors when determining which cases should receive funding.  In the UK, thought leaders represent the biggest names in litigation funding, including Burford Capital, Litigation Capital Management, Augusta Ventures, Omni Bridgeway, and Harbour. While in France, Profile Investment and Vannin Capital are the sole firms represented.  Globally, Omni Bridgeway has the strongest presence on this list. Burford Capital, Therium, Vannin Capital, and LCM also featured prominently. Unsurprisingly, Australian representation on this list of thought leaders focuses on Omni Bridgeway, Vannin Capital, LCM, and Therium.

Lauren J.Harrison Joins Law Finance Group as Vice President/Investment Counselor

Law Finance Group, a leading commercial litigation finance company, today announced that Lauren J. Harrison has joined the firm as Vice President/Investment Counselor, based in Houston, Texas. Ms. Harrison will work with Law Finance Group’s underwriting and business development teams, where she will focus on evaluating the merits of proposed investments while also identifying and managing growth opportunities in the civil litigation space. “Lauren’s deep expertise in antitrust, intellectual property, and commercial litigation, in addition to her long-standing relationships across the AmLaw 200, will be tremendous assets as we continue to grow our business,” said Kevin McCaffrey, Law Finance Group’s CEO. “We are thrilled to welcome Lauren to our team as we add scale to our platform to take further advantage of the exciting opportunities in the litigation finance markets.” Ms.Harrison joins Law Finance Group after practicing for more than 30 years as a civil litigator for leading law firms int he Houston area. Most recently, she was a Partner in the Litigation Practice Group of Jones Walker LLP, where she represented clients active in the areas of alternative energy development, traditional oil exploration and production, energy infrastructure, chemical and mechanical engineering, software development, entertainment, media distribution, and manufacturing. Earlier in her career, Ms. Harrison worked as a Partner in the litigation departments of Conner & Winters and Vinson & Elkins LLP, and before practicing, served as a judicial clerk to the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and the late Honorable Eugene A. Wright in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. She received her J.D.fromCornell UniversityLawSchool, where she graduated magna cum laude and was elected into the Order of the Coif, and earned her B.A. degree from Dartmouth College, where she graduated magna cum laude as a member of Phi Beta Kappa. AboutLaw FinanceGroup Founded in 1994, Law Finance Group is a leading litigation funding firm focused on investing in high-value civil litigation opportunities.LawFinance Group partners with law firms and their clients to mitigate risk, improve cashflows, and leverage existing assets in the face of litigation risk. The firm has offices in Mill Valley, New York, and Austin. For more information, visit www.lawfinance.com.
Read More

