Trending Now

John Freund's Posts

3311 Articles
Announcements Case Developments Consumer

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.
Announcements Commercial Legal Innovation

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.
Regulatory Issues

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.

Regulatory Issues

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.
Case Developments

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.
Case Developments

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.
Case Developments

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.
Regulatory Issues

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.
Deals

A Guide for Choosing a Litigation Funder

As lawyers, courts, and plaintiffs develop an appreciation for Litigation Finance, competition becomes increasingly robust. Demand for funding is up, as are the number of new funders throwing their hats into the ring. There’s a wide array of funding entities now, and they vary in terms of preferred case size, minimum and maximum deployments, jurisdiction, commercial or industry specialties, and more. Above the Law details how claim holders can best go about choosing the right litigation funder to meet their needs. One might think that rankings would give the clearest picture of the available funder options—but does it? Cost is considered the most important factor in choosing a funder, according to respondents in this year’s annual survey of lawyers. That’s not surprising, but it’s worth noting that cost probably shouldn’t be a deciding factor—at least not without further consideration. Preferred investment size and type are both important. Most funders have a preferred investment size that is based on timing, award potential, the likelihood of settlement, and more. Knowing how your case coincides (or doesn’t) with what funders are looking for can help you approach the likeliest match. The same goes for preferred investment types. Some funders only take commercial cases, or class actions, or patent and IP cases. Finding a funder that specializes in your case type brings additional expertise and experience to your team—which has benefits that can far outweigh a monetary percentage. Capital reserves and the right to end a funding agreement are also critical considerations. A funder should be well capitalized at the outset and should remain so for the life of the case. Also, carefully consider the terms under which a funder can exit and cease funding your litigation. Is the funder committed to seeing the case through to completion? Statistics can tell you about funders, but they can’t really discern the right funder for your specific situation. That’s why all factors deserve consideration before a choice is made.
Commercial

Taurus Capital Founder Talks Litigation Funding as Alternative Investment

Litigation Finance is a growing asset class, spurred on by the financial fallout caused by COVID. Increasingly, investors are seeking uncorrelated investments. As Gary Sweidan, founder of Taurus Capital explains, litigation funding is about as uncorrelated as it gets. Moneyweb explains the attraction of this alternative investment, who it benefits, and how it all works. As explained, funding litigation as a third party doesn’t correlate to stock markets, currency rates, global politics, or more mainstream investments. Taurus Capital follows a model similar to established funders in the UK, Australia, the US, and elsewhere. A funded entity raises a fund with input from investors. That capital is then deployed toward meritorious cases that are carefully vetted. Funding is provided on a non-recourse basis, so a funder loses the entire deployment if the case is not successful. As such, mitigating risk is essential. Funders have widely varied parameters for fund size and deployment goals. Taurus Capital currently has a fund with R145 million, which is expected to be deployed over seven or eight cases. The target is a four-to-five-times return on investment. Of course, some cases may be more lucrative, but some may be total losses. But even with the fund losing a case or two, investors can still expect sizable returns according to Sweidan. The timeline for cases is varied and not entirely predictable. Sudden settlements can end cases far earlier than expected. Endless motions or appeals can drag a case out for years. In South Africa, where Taurus Capital is based, it’s not uncommon for a case to take three to five years to complete. Finding a funder who will see a case through to completion is essential for plaintiffs who don’t want to be left bereft of funding to complete their case. Taurus utilizes a legal risk committee made up of senior counsel (both active and retired), and an investment committee with commercial expertise. Both the legal and commercial aspects are vital parts of vetting potential cases for funding.
Commercial

What Statistics Tell Us About COVID Business Interruption Insurance

It’s no surprise that COVID has resulted in an influx of insurance-related litigation. Specifically—the question of whether individual commercial insurance policies cover business interruption caused by the pandemic. Burford Capital suggests that analyzing the current numbers can give us a sense of momentum—but the totality of how COVID will impact past and future insurance coverage cannot be predicted with the information available. While new cases are being filed daily, nearly 2,000 COVID-centric insurance cases are either pending or resolved. About 85% of concluded cases have favored insurers. Insurers are moving cases from state to federal courts when possible—despite the fact that insurance policy interpretation is governed by contract law—a state issue. Federal courts thus far have been more likely to favor insurers. As the virus continues to cause damages totaling trillions, business interruption claims will no doubt be a significant part of the legal landscape for years to come. 
Announcements Fundraising

