Trending Now

John Freund's Posts

3123 Articles

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.

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.

$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

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.

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.

Burford Capital Update On Business Performance And Potential US GAAP Conversion

Burford Capital Limited, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, today released the following statement on its performance for the six months ended June 30, 2021 and on matters relating to its potential conversion to US GAAP. Burford is scheduled to release its interim results on September 9, 2021. All figures in this disclosure are unaudited and presented on a Burford-only basis, unless otherwise stated. Certain definitions are provided below; additional definitions, reconciliations and information are set out in Burford's 2020 annual report, available at www.burfordcapital.com.
  • Record-breaking levels of new commitments and deployments
  • Portfolio returns rose and loss rates fell but case progress was relatively quiet with COVID delays noted
  • Considering US GAAP conversion at year-end
  • Non-cash accruals in the first half result in net accounting loss for the period; positive result on a cash basis
  • Liquidity position very strong with more than $430 million of Burford-only liquidity on hand
New business
  • $500+ million in new commitments; nearly $400 million in deployments
We saw robust levels of new business in the first half. We made new capital provision-direct commitments of over $500 million Group-wide, of which $284 million was Burford-only, more than four times higher than the first half of last year and above our prior record levels in the second half of 2019. We deployed $399 million Group-wide, of which $215 million was Burford-only, to a combination of new and existing capital provision-direct assets, more than three times our 1H 2020 level and well in excess of our prior record deployments in 1H 2018. Our trend towards larger and more complex new matters continued. Of our 14 new matters, none had commitment levels under $5 million while six were $20 million or above, including a new matter to which we committed and deployed $138 million on balance sheet and $139 million for our SWF partner between BOF-C and a new sidecar. This matter revolves around a number of antitrust claims against a large, financially strong multinational. This level of activity suggests that the slowdown in new business in early 2020 from COVID has moderated and that we are finding considerable opportunities to deploy capital. COVID delays and portfolio progress
  • Returns rose to 95% ROIC and realized losses fell to 0.5%
  • 43% of matters have seen COVID delays
  • Realized gains of $77 million in the period
We saw some strong portfolio successes in the first half – including achieving our full $103 million entitlement in the Akhmedov judgment enforcement matter (in addition to more than $5 million received in prior periods), validating our decision to fund matters like that despite their noise. Our returns increased somewhat, to 95% ROIC on concluded capital provision-direct assets since inception, driven by the 216% ROIC (and 67% IRR) on the Akhmedov matter on a GBP basis. On a USD basis, the Akhmedov matter generated a 233% ROIC (and a 71% IRR). We also had a remarkably low realized loss rate for the period of 0.5% of average portfolio at cost. However, as we have previously discussed, multiple waves of COVID have continued to have an impact on the pace and progression of matters in our portfolio. These issues are only a matter of timing; no clients have discontinued cases because of COVID delays and, indeed, as a result of how we often price our deals, our ultimate returns may increase because of the passage of time. We believe that 43% of our matters have incurred COVID-related delays, ranging from court date postponements to delays in the provision of discovery to slower settlement activity given the absence of a looming trial date to engender settlement. As a result (and perhaps due also just to normal volatility in portfolio activity), the portfolio as a whole was quiet in the period and generated lower levels of capital provision income than comparative periods. In short, almost nothing bad happened – just less happened than in some other periods. We had capital provision-direct realizations of $142 million during 1H 2021, on which we will see realized gains of approximately $77 million for the period. US GAAP conversion
  • Consideration of converting to US GAAP for December 31, 2021 reporting
  • Some balance sheet adjustments expected
We expect to remain a foreign private issuer for US purposes in 2022; our 2020 annual report discusses that status in depth. However, notwithstanding retaining foreign private issuer status for another year, we may well nonetheless proceed with our conversion to US GAAP; the Board will make a decision on that issue at its October meeting. If we do convert to US GAAP, our first half 2021 interim report will be our last report under IFRS, and beginning with our financial statements as of December 31, 2021, we would begin reporting under US GAAP. While most elements of our financial reporting would remain the same under both IFRS and US GAAP, including with respect to fair value, we expect to see an increase in both assets and liabilities due to changes in the approach to consolidation of subsidiaries. We will provide more details of these and any other adjustments in due course. Our consideration of converting to US GAAP has also caused us to examine the accounting practices of comparable US finance firms to identify certain common practices adopted by US GAAP issuers as we discuss below. Burford's compensation practices Burford's compensation practices are relevant to the accounting discussion that follows, so we provide detail here about our approach to incentive compensation. Burford uses four compensation components: base salary, annual bonus, stock grants and participation in the actual cash performance of litigation matters (which we call "carry" even though it is not technically participation in carried interest). We discuss our compensation practices in greater detail in our annual reports. Burford does not pay any incentive compensation – carry or bonus – based on non-cash fair value changes in our assets. We award carry on a vintage year basis. Thus, each year, we award eligible employees the right to receive a portion of the realized gains generated over time by the matters we originate financing for in that year. Then, in each following year, we look at the realized performance of all of the matters in a vintage in that year and make carry payments based on their collective performance in that year, so that realized losses reduce realized gains. So, for example, an eligible employee who joined Burford in 2017 will have received awards for each of the 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 vintages, and we will test the performance of each of those vintages in each succeeding year and make carry payments accordingly. Those payments continue until each vintage is fully resolved. We set out below the percentage of realized gains in each vintage that has been awarded as carry.