$wLITI lists on Changelly PRO, on the heels of HitBTC and Bitcoin.com listings

Liti Capital’s wLITI token, a wrapped version of the Swiss company’s LITI equity token, lists on Changelly PRO$wLITI pairs with BTC and USDT are now available for trading. This comes less than a week after listing on Bitcoin.com Exchange and less than two weeks on HitBTC. The Changelly PRO team has expressed their warm welcome to the litigation financing token. “We are happy to welcome $wLITI to our big family of carefully curated cryptocurrencies and hope that our users will gain maximum benefits from this collaboration. We are proud to partner with a company that provides financial resources, strategic solutions and renowned connections to the best law firms worldwide to help plaintiffs obtain court awards for damages or losses they have suffered,” says a Changelly PRO spokesperson. Liti Capital, a Swiss-based blockchain private equity fund specializing in raising capital for legal cases, is making waves in traditional investing by bringing litigation financing to the masses, an investment practice traditionally monopolized by hedge fund heavyweights and elite investors. Litigation financing is the practice of bringing in investors to cover the cost of a lawsuit or arbitration in exchange for a portion of the profit. Litigation financing specialists, such as Liti Capital, purchase litigation assets for cases they deem to have a high chance of winning. “We appreciate the amazing support that established exchanges such as Changelly PRO have shown for our $wLITI token. With high profile projects in the blockchain and decentralized finance spaces finally attracting mainstream interest, we are excited to explore the possibilities for $wLITI as a wrapped version of an equity token that offers regular people the chance to invest in an asset class that previously wasn’t available to them,” says Liti Capital CEO Jonas Rey. $wLITI: an ERC-20 Wrapped Version of Equity Token $LITI wLITI is an ERC-20 wrapped version of the LITI equity token. Launched on June 29, 2021, the wLITI token is suitable for trading on centralized exchanges (CEXes) like Changelly PRO, and also on DEXes, whereas the LITI token is only available through liticapital.com after meeting KYC requirements. Liti Capital uses the blockchain to manage its share registry. Development of its own blockchain-based case management tools is on its roadmap. wLITI can be exchanged for LITI at a token buyer’s request via Liti Capital’s app or website, which converts LITI to wLITI at a 1:5000 ratio and vice versa. The tokens will always maintain this ratio. The buyer is then able to trade their wLITI freely. Liti Capital does not directly sell wLITI. LITI is a true digital share of Liti Capital that has voting rights, pays dividends and is protected under Swiss law. LITI is purposely not designed to be on exchanges at this time. Both tokens represent Liti Capital, whose mantra is “Private Equity for All.” Liti Capital works exclusively in a single form of private equity – Litigation Finance, also called third party funding. This asset class has remained almost entirely exclusive to hedge funds and venture capitalists since its inception several decades ago. Litigation Finance is the practice of financing all or part of a legal case on behalf of a plaintiff for an agreed upon percentage of the court award. Once Liti Capital purchases a portion of ownership of a case, it provides capital that can be used in many ways: legal fees, case management and strategy, expert witnesses, intelligence work and whatever else is needed to give the plaintiff the best chance of winning the case and collecting the award. The portion owned by Liti Capital becomes a “litigation asset” that backs the LITI token. On 19 August 2021, Liti Capital announced that it was funding a claim against Binance, which would enable affected individuals to pursue compensation in relation to the exchange failing on 19 May 2021. This failure resulted in the trading accounts (including Futures, Margin, and Leveraged Token products) of at least 700 and potentially thousands of individuals being effectively untradeable for hours, causing traders to suffer losses that could exceed one hundred million dollars. Listing Details
Trading Opening:Aug. 30, 2021 3 PM UTC
Trading Pairs:wLITI/BTC
wLITI/USDT
About Liti Capital Switzerland-based Liti Capital is a Swiss limited liability company specializing in litigation finance and fintech. Liti Capital buys litigation assets to fund lawsuits and provides a complete strategic solution along with connections to top law firms to help clients win their cases. Tokenized shares of the company lower the barrier of entry for retail investors and give token holders a vote in the company’s decision-making process. Dividends are distributed to LITI token holders upon the success of the plaintiff. Jonas Rey, co-founder of Liti Capital, also heads Athena Intelligence, one of the most successful intelligence agencies in Switzerland. His two co-founders, Andy Christen and Jaime Delgado, bring operational, innovation and technical skills to round out the leadership team. Liti Capital recently onboarded seasoned industry leader David Kay as chief information officer and executive chairman. Boasting more than a decade of experience as funding partner and portfolio manager of a billion-dollar private equity fund in the litigation financing space, Kay successfully enforced what was at the time the largest international arbitration award in history, bringing in over $1 billion in cash and securities. For project information, please read the Whitepaper. For token distribution, please read Tokenomics. Liti Capital Official Channels Liti Capital Website: https://liticapital.com Liti Capital Telegram: https://t.me/Liti_Capital_Official Liti Capital Telegram Announcements: https://t.me/Liti_Capital_Official_ANN Liti Capital LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/liti-capital Liti Capital Twitter: https://twitter.com/liticapital Liti Capital Medium: https://medium.com/@liticapital Liti Capital Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/liticapital About Changelly Changelly provides an ecosystem of products and services that enables customers to have a one-stop-shop experience when engaging with crypto. Operating since 2015, Changelly acts as an intermediary between crypto exchanges and users, offering access to 200+ cryptocurrencies that can be effortlessly swapped within 10 minutes on desktop and on the go via the Changelly mobile app. In 2020, Changelly branched out to accommodate the needs of traders. Changelly PRO has been built as a platform focused on the customer’s needs, effectively enabling retail buying and selling of digital tokens and coins. Piggy-backing on the great support system found within Changelly, Changelly PRO will provide the community with high limits, effective pricing, fast execution and 24/7 live support. Learn more about Changelly: Changelly Website: changelly.com Changelly PRO website: pro.changelly.com Twitter: twitter.com/Changelly_team
Read More

Halifax AU & NZ Litigation Funding Scheme

Per Australian law, Omni Bridgeway has registered with ASIC as a litigation funding scheme. This statement has been distributed to all applicable parties with an interest in the appeals in Halifax Investment Services Pty Ltd v Loo, and Halifax New Zealand limited v Loo, for Category 1 Investors. Omni Bridgeway details that Category 1 Investors include investors in Halifax Investment Services or Halifax New Zealand Limited (both in liquidation). These investors have an entitlement to a share of funds recovered—a sum that is likely to be higher after investments are realized. Mr. Choo Boon Loo, who brought the appeals, represents Category 1 investors. He asserts that the judges erred when determining the administrations’ dates in terms of the valuation of entitlements. Further, Loo asserts that the primary judges should have calculated the entitlements as closely as possible to the date of distribution—and after extant investments had been realized by the liquidators. Category 1 investors who wish to join the scheme can do so at no upfront or out-of-pocket costs. Omni Bridgeway is funding the appeals. Under the terms of the Funder Distribution Order, Omni Bridgeway would receive a share of the Increased Liquidation Distribution Amount if the appeals are successful. Investors will likely benefit from the appeals regardless of whether or not they apply to become members of the scheme. Those who do apply to join will be kept informed about new developments in the process. A Product Disclosure Statement is expected within a week, which will explain investor rights and entitlements in greater detail. Omni Bridgeway suggests that this statement should be considered carefully, perhaps with a professional adviser, to determine whether or not inclusion in the scheme is a good idea. Registering interest in the case does not imply an offer to participate in the scheme, nor does it constitute a funding agreement.