BCCE Announces $12 Million Funding Round

Bank Cartel Claims Europe (BCCE), a joint-venture of law firm Grantley Sinclair LLP and litigation finance firm Commercial Damages Claims Limited today announced a $12M funding round for its dedicated litigation finance fund, the Bank Cartel Claims Fund (BCCF), providing institutional and individual investors the ability to access a portfolio of litigation-related assets through a single fund allocation. BCCE has identified three recently decided EU antitrust cases that it believes are highly suitable for follow-on antitrust litigation: the European Government Bonds Case, the Sovereign, Supra-Sovereign & Agency Bonds Case, and the Foreign Exchange Case. In each of these cases, investment banks participated in a cartel through a group of traders. Cartel behaviour between competitors is the most serious form of anti-competitive behaviour and carries the highest level of penalties. Fines totaling €1.47 billion ($1.73 billion) were imposed on the investment banks by the European Commission. “Companies are liable for violations of antitrust law and victims are entitled to full compensation for the actual losses and lost profits that they have suffered,” BCCE Director Kees Arnaud said. “In these three cases, for example, the pension and hedge funds that lost millions of dollars because of these illegal cartels can effectively claim their damages through actions before a national court. A national court cannot overrule the European Commission on the issue of liability, so in most cases, the only remaining question to be decided is the amount of the damages. This makes antitrust litigation very attractive for investors.” “Investments in litigation financing generally offer high yields,” said Frank Mulder, COO of litigation finance firm Commercial Damages Claims Limited. “The key to higher returns is selecting lawsuit investments with key characteristics that mark them as effective investments. And thanks to a variety of modern innovations in finance and the law, investors can access litigation markets in ways that were not possible even a decade ago.” BCCE plans to use the capital to hire leading barristers, solicitors, and economic experts to pursue these claims against the banks. Damages are expected to exceed $1 billion. Find out more at https://bankclaimsfunding.com About Grantley Sinclair Grantley Sinclair is a leading law firm with more than 25 dedicated lawyers and public affairs experts. Clients big and small, from some of the world’s largest multinationals to small tech start-ups, trust Grantley Sinclair to solve their most challenging and business-critical problems. We provide insight at the point where law, business, and government meet, giving clients a voice and achieving successful outcomes. For more information, please visit: https://grantleysinclair.com About CDC CDC is a premier litigation finance firm that helps corporations exercise their right to full compensation for harms caused by e.g., breach of contract, business torts, or illegal cartels. CDC can arrange for the coverage of all the ongoing risks and expenses of litigation, including any adverse cost risk. It aims to deliver an arrangement that works for the client; therefore it operates in both the insurance and funding markets. For more information, please visit https://commercialdamagesclaims.com
Regulatory Issues

Kosovo Welcomes Third-Party Legal Funding

In recent years, Kosovo has taken a number of steps to promote foreign investments. Among these is the ratification of bilateral investment treaties with Switzerland, Luxembourg, Austria, and Belgium, among others. In 2014, a Law on Foreign Investment was adopted, which outlines the use of arbitration for investor-related disputes. Michelman & Robinson LLP, along with Bench Walk Advisors, explains that while Kosovo has not adopted the full measures of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, its Laws on Arbitration accomplishes many of the same things. As the financial climate improves, Kosovo is taking steps to attract more foreign investors, including third-party funding. Specific criteria are utilized when evaluating risks associated with cases:
  • Merits. Obviously, cases must be meritorious in order to qualify for funding.
  • Legal Team: Funders rely on the plaintiff’s legal team to win a satisfactory result for the client. Legal teams with a strong history of success and expertise in the area of dispute are essential.
  • Dispute Forum: Funders will specialize in specific forums for disputes. Some may want to avoid jurisdictions known to be unreliable, notoriously slow, or otherwise lacking in procedural stability or predictability.
  • Budget v Damages: Generally funders will have a minimum and maximum budget limitation. This means either a limit on how much funding they will deploy on a single case, or a minimum potential recoupment before considering a case for funding.
  • Enforcement and Defendants Financial State: Winning an award doesn’t help investors if the award cannot be collected. Most funders will examine the defendant’s ability to pay, as well as consider other potential enforcement issues such as hidden assets, or cross-jurisdictional issues.
Kosovo has taken some excellent first steps toward encouraging outside investment—with litigation funding strengthening investor confidence.
Announcements Fundraising