Vintage year

% of realized gains awarded

2015

4

2016

4

2017

4

2018

6

2019

6

2020

8

2021

9

No carry applies to vintages prior to 2015. Change in compensation expense accruals
  • Move to non-cash accrual of compensation expense on fair value
  • One-time non-cash accrual of $45 million, driven by YPF-related asset carrying value
Given that we do not pay employee carry on the basis of unrealized fair value gains, pursuant to IAS 19 we have historically recognized compensation expense only upon realizations from our assets, without regard to fair value movements. However, as more cases have concluded and we have further validation of our predictive models in general and across asset types, our confidence in our modeling and valuation methodology has continued to increase and we believe it is appropriate to change our accounting estimate of compensation expense under IFRS and accrue compensation expense related to our carry plan as we make fair value adjustments. Moreover, we note that this is also the practice of a number of comparable US GAAP issuers, and we also believe that matching potential future gains with potential future expenses is desirable. Given our generally moderate levels of fair value change, these charges are not expected to be material. For each period going forward, including 1H 2021, we will accrue against new fair value gains at the rate shown for each vintage in the preceding table; for example, for 2019 vintage matters, for every $100 of net fair value increase, we will accrue $6 of compensation expense. In the event of fair value losses, the respective accrual would reverse. This accrual is an entirely non-cash event; we will still only crystallize and pay compensation upon realized gains. In the first half of 2021, based on all the fair value gains in the period, the expense accrual was less than $1 million. The question then arises as to the existing accumulation of fair value gains, which are predominantly composed of fair value gains on our YPF-related assets. For the sake of consistency, we are going to take a one-time non-cash charge of $45 million to align with the current balance sheet assets. This is a one-time charge related to prior fair value gains; 70% of it is due to the substantial carrying value of the YPF-related assets. While this is a large number, it is entirely non-cash and simply matches a future potential gain expressed through a fair value change with a future potential expense instead of leaving the related expense until the point of realization. None of this money is being paid out, nor will it be unless and until there are realized gains in the underlying matters. For perspective, our YPF-related cases would have to generate more than $1.6 billion in cash in a litigation outcome for the present YPF-related accrual to be paid in full; we cite that number for illustrative purposes only given the current carrying value and this does not constitute a projection of any expected outcome in the matter. Moreover, we did not pay incentive compensation based on the secondary market sales of those YPF-related assets. We believe our compensation levels are moderate and appropriate, and while this change in approach is both consistent with IFRS and will align us better with some other US GAAP issuers, it does not change our cash-focused approach to compensation and to running the business generally. Asset recovery
  • Terminated profit-sharing arrangement except as to a small number of grandfathered cases
  • One-time non-cash accrual of £25 million ($34 million)
The division between our asset recovery and core litigation finance businesses has continued to blur as they have both evolved, and in 2019 we stopped including asset recovery in our new initiatives segment and incorporated it into our main capital provision segment. In 2021, we have gone a step further and have fully integrated the asset recovery team into the core business. Previously, the team had operated with a separate P&L and a direct profit-sharing component dating from the acquisition of the business in 2015; at the time, we acquired the business for very little current cash and instead used a profit-sharing arrangement as the bulk of the economics. Now, the team participates in Burford's standard compensation programs, including our carry plan. However, the historical profit-sharing approach has been grandfathered with respect to a small number of cases that are at advanced stages of activity. The result of our change in estimating compensation expense to match accounting gains and these revised arrangements is that we will take a non-cash charge of £25 million ($34 million) relating to the carrying value of those matters. These amounts would only potentially be paid upon the receipt of substantial actual cash profits. Financial Results