Washington DC Court Asked to Enforce $325MM Judgement Against Argentina

Last week, Titan Consortium filed a lengthy petition against Argentina’s government while seeking to enforce an earlier award from 2008. This continues a long dispute regarding the re-nationalization of two Argentinian airlines. CH-Aviation explains that three subsidiaries of Grupo Marsans were shareholders who made agreements to sell their shares to the Argentine government. However, the shares were instead seized without notice in 2009. Shareholders were given a single peso as “symbolic compensation.”   Collectively, the shareholders believed they were owed about $1.5 billion for both airlines. In 2017, ICSID awarded the companies $320 million in compensation, plus costs, fees, and post-award interest. The government’s actions were ruled to be arbitrary, and lacking in transparency. Titan Consortium purchased the rights to the lawsuit from funders Burford Capital for $94 million after Argentina tried to have the compensation order annulled over a funding agreement.

Ross Asset Management Case Ends in Confidential Settlement

Investors asked for more than $50 million in damages in the Ross Asset Management Ponzi scheme. The case was expected to be heard in the Wellington High Court in 2020 but was delayed. Instead, it ended unceremoniously, with a short statement revealing precious little about the confidential settlement. Interest NZ explains that the media statement was made on behalf of all parties, and did not disclose award or damage amounts. The parties involved all affirm that they were misled by Ross Asset Management and that there would be no further comment. Those who were waiting to see ANZ Bank in court will be left wanting. Ross Asset Management was essentially a Ponzi scheme that paid out returns to existing investors with funds from new investors. In 2012, it was discovered that RAM held only $10 million in funds, rather than the nearly $450 million investors were told. David Ross served seven years before being released on parole in 2020. In 2019, it was revealed that more than 2/3 of those who invested with RAM had enrolled in the class action. The case alleged negligence, claiming that ANZ knew, or should have known, that Ross was engaged in fraud. ANZ stated that they too were misled by Ross and denied any wrongdoing. It was this claim by ANZ that inspired investors to seek backing from a litigation funder. LPF Group’s involvement may have swayed the outcome, as ANZ knew that the case was fully funded and investors could follow it through to completion.

AxiaFunder Switches to Limited Partnership Investment Model

Following its soft launch, AxiaFunder plans to expand its liquidity by launching a secondary market next week. Currently operating an equity model, the funder plans to switch to a limited partnership model over the coming weeks. P2P Finance News details that the main difference here will be that investors will buy partnership shares, making them limited partners. Cormac Leech, founder and Chief Executive of AxiaFunder, explains that it’s more tax-efficient for the company, since investors are taxed on earnings—while the company does not pay the tax. This switch may keep some investors out, as Leech stated that the threshold to qualify will be higher than under the equity investment model. Only time will tell how this may impact LP participation in AxiaFunder. 

More recruitment to fuel growth at Apex Litigation Finance

Recruitment is once again high on the agenda at Apex Litigation Finance as the company continues to fuel its growth strategy.
The company is continuing its flexible approach to its recruitment activity. Rather than advertise specific job roles, it is keen to hear from anyone who is excited about the company’s growth and direction, whether they have experience in litigation funding, artificial intelligence (AI), business development or fund management, or have a broader litigation background. Apex CEO Maurice Power says: “We are recruiting across the company, including to develop further our AI and predictive analysis capabilities. It’s our use of these disciplines that enables us to predict case outcomes, settlements, and timelines, but we aren’t standing still. We’ll continue to lead the way in developing and using innovative tools to bring even more sophistication to prediction and analysis. “The company is still less than two years old, but we have already achieved significant growth in case numbers. There’s a high demand for the funding of small/mid-size claims, which provides access to justice for many who are unable to pursue this through their own means. This demand, along with our use of AI to inform risk assessment, has seen us become one of the highest volume providers of non-recourse litigation funding in the UK.” Apex also continues to invite additional investors to support its growing pipeline of applications for litigation funding. It recently began marketing a £50m investor fund, providing opportunities as an attractive alternative to equity or fixed income investments. Interested parties are encouraged to email Apex via enquiries@apexlitigationfinance.com to express an interest in recruitment or investment opportunities. About Apex Litigation Finance Limited Apex Litigation Finance Limited is a company which brings together experienced individuals from the litigation funding, legal and finance sectors to provide third party litigation funding to litigants (corporates, liquidators, and individuals) who are unable to pursue a claim due to the prohibitive cost of litigation. Although the litigant’s case may have merits, uncertainty over the total costs and the potential risk of being ordered to pay the defendant’s costs, should they lose the case, prohibits access to justice for many claimants. Following an assessment of the merits of the litigant’s case, through use of Artificial Intelligence (software utilising predictive analytics to ascertain the likely outcome, duration, and settlement value of the case), legal and commercial expertise, Apex will commit funds to pay legal and other costs associated with the case in return for an agreed share of any award upon a successful conclusion. If there is no recovery, or if the case is lost, there is no debt for the litigant to repay.
Read More