Liti Capital Token wLITI Lists on HitBTC, Bringing Litigation Financing to the Masses

Liti Capital, the Swiss-based litigation financing company that has made private equity investing accessible to everyone through blockchain technology, has listed its wLITI token for the first time on a centralized exchange (CEX) - HitBTC. wLITI’s first CEX listing follows its recent listings on decentralized exchanges (DEXes) Uniswap and 1Inch Exchange. Having launched earlier this year, Liti Capital is already making waves in traditional investing by bringing litigation financing — an investment practice traditionally monopolized by hedge fund heavyweights and elite investors — to the masses. “We are very excited to list on HitBTC,” said Liti Capital CEO Jonas Rey. “This represents a major milestone toward our goal of leveling the playing field for litigation finance. Legal claims are an extremely appealing asset class because they can be so lucrative, and we provide a means for anyone to get in on this exciting investment opportunity.” Founded in 2013, HitBTC is one of the oldest and largest spot-trading cryptocurrency exchanges in the world. It is well-known for its state-of-the-art matching engine, high security measures and low trading fees. With a trading robot-friendly API and 24-hour customer service, HitBTC is a popular exchange with over 800 trading pairs and more than 400 spot instruments. Putting traditional investing on the blockchain 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 USD 500 K to USD 1 million from an investor, Liti Capital makes it accessible for anyone with as little as USD 50. They do this by tokenizing shares in LitiCapital, and paying out dividends to LITI equity token holders when a case in Liti Capital’s portfolio is won. wLITI, or “Wrapped LITI” — the token listed on HitBTC today — is Liti Capital’s ERC-20 liquidity token. It doesn’t provide access to dividends like LITI does, but wLITI can be exchanged for LITI tokens at a 5000 to 1 ratio. However, both tokens give holders the power to vote on how Liti Capital assets are used to finance crypto fraud cases that affect Liti Capital community members, an initiative that the company is dedicated to allocating between five and ten percent of their yearly investment budget for. Boasting a billion-dollar case portfolio Liti Capital has already secured a healthy case portfolio, with their largest case potentially worth more than USD 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 USD 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 (Bloomsbury, The Law and Business of Litigation Finance, 2020). To attain this goal, Liti Capital onboarded seasoned industry leader David Kay as CIO 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 USD 1 billion in cash and securities. “Litigation assets generally don’t correlate with the state of the economy, allowing litigation financing to thrive even in a bear market,” Kay explained. “A relative newcomer to the modern investment ecosystem, litigation financing is expected to double in market value within the next six years. Our investment team at Liti Capital is actively seeking out the top opportunities in litigation assets, and aims to add at least five more multi-million dollar cases to our portfolio by this time next year.” Listing details Trading Date: August 17, 2021 3:00 pm UTC Deposit Opening: August 16, 2021 3:00 pm UTC Trading Pairs: wLITI / BTC wLITI / USDT About Liti Capital Switzerland-based Liti Capital is a Swiss Limited Liability Co. specializing in litigation finance and fintech. Liti Capital buys litigation assets to fund lawsuits and provide a complete strategic solution along with connections with 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. Co-Founder Jonas Rey heads one of the most successful intelligence agencies in Switzerland, Athena Intelligence. His two co-founders, Andy Christen and Jaime Delgado bring operational, innovation and technical skills together to round out the leadership team. David Kay, CIO, ran a billion-dollar NYC private equity litigation finance firm before joining Liti Capital.
Case Developments

German Asset Manager Sues Over Wirecard Bankruptcy

A lawsuit brought by Union Investment, Germany’s third-largest asset manager, is not welcome news for banks and bondholders. Wirecard is accused of making more than 70 statements, including corporate press releases, that are being described as fraudulent. FR24 News reports that Nadine Hermann of Quinn Emanuel stated that because Union Investment made decisions based on misleading statements, its claims should positioned alongside those of more senior creditors, such as banks and bondholders. This lawsuit has the potential to set precedent for other shareholders impacted by the Wirecard bankruptcy. The case is being funded by Burford Capital, a leading third-party litigation funder. So far, more than 14 billion Euros in claims have been filed against Wirecard with Michael Jaffe, the administrator. Jaffe has amassed about 600 million Euros from the sales of Wirecard assets. Should this lawsuit be successful, Union Investment would receive a share of the accumulated capital currently earmarked for Wirecard’s creditors, as would Burford. The banks and bondholders have filed multiple legal opinions rejecting Union’s claims.
Regulatory Issues