  • Anticipated net loss of approximately $70 million given one-time non-cash accruals
  • Approximately $20 million profit after tax if considered on a cash basis
As usual at this stage of our financial reporting cycle, we continue to work through a variety of accounting and tax issues, including fair values, internally and with our auditors in advance of our September 9 interim results reporting date. However, based on our current state of understanding, the combined impact of the non-cash accruals discussed above and the moderate level of asset realizations in the period suggests that we will report a net loss after tax of approximately $70 million, the bulk of which is related to those non-cash accruals. Adjusting for non-cash items (particularly fair value adjustments and the non-cash accruals), non-IFRS profit after tax would be approximately $20 million. Liquidity
  • Strong liquidity position of over $430 million
Liquidity at June 30, 2021 was strong, with the aggregate of cash and cash management assets of over $430 million (which does not include the receipt of the $103 million in cash related to the Akhmedov matter in July). Christopher Bogart, Burford Capital's Chief Executive Officer, commented:
"We are very pleased with the level of new business activity we saw in the first half of 2021 and with the continuing strength of our portfolio, notwithstanding a fairly quiet period for portfolio resolutions. We believe that moving to US GAAP and positioning the business in the US capital markets mainstream will inure to the benefit of shareholders. We appreciate shareholders' continued support on this journey, which we believe will result in a larger, stronger, more highly valued company." Definitions and use of alternative performance measures We report our financial results under International Financial Reporting Standards ("IFRS"). IFRS requires us to present financials that consolidate some of the limited partner interests in funds we manage as well as assets held by our balance sheet where we have a partner or minority investor. We therefore refer to various presentations of our financial results, and funding configuration, as:
  • Consolidated refers to assets, liabilities and activities that include those third-party interests, partially owned subsidiaries and special purpose vehicles that we are required to consolidate under IFRS accounting. This presentation conforms to the presentation of Burford on a consolidated basis in our financials. The major entities where there is also a third-party partner in or owner of those entities include the Strategic Value Fund, BOF-C (our arrangement with a Sovereign Wealth Fund) and several entities in which Burford holds investments where there is also a third-party partner in or owner of those entities. Note that in our financial statements, our consolidated presentation is referred to as Group.
  • Burford standalone, Burford-only, Burford balance sheet only, "balance sheet" or similar terms refers to assets, liabilities and activities that pertain only to Burford itself, excluding any third-party interests and the portions of jointly owned entities owned by others.
  • Group-wide refers to Burford and its managed funds taken together, including those portions of the funds owned by third parties and including funds that are not consolidated into Burford's annual consolidated financials. In addition to the consolidated funds, Group-wide includes the Partners funds (our first three core litigation finance funds), Burford Opportunity Fund and Burford Alternative Income Fund and its predecessor.
We refer to our capital provision assets in two categories:
  • Direct, which includes all our legal finance assets (including those generated by asset recovery and legal risk management activities) that we have made directly (i.e., not through participation in a fund) from our balance sheet. We also include direct (not through a fund) complex strategies assets in this category.
  • Indirect, which includes our balance sheet's participations in one of our funds. Currently, this category is comprised entirely of our position in the Burford Strategic Value Fund.
We also use certain Alternative Performance Measures ("APMs"), which are not presented in accordance with IFRS, to measure the performance of certain of our assets including:
  • Return on invested capital (ROIC) is a measure of financial performance calculated by comparing the absolute amount of realizations from a concluded asset relative to the amount of expenditure incurred in funding that asset, expressed as a percentage figure. In this release, when we refer to our concluded case ROIC, we are referring to the ROIC on concluded and partially concluded capital provision direct assets on Burford's balance sheet since the inception of the company until the current date.