Why Lawyers Fail to Secure Litigation Funding

According to research from Westfleet Advisors, at least 95% of cases pitched to third-party funders are rejected. Litigation funding is increasing in popularity and new entrants are always entering the space. But that hardly means securing getting a funding agreement is a sure thing. Westfleet Advisors managing partner, Charles Agee, explains that there are five main reasons why legal teams are denied funding.
  • Lack of Adequate Research. Approaching a funder without a full understanding of how that funder chooses cases is an obvious, and preventable mistake. The time spent preparing a pitch is generally not billable if the deal never comes to pass. Legal teams can save a lot of time by researching a funder fully before approaching them.
  • Failure to Connect with the Right Funder. In a continuation of Adequate Research, knowing which funders to approach is at least as vital as knowing which are not a good fit. Like any other asset, its value is dependent on finding the right audience.
  • Effectiveness of the Pitch. Once you decide on a funder to approach, your pitch should be well researched, including answers to every funder’s question you can anticipate. Case merits, the model for calculating damages, projected time frames, and the budget, are all essential parts of the pitch.
  • Negotiation Savvy. Expect there to be negotiations, not just a simple Yes or No. There will be vetting, due diligence, and multiple meetings during the process. It’s essential to be responsive, patient, and adaptable to the funders’ concerns in order to come to a balanced funding agreement.
  • Exclusivity. While exclusivity is a common and often necessary aspect of funding, it’s important not to grant it too early in the process. Once you do, you may find yourself at the mercy of a funder you know precious little about.
Avoiding these pitfalls will no doubt help in securing third-party legal funding.

In-house Legal Department Guide for Litigation Finance

In-house legal departments are enduring more pressure than ever to reduce expenses. According to a survey by Harvard Law with Ernst & Young, 88% of GCs stated that they’ll likely have to reduce legal spending over the next few years, while more than ¾ have difficulty meeting current workload goals. Roughly the same number have predicted that their workload will soon grow to exceed their budgets. Woodsford Litigation Funding details a variety of ways in which legal funding can help in-house legal teams adapt to changing economic times—while using legal departments to earn revenue rather than spend it. Litigation funding is provided on a non-recourse basis and may be used to fund single cases or a portfolio of cases. Funding agreements can vary, but often include a significant percentage of case proceeds going back to the funder in exchange for the risk it undertakes and the expertise it provides. Taking on affirmative litigation can be costly and time-consuming. With funding though, expenses are covered. This allows companies to pursue meritorious litigation without depleting budgets. Remember, failing to pursue judgments can be as costly as litigating them. By utilizing third-party funding, the risk is transferred. If a case succeeds, the company shares the award with the funder. If it fails, the company is no worse off. Budgeting legal departments can be tricky due to their inherent unpredictability. Surprise litigation, new regulations, economic turmoil, and say, a pandemic, can cause instability that litigation funding can help assuage. A partnership with a third-party funder can assist in negotiations with outside counsel and create alternative fee arrangements, which may keep costs low. Support from funders provides expertise, since most funding entities employ financial and legal professionals, plus specialists in the areas and industries they typically work with. Funders may also help vet and fund the right legal team for your case.

The Benefits of Law Firm Funding

At some point in the business life cycle, every law firm could use a financial boost. Law firm funding helps firms and legal departments monetize pending litigation by providing non-recourse funds. This differs from standard business loans which are paid back fully with added interest. Pravati Capital details the benefits of non-recourse legal funding for firms. Firms that accept non-recourse funds can use the money to pursue cases, or for daily operations and investment in growth. Any type of law firm can make use of non-recourse law firm funding. It’s used by solo practitioners as well as Fortune 500 firms. The types of cases that tend to benefit the most from third-party legal funding are:
  • Shareholder litigation
  • Antitrust cases
  • Insolvency, bankruptcy, and debtor-in-possession matters
  • Various types of international and cross-jurisdictional litigation
  • Patent and IP disputes
  • Commercial law cases
  • Class action plaintiffs and defendants
Having an experienced funder in your corner is as vital to the success of a case as the right legal team.