Omni Bridgeway CEO Andrew Saker Responds to Proposed Statutory Price Cap

It cannot be denied that third-party litigation funding is a boon to justice. In many instances, it’s the only way that impecunious plaintiffs can have their day in court. At the same time, legal funding is a business that depends on ROI for investors. That’s why funders have a lot to say about a proposed new regulation in Australia, legislating a standard minimum return to class members in funded class actions. Some have suggested this guaranteed percentage be as high as 70%. Is that reasonable? Omni Bridgeway CEO Andrew Saker penned his opinion on the matter, based on years of experience in the industry. Saker begins by pointing out that the 70% figure doesn’t appear to be based on any available data. It’s an arbitrary figure arrived at without input from funding groups like ILFA, nor does it factor in the significant risk undertaken by funders who deploy funding on a non-recourse basis. Since the Hilmer Review in the 1990s, it’s been established in Australia that the government should only intervene in those markets where there has been a market failure. That’s simply not true of the funding industry. While dire warnings of frivolous class actions haven’t abated, this explosion of opportunistic cases never materialized. Saker is clear in stating that funding is already subject to checks and balances, self-regulation by industry leaders, and increased court input on settlement approval and even funding agreements. The proposed allocation of 70% of awards or settlements to class members would negatively affect over 90% of cases, according to an analysis by PwC. In some instances, the remaining award funds wouldn’t be enough to cover legal expenses, or would reduce funder commission so drastically that it loses value as an investment. Leading funders like LCM, Woodsford, and Burford Capital all agree that an arbitrary price cap will hurt funders, lawyers, and potential claimants who may find themselves with no financial help when they need it most.
Fundraising

Litigation Finance Product for Retail Investors Launches in India

One Delhi-based startup has created a litigation funding platform with retail investors in mind. Investors may now fund cases as a third party for as little as 25,000 rupees, or about $335 USD. Called LegalPay, the startup is focusing on late-stage commercial arbitrations. Business Today explains that LegalPay is backed by LetsVenture and 9Unicorns, among other venture capital firms. It plans to develop an SPV of about a dozen cases to diversify risk. The focus will be on commercial B2B cases with big-ticket defendants and a predictable timeline. Investing in third-party funding is typically only available to the wealthy. LegalPay makes this opportunity more accessible to average investors. Potential investors should have a clear understanding of how third-party funding works, and especially its non-recourse model—before making an investment. Founder Kundan Shahi details that his business model is such that even winning as few as one in six cases will mean that invested capital will be secure.
Commercial

Insights Into the Energy Industry

The COVID pandemic has wreaked havoc on many industries, energy included. Energy usage fell, production disruption was rampant, regulations changed all over the world, and at least 19 energy companies filed for bankruptcy last year. Burford’s newly commissioned 2021 Asset Report explores the ways in which energy companies can use their legal assets to create revenue. Burford Capital details that while energy litigation can be costly and time-consuming, it’s also among the most lucrative. When polled, more than ¾ of senior finance professionals in the energy sector say that even extensive affirmative recovery programs aren’t meeting the needs of the company. This could be addressed by better communication between legal and financial departments. Greater reliance on quantitative analysis over qualitative analysis when vetting pending legal claims would also be helpful. Burford Capital’s recent roundtable featured some top legal minds in the energy field. Mark Baker, global co-head of international arbitration at Norton Rose Fulbright,  states that volatility in the energy sector has been the norm long before COVID. Oil and gas are constantly in a state of flux depending on investment regimes, politics that alter energy policy on a global scale, and a transition toward green energy, which all impact pricing and availability. Michelle Gray, a founding partner at Fogler, Brar, O’Neil, and Gray, speaks to the uncertainty that’s still clouding active lawsuits. There has been precious little precedent with regard to COVID-centric litigation. Until that happens, it’s impossible to predict how litigation—or even arbitration—will progress. The use of litigation funding along with quantitative financial analysis makes perfect sense. The expertise provided by experienced funders can be instrumental in identifying which litigation is worth pursuing, and then maximizing its value. Non-recourse funding can mitigate expenses and legal fees while creating untapped revenue and reducing risks--without adding costs to the balance sheet.
Regulatory Issues