  • IRR is a discount rate that makes the net present value of a series of cash flows equal to zero and is expressed as a percentage figure. We compute IRR on concluded (including partially concluded) legal finance assets by treating that entire portfolio (or, when noted, a subset thereof) as one undifferentiated pool of capital and measuring actual and, if necessary, estimated inflows and outflows from that pool, allocating investment cost appropriately. IRRs do not include unrealized gains.
  • Compound annual growth rate (CAGR) is the annual rate of return that would be required for a sum to grow from its beginning balance to its end balance, assuming reinvestment at the end of each year.
  • Profit after tax if considered on a cash basis is a non-IFRS measure comprising profit after tax removing all non-cash items, including but not limited to unrealized losses arising from fair value adjustments and non-cash compensation expense accruals.
Our business activities include:
  • Legal finance, which includes our traditional core litigation finance activities in which we are providing clients with financing against the future value of legal claims. It also encompasses our asset recovery and legal risk management activities, which often are provided to the same clients.
  • Complex strategies encompasses our activities providing capital as a principal in legal-related assets, often securities, loans and other financial assets where a significant portion of the expected return arises from the outcome of legal or regulatory activity. Most of our complex strategies activities over the past several years have been conducted through our Strategic Value Fund.
  • Post-settlement finance includes our financing of legal-related assets in situations where litigation has been resolved, such as financing of settlements and law firm receivables.
  • Asset management includes our activities administering the funds we manage for third-party investors.
Other terms we use include:
  • Cash receipts provide a measure of the cash that Burford's capital provision assets generate during a given year as well as cash from certain other fees and income. In particular, cash receipts represent the cash generated from capital provision assets, including cash proceeds from realized assets and related hedging assets, plus cash income from asset management fees, services and other income, before any deployments into funding existing or new assets.
  • Commitment is the amount of financing we agree to provide for a legal finance asset. Commitments can be definitive (requiring us to provide funding on a schedule, or more often, when certain expenses are incurred) or discretionary (only requiring us to provide funding after reviewing and approving a future matter). Unless otherwise indicated, commitments include deployed cost and undrawn commitments.
  • Deployment refers to the funding provided for an asset, which adds to Burford's invested cost in that asset. We use the term interchangeably with addition.
  • Deployed cost is the amount of funding we have provided for an asset as of the applicable point in time.
  • Liquidity refers to the amount of cash and cash management assets on our balance sheet.
  • Portfolio refers to the total amount of our capital provision and post-settlement assets, valued at deployed cost plus any fair value adjustments and any undrawn commitments.
  • Realization: A legal finance asset is realized when the asset is concluded (when litigation risk has been resolved). A realization will result in Burford receiving cash or, occasionally, some other asset or recognizing a due from settlement receivable, reflecting what Burford is owed on the asset. We use the term interchangeably with recovery.
  • Realized gain/loss refers to the total amount of gain or loss generated by a legal finance asset when it is realized, calculated simply as realized proceeds less deployed funds, without regard for any previously recognized fair value adjustment.
  • YPF-related assets refers to our Petersen and Eton Park legal finance assets, which are two claims relating to Argentina's nationalization of YPF, the Argentine energy company.
For additional information, including reconciliations of our non-IFRS financial measures to the corresponding IFRS figures, see our Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2020 filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2021. 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