Australia Eases Continuous Disclosure, Extends Virtual AGMs

While class action attorneys and litigation funders are fuming, publicly-listed companies in Australia are breathing easier after continuous disclosure laws were relaxed. This move is expected to protect company officers against liability for deceptive, misleading, or incomplete disclosure to stockholders—unless fault is proven affirmatively. Yahoo! Finance explains that the move is meant to stifle “opportunistic” shareholder class actions, according to Treasurer Josh Frydenberg. The new rules also allow annual general meetings to be held virtually rather than in-person, through March 31 of 2022. These new rules are described as ‘temporary relief,’ though Frydenberg noted that more lasting reforms are expected to be introduced before the end of 2021. There are concerns, however, that these new relaxed rules may limit shareholder’s legal options for holding executives to account.
Announcements Consumer

Legal-Bay Lawsuit Funding Enters Attorney Funding Market with Law Firm Loans Up to $25MM

Legal-Bay, The Pre Settlement Lawsuit Funding Company, announced today that they are now assisting a large number of attorneys with their funding needs. The premier lawsuit funding company is currently working with lawyers and law firms, generating a renewed focus on cash flow needs that may have arisen due to Covid-19 shutdowns and a severely slowed court system. Chris Janish, CEO of Legal-Bay, commented, "We have secured ample capital in our quest to assist our many law firm clients. We're able to get them the money they require to help them carry on with their professional needs, as case settlements have slowed down due to Covid-19. Legal-Bay is now positioned to be a full-service funding firm–and invaluable resource–for law firms and their clients alike by helping with cash-flow needs and building case value through our multitude of funding products." If you are a lawyer or law firm who needs an immediate cash advance and are interested in discussing how law firm loans can help you, please visit Legal-Bay HERE or call toll-free at 877.571.0405. When it comes to case cost funding, funding for experts, trial cost, or medical procedure / surgical funding for a client, attorney loans are invaluable to lawyers and medical providers. Many law firms have walked away from great cases because they couldn't pull the funding together for personal injury clients that don't have insurance. Also, smaller firms sometimes need to bring in additional counsel for bigger cases because they cannot self-fund things like expert costs, excessive trial costs, or general case costs needed to properly prosecute a valid claim. Plus, now that surgery centers are strapped for cash as well due to Covid they are more hesitant to undertake personal injury surgery on lien or Letter of Protection (LOP). Now, law firms can go to Legal-Bay to help finance the surgery by paying the medical provider upfront. This greatly improves the case value for the client, and the medical provider is more than willing to work with the law firm. Legal-Bay can structure large and small transactions mostly on a non-recourse basis depending on the nature of each transaction. Legal-Bay has helped lawyers in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Pennsylvania, California, Texas, and Ohio, but they work with attorneys from all states, even outside of NY, NJ, FL, PA, CA, TX, and OH. Let them provide immediate capital to scale your operation with credit lines up to $25MM. They are a leader in the industry with access to large capital portfolio companies. They offer the fastest approvals with less underwriting than traditional banks, and interest rates/usage fees have simple terms ranging from 12% to 40% per annum with no upfront fees or hidden costs built into the contracts. They can tailor transactions and paybacks, so your cash-flow remains strong. Legal-Bay's goal is to work tirelessly to help get your firm the capital it requires. If you are a lawyer or law firm who needs an immediate attorney loan or law firm loan, please visit Legal-Bay HERE or call toll-free at 877.571.0405. Keep in mind, there are some key requirements to be eligible for funding: 1. Diversified portfolio of personal injury cases and/or other contingency fee type cases 2. Track record of success in settling and/or trial wins 3. Steady cash-flow and profits each year 4. Reputable principals within the firm with a history of integrity Legal-Bay provides fast attorney loans for your law firm and your clients in need. Their staff is trained to make things as efficient for your team as possible. They want to be a resource to help your clients hold out for a fair settlement while also not inundating your firm with unnecessary document requests. Legal-Bay's loans for lawyers provide the lowest industry rates so that any funding liens do not get in the way of settling your client's case… and most importantly, put more money back into their pocket! If you are a lawyer or law firm who needs an immediate cash advance for trial cost funding, funding for experts, or surgical funding, please visit Legal-Bay HERE or call toll-free at 877.571.0405. Legal-Bay remains vigilant in helping clients with their professional and personal needs. Any clients who need cash now can apply for funding to help them get through their financial crises. Legal-Bay funds all types of law firm loans including funding off personal injury cases, attorney lines of credit, attorney fee acceleration, advancement of attorney fees, case cost lines of credit, case cost funding, case cost disbursement funding, and many more. Legal-Bay works directly with many top law firms to provide the best cash advance rates in the industry in as little as 24 - 48 hours. They can assist with acquiring needed loans for law firms in circumstances such as:
  • Portfolio loans
  • Funding for trial costs, trial cost loans, case cost funding, or lines of credit
  • Law firm loans, law firm portfolio loans, law firm portfolio financing
  • Attorney funding, Lawyer funding, law firm funding, law firm advance
  • Non-recourse law firm advance, law firm financing
  • Attorney pre-settlement funding or attorney post-settlement funding
  • Legal Receivable Factoring
  • Appellate funding, appellate financing
  • Judgement on appeal loans, judgement on appeal funding
  • Verdict loans, verdict financing
  • Commercial litigation loans, commercial case funding, commercial case advance, commercial case loans, commercial lawsuit advance, commercial lawsuit loans, commercial lawsuit funding, commercial loans, commercial advance, commercial funding
  • Whistleblower loans, whistleblower advance, whistleblower funding
  • Qui-tam loans, Qui-tam funding, Qui-tam advance
  • Patent infringement funding, copyright infringement loans
Legal-Bay's law firm funding programs are designed to provide immediate cash for attorneys who need advance capital to meet their firm's financial demands. To apply right now, please visit the company's website HERE or call toll-free at: 877.571.0405 where agents are standing by to answer any questions.
Regulatory Issues