Trends in Offshore Markets—What’s Next After COVID?

What can we expect in the coming months in offshore markets? John O’Driscoll, leader of the Insolvency and Dispute Resolution team at Walkers, had much to say on the subject. Litigators, financial professionals, and insolvency practitioners should pay close attention to legal developments in offshore markets. Lexology details commentary from O’Driscoll, beginning with the impact of the Private Funding of Legal Services Act (which became law in May of this year) on litigation funding in the Cayman Islands. O’Driscoll explains that funding agreements often could not secure court approval, and were rarely used in commercial cases. The passing of the PFLSA is likely to foretell an increase in claims, as well as new entrants into the litigation funding space. In the Caymans and BVI, creditors are exploring new and innovative options when enforcing debt collection. Thanks to new legal provisions, court approval is no longer needed for a secured creditor to enforce its security. The BVI also recently affirmed that the court may grant injunctive relief in foreign proceedings. This positive development fixes an earlier law that did not specifically allow the court to grant such remedies. Ultimately, these laws are positive for creditors. They ensure that debtors will be unable to use asset protection provisions to evade their debts.

UK Takes Welcome Steps Toward Legal Funding and Class Actions

The UK case Merricks v Mastercard will move to trial thanks to a new litigation funder for claimants. The case could impact more than 46 million consumers in the UK, who are seeking damages of more than GBP 15 billion. Lexology details that the funding agreement was scrutinized to protect the financial interests of class members. The Tribunal expressed its satisfaction that there is no conflict of interest between class members and funders. The new funder is deploying significantly more funding than the previous one. Merricks now has an agreement for GBP 45.1 million, plus 15 million for adverse costs.  This development clears a path for the future of UK class actions, as well as legitimizing third-party legal funding. The potential for funding to be used in collective actions and large-scale litigation is sure to lead to increased access to justice in the UK.

ANZ Bank and Ross Asset Management Reach Settlement Agreement

Investors in Ross Asset Management have recently reached a settlement with ANZ, a joint statement revealed. The case alleged that the bank knew, or should have known, that David Ross was essentially engaged in a Ponzi scheme. RZN reports that all involved parties affirmed that they were misled by Ross, but declined to comment on the matter further. One spokesperson did mention that investors looked pleased while exiting the meeting. The RAM group received funding from a specialist third-party litigation funder, who will likely receive a share of the settlement.

Binance Traders Acquire Funding for Class Action

One group of Binance traders has asserted that they lost $20 million in cryptocurrency trades earlier this year. Bitcoin prices dropped by as much as 30% last May—following the announcement of a Chinese crackdown on cryptocurrency. Today UK News details that a steering group has recently been launched, poised to bring an action against Binance for losses suffered during a platform outage. The group is backed by Liti Capital, a third-party litigation funder based in Switzerland. According to a statement by Liti, at least 700—but perhaps thousands—of traders were negatively impacted. Together, losses may total more than $100 million. NBC’s Olivia Solon points out that crypto traders are now trying to hold a company to account—despite the fact that the largely unregulated company maintains no headquarters to approach. The case will prove difficult, but Liti Capital is funding the international arbitration to the tune of $5 million. A spokesperson for Binance stated that it is the company’s policy to compensate trader losses caused by platform issues. However, unrealized profits fall under the heading of ‘what ifs’.   The FCA warned consumers that Binance is not legally able to carry out regulated activities. Banks, including Barclays, no longer allow customers to make transactions with Binance.

Burford Capital Caseload Delayed by COVID

Leading litigation funder Burford Capital has revealed that nearly 50% of its current cases have experienced delays relating to COVID. Law Gazette details that a recent performance disclosure filed with the London Stock Exchange showed that delays are slowing the progression of cases. Christopher Bogart, Chief Executive at Burford, explains that no clients have ended their relationship with Burford over delays. He also stated that some clients are reticent to settle cases while delays are still happening. Deployments are way up—with AU $399 million deployed group-wide. Despite this, Burford is looking at a net loss of as much as AU $70 million, owing to non-cash accruals. Burford shares are currently at 847p.