Insight on the Development of Litigation Funding in Ontario

Canada has joined the US, UK, EU, Singapore, and Australia (and now many others) in having fully embraced third-party legal funding. Courts are seeing the value in the practice and are ruling accordingly. Combined with the increase in contingency fee arrangements—Canadian plaintiffs are seeing access to justice increase. Woodsford Litigation Funding explains that legal funding began with a desire to help plaintiffs have their day in court—especially against a rich defendant, corporation, or even a government. Since then, the scope and benefits of litigation funding have adapted to the needs of the market. Now, third-party funding is used by CFOs and GCs to manage legal expenses and share risk with other parties. In single plaintiff and class action cases, funding often leads to more equitable settlements, due to a variety of factors, including the added legal expertise and the capability of rejecting lowball offers thanks to a lack of financial constraints. The Ontario Trial Lawyers’ Association recently developed best practices standards for lawyers and funders. These are similar to the codes of conduct used by the Association of Litigation Funders. In January 2020, a Quebec Court of Appeal decision requiring a litigation funding agreement be given to creditors as ‘a plan of arrangement' was overturned. An earlier order by the supervising judge was reinstated. Thus, third-party funding used as interim financing should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Judges may permit third-party funds as interim financing when it is in the interests of justice to do so. Third-party funding for class actions has been approved several times—including David v Loblaw, where courts allowed the use of funding under the following conditions:
  • Plaintiffs, not funders, direct litigation decisions
  • Funder is able to cover an adverse cost order
  • Courts must approve if funder backs out of the case
  • Plaintiffs are given independent legal counsel on the funding agreement terms
Ontario residents now have more options with which to pursue meritorious claims.
Regulatory Issues

ILFA Comments on UNCITRAL Working Group TPF Reform Proposals

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA), founded in 2020, is a global association of third-party legal funders committed to self-regulation and promoting high industry standards. The ILFA has provided commentary on the proposed new regulation, as well as context around the concerns purportedly being addressed. The ILFA explains that in developing new proposals, the Working Group did not liaise effectively with ILFA members or the funding market as a whole. Also, the proposals appear to stem from a biased narrative emanating from academic (rather than hands-on) experience, deliberately casting doubt on the legitimacy of the funding industry. There’s also a rather stunning lack of supporting data. The proposals were ostensibly made to address some rather spurious concerns, according to ILFA. Among these are:
  • That funding increases the total number of frivolous claims
  • That funding leads to more investor-state arbitration claims
  • Funding increases the number of cases in which states are unable to recover costs.
Granted, these would be legitimate concerns, if indeed there was evidence that supported them. By the Secretariat’s own admission—there is no data supporting the existence of these concerns. ILFA is made up of the 14 largest third-party funders in the world. Therefore, it makes sense to consult with industry professionals when suggesting new legislation that impacts the work they do. After a lengthy explanation of the wrongheadedness of the Working Group’s findings, ILFA reiterated its commitment to working with UNCITRAL’s Working Group to assuage its concerns by providing additional data. ILFA remains confident that the Working Group’s concerns about the industry can be addressed in a manner that does not impede access to justice.
Case Developments