Legal-Bay Lawsuit Funding Announces Roundup Litigation Settlements Still Have No Definitive Timeframe

Legal-Bay, The Presettlement Funding Company, reports that Bayer is reassessing its efforts to settle the numerous lawsuits they are facing due to their Roundup brand weed killer. It is estimated that 30,000 plaintiffs still have outstanding suits against Monsanto (a subsidiary of Bayer), claiming the company's product is directly responsible for making them sick.  Certain cancers are alleged to have been caused by the glyphosate-based herbicide including non Hodgkin lymphoma. Bayer has agreed to pay compensation on some claims, even while disputing liability on others. However, it has already been ruled that it will take $9 billion to settle over 100,000 existing claims—four claims alone had jury verdicts of $2 billion as well but are in appeals. At this time, Legal-Bay's sources report that they are unaware of any victims who have been paid any actual funds from Monsanto, despite the settlement being reached over a year ago. There are no guarantees that the company will settle these suits, and no exact numbers can be provided for payout amounts at this time. Chris Janish, CEO of Legal-Bay, commented, "We continue to assist and fund victims of Roundup despite no timeline as to when settlements will be ruled upon or when payouts will actually occur.  It is clear that Covid has slowed the payment process, but at this point the defendant seems to be dragging their feet unnecessarily." If you are involved in a Roundup weed killer lawsuit and need an immediate cash advance against your pending settlement, you can apply HERE or call: 877.571.0405 Legal-Bay's pre settlement funding programs are designed to provide immediate cash in advance of a plaintiff's anticipated monetary award. The non-recourse law suit loans—sometimes referred to as loans for lawsuit or loans on settlement—are risk-free, as the money doesn't need to be repaid should the recipient lose their case. Therefore, the lawsuit loan isn't really a loan, but rather a cash advance. To apply right now, please visit the company's website HERE or call toll-free at: 877.571.0405 where agents are standing by.

Liti Capital’s Wrapped LITI (wLITI) Lists on Bitcoin.com Exchange

Liti Capital’s wLITI token, a wrapped version of the Swiss company’s LITI equity token, has been listed on the Bitcoin.com Exchange on 24 August at 10:00AM UTC. wLITI is trading with BTC and USDT pairs. 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. Just last week, 19 August 2021, Liti Capital announced that it was funding a claim (www.binanceclaim.com) against Binance, which would enable affected individuals to pursue claims, including, if necessary, in arbitration, for 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. 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. While litigation financing often requires an initial investment of $500,000 to $1 million from an investor, Liti Capital makes it accessible for anyone with as little as $50. It does this by tokenizing shares in Liti Capital and paying out dividends to Liti Capital (LITI) equity token holders when a case in Liti Capital’s portfolio is won. Liti Capital has already secured a healthy case portfolio with its largest case potentially worth more than $1 billion when it finally settles. Cases like these, which tend to be commercial rather than consumer or personal lawsuits, usually target large-scale corporate disputes valued at more than $10 million. While they could take years before a settlement is reached, successful litigation funders can expect to pocket between three and five times their initial investments, according to estimates by litigation finance expert Steven Friel. What is wLITI? wLITI is an ERC-20 token that is the wrapped version of the LITI equity token. Launched on June 29, 2021, the wLITI token is suitable for trading on exchanges such as Bitcoin.com, 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. Switzerland-based Liti Capital creates wLITI at a LITI token buyer’s request via Liti Capital’s app or website, which converts the LITI to wLITI at a 1:5000 ratio. 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. A Strong Endorsement Danish Chaudhry, CEO of Bitcoin.com Exchange, shared his views on wLiti’s listing, saying,“The Liti Capital team are providing an equity token which is the first of its kind, focused around easy-to-access private equity investment opportunities for basically anyone with the help of blockchain technology.” Chaudhry continues on by saying: “We’re very excited to see how Liti Capital will continue to empower their vision, and gain further outreach with our outstanding community at the exchange.” Jonas Rey, CEO of Liti Capital, said, “Listing on Bitcoin.com Exchange is an excellent opportunity for us, and a milestone we are proud of. We have full confidence that once the public discovers just how valuable the litigation assets we are able to purchase on behalf of LITI investors are and how powerful blockchain-backed private equity trading can be, that wLITI will become a very popular token indeed.” Listing details Trading Opening: Aug. 24, 2021, 10:00AM UTC Deposit Opening: Aug 24, 2021, 09:00AM UTC Trading Pairs: wLITI/BTC wLITI/USDT About Bitcoin.com Exchange The mission of Bitcoin.com Exchange is to empower people from all over the world to trade cryptocurrencies with ease and confidence, from first-time traders to advanced trading professionals. With high liquidity, 24/7 multilingual support and dozens of trading pairs, complemented with a high level of security, we offer an attractive platform for trading any cryptocurrency. Within one year since launch, on average, the exchange has been visited by more than 500K active traders per month, and this number continues to grow by the minute. 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.

Insolvency Funding in Hong Kong and Singapore—Key Developments

In Asia, legal funding has been used in insolvency cases for over ten years. Since Hong Kong and Singapore adopted a funding framework for third-party arbitration, appreciation for funding has grown.

Burford Capital explains that in Singapore, amendments have been made to the existing Civil Law Act. In Hong Kong, the Arbitration and Mediation Legislation Ordinance came into law in early 2019. The introduction of an arbitration framework in both jurisdictions inspired greater interest in developing a more inclusive litigation funding industry across Asia.

Laws regarding legal finance and insolvency cases are constantly evolving, necessitating practitioners to keep their proverbial ears to the ground. As creditors grow more willing to pursue misconduct, fraud, or other claims against company directors—market momentum grows.

Several significant cases have shaped the development of legal finance in Singapore. In Re Vanguard Energy (2015), the court held that a liquidator may sell a company’s own fruits of a cause of action. The judge then affirmed that legal funding can be a vital facet of adjudicating insolvency cases. Two years later, an amendment to the Civil Law Act abolished maintenance and champerty laws. Finally, the IRDA became law in July of last year—which rolled existing insolvency laws into one piece of legislation.

Maintenance and champerty laws are still on the books in Hong Kong. But there have been small steps taken to expand the use of legal finance in insolvency matters. Unlike other jurisdictions, however, there is no wider framework welcoming the expanded use of legal funding.

Currently, Hong Kong courts require approval for the use of funding on an individual basis. In most cases, this part of the process is included in the funding agreement. However, in Re: Patrick Cowley, it was determined that liquidators didn’t need court approval before making an agreement with a funder.

Hong Kong is also overhauling its insolvency law regime in an effort to clarify and expand the use of legal funding in insolvency and restructuring matters.

Litigation Funding and Work Product / Common Interest Doctrines

It’s well known that information loses its attorney-client privilege when shared with a third party. Increasingly, however, rulings are allowing for documents and exchanges shared with third-party legal funders to be protected. Rimon Law explains that confidentiality can be maintained with legal funders under either the common interest doctrine or the work product doctrine. The work product doctrine exception would include information assembled as part of trial prep, or for another party such as a consultant or insurer. Recent rulings have expanded this to include strategy and mental impressions from involved parties. This can logically be applied to litigation funders, as they vet cases on the basis of potential for success, merit, and the defendant’s ability to pay. In Miller UK Ltd v Caterpillar Inc, the court ruled that confidential documents are shared with potential funders, and it would be counter to the interests of justice for clients to lose their right to privilege simply to acquire funding. The common interest doctrine is not applied across the board—and some courts have ruled pointedly against it. But more and more courts are recognizing that information shared with litigation funders is protected, because the third party in question has a common interest with the client. In In Re Intern. Oil Trading Company LLC, a case in US Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of Florida, the court ruled that sharing information with funders is ‘an essential element to the exception to the general rule’. Ergo, the funder’s involvement in the case depends on an assessment of that case—and sharing that information should not end attorney-client privilege.