Motion to Disclose Legal Funding Agreement Denied in Boeing Action

A motion to compel disclosure of a funding agreement was denied in a recent case accusing Southwest Airlines and Boeing of collusion to cover fatal aircraft defects. Damonie Earl et al v Boeing revolves around allegations that Southwest and Boeing colluded to mislead ticket buyers about 737 Max Jets—which were defective. Southeast Texas Record details that defendants asked to see all third-party legal funding agreements for all firms representing plaintiffs in this RICO case. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion, claiming that the request is ‘grasping at straws’ with no legitimate basis for concern. Still, there may be concern over the relationship between Pierce Bainbridge and its fraught relationship with Virage Capital. None of the other legal firms involved in the Boeing action have funding agreements in place. The motion was denied on August 2nd by US District Judge Amos Mazzant—who said the information requested was now moot since the attorney in question has withdrawn from the case.
Case Developments

Claims of Investment Losses Spark Investigation

Leading litigation funder Omni Bridgeway is currently investigating claims made by CMC Markets’ Crude Oil West Texas Intermediate Cash product. Investors are encouraged to register their interest in a potential class action relating to investment losses and damages. This is not book building, but rather a gauge of interest in the matter. Omni Bridgeway details that CMC Markets created a network to allow investors to speculate on the price of oil. The volatility in crude markets caused by COVID led to a sharp drop in crude oil prices. This caused CMC Markets to alter the URI for West Texas crude oil. These changes included automatic close-out positions, depending on price, and preventing investors from opening new positions in the CFD. Investors were understandably upset at these changes, and now claim they were misled, and that changing the URI was unfair. CMC Markets offered this product to customers in Australia, New Zealand, the US, UK, the EU, and Singapore. Now many are saying they suffered losses and damage. Those WTI Cash product investors registering interest should be aware that doing so is not an invitation to participate in a case. Offers for participation will come in the form of a Product Disclosure Statement.
Regulatory Issues

Should Legal Funders Be Required to See Cases to Completion?

Claimants were shocked and upset recently when a settlement ended a class action lawsuit against James Hardie—leaving potential claimants without any compensation. One such claimant, Leslie Wheatley, stated that she and other claimants believed they had a strong case. Allegedly defective cladding systems caused their homes to leak, necessitating significant and expensive repairs. Stuff NZ reports that claimants believe that they were wronged by Harbour Litigation Funding, which pulled its funding from the case near the halfway point of the 15-week trial. Wheatley explains that the homeowners then had no choice but to accept the settlement, which means the case ended without any award to claimants. Wheatley alleges that Harbour’s decision was fatal to the case, as there was no way homeowners could have raised the money needed to keep it going. The class-action case endured years of research and preparation before the trial, including expert witnesses. Wheatley claims that this should have given funders adequate time and information to properly vet the case. Once the case began, she said, funders have an obligation to see it through to the end. Despite Wheatley's objections, no law mandates that funders continue funding a case to completion. In most jurisdictions and according to the ILFA, third-party funders are not permitted to influence decision-making in the cases they fund. How then, can a funder be expected to maintain a case to completion, if that funder believes the claimant and/or their legal team isn't pursuing the most effective legal strategy? Other funders are speaking out on this issue. Phil Newland, co-director of LPF, stated that it would harm access to justice to prevent funders from pulling out of un-winnable cases. Requiring funders to stay with a losing case could upend access to funding in the long run.  It's likely this heated debate will continue for some time.
Case Developments

Class Action Against Mayne Pharma

In 2016, anti-trust proceedings were filed against Mayne Pharma, asserting that it conspired with other defendants to artificially inflate generic pharmaceutical prices and restrain trade. This led to a 10% price drop over several days of trading. Phi Finney McDonald explains that Mayne neglected to inform investors that it was in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Now, a shareholder class action is underway, with funding provided by Vannin Capital. The suit alleges that shareholders endured losses and damages as a result of Mayne’s failure to disclose relevant facts. Current and former shareholders who purchased Mayne shares between November 2014 and December 2016 are invited to register interest in the case.
Case Developments