Funder and Firm Win Fees from Terminated Client Relationship

His Honor Judge Cadwallader ruled that a couple suing their former solicitors should be held liable for costs. The Liverpool judge also affirmed that Vanessa and Michael Kennedy breached their agreement with law firm Bermans and the funder, Escalate Law, when they misled their lawyers. Legal Futures UK details that the firm and funders were entitled to end their retainers with the couple, as well as the costs of GBP 75,000. Cadwallader also found that the Kennedys instructed their legal team to make inappropriate or unreasonable agreements and amendments to previous agreements. This included instructing lawyers to deliberately mislead the Leicester Diocesan Board of Finance. Escalate Law is registered in Liverpool as an alternative business structure. The case Escalate Law Ltd & Anor v Kennedy & Anor began when the Kennedys hired Bermans and Escalate to sue Peter W Marsh & Co over guidance provided during a land deal. After a failed mediation and renegotiations, the couple was given permission to build a house on the land—provided construction began within three years. It didn’t. After the deadline passed, the firm and funders terminated their working relationship with the Kennedys, claiming the payments owed according to the agreement. Ultimately the Kennedys were found to be acting in bad faith, and that their actions ‘lacked commercial probity.’ HHJ Cadwallader went on to reject the Kennedys claim that the lawyers’ and funder's work was without value. He further rejected the Kennedys’ claim that his lawyer should have advised him to accept a settlement offer.

What is ‘Super Priority’ Financing?

The High Court of Singapore took a dramatic step recently in granting ‘super priority’ status in a corporate restructuring. This is the first time any third-party legal funder has been given such an order since Singapore’s IRDA became law in 2018 Omni Bridgeway details that the complex and expensive nature of arbitration makes it a very high-risk investment. The order essentially guarantees that Omni Bridgeway will be first in line to receive payments from a successful recovery. This ruling represents an opportunity for businesses that would prefer to restructure a struggling company rather than liquidate it. Only the respondent objected to Omni Bridgeway’s application for ‘super-priority.’ This begs the question: should a creditor be allowed to participate in the process of securing funding—leading to a disclosure they might not normally be granted? It will be fascinating to see how this precedent impacts future arbitration.

Disclosure Reveals Non-Profit Funding Climate Change Litigation

New Jersey’s new disclosure rule regarding third-party legal funding is in effect. As such, a recent climate change case saw the disclosure of a non-profit providing limited funding for attorney fees and expenses. Wisconsin state courts and federal courts in the Northern District of California have adopted similar rules in recent months. Legal Newsline explains that lawyers from Korvatin Nau and Emery Celli of New York filed disclosures stating that the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development is funding the case. Defendants include Exxon, Chevron, and BP over their alleged impact on climate change. Lawyers disclosed the funding despite the non-profit not having a financial stake in the outcome of the case—an unusual arrangement for third-party funders. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund has also contributed to funding climate change litigation via the IGSD. The oil industry prefers these cases to be tried in Federal court, owing to the difficulty plaintiffs will face as opposed to state courts. SCOTUS is expected to rule on the issue soon.

Mainstreaming Class Action Cases and Litigation Funding

This past year has seen multiple judgments supporting the validity of class actions—once thought ‘too American’ for many jurisdictions. London courts in particular have paved the way for collective actions against big businesses. Litigation funding has proliferated, and is spurring access for justice to parties who would otherwise be left out in the cold. Law Gazette details that earlier this month, a collective action against MasterCard was certified, and will proceed to trial on behalf of 46 million people. A Brazilian court just reopened a claim against mining company BHP—which could be worth billions. British Airways also settled a data breach case that impacted more than 16,000 people. Increasingly, judges are affirming the value of class action and collective litigation. However, some old-school judges remain intransigent. This could lead to increased regulation and more uniform rulings in the future. The same applies to third-party litigation funding. Litigation funding was once dismissed as an opportunistic scheme, but is now viewed as a vital part of class action litigation. As litigation funding becomes more accepted and utilized around the world, its inherent value in increasing access to justice grows more apparent. At the same time, funding agreements have raised eyebrows when claimants must pay large portions of their award to funders. Third-party funding is non-recourse, so funders are taking a significant risk in supporting these cases. It makes sense that their rewards will be substantial. Many class action cases couldn’t move forward without funding. It’s been asserted that more sophisticated funding models could ultimately lead to larger payouts for claimants. Tets Ishikawa, managing director of Rosenblatt offshoot LionFish, explains that third-party funding is often unjustly maligned. Pricing for litigation funding isn’t much different from other financial markets. LionFish, for example, is a principle funder (rather than one who invests on behalf of others), and therefore has more leeway in the size and types of cases they fund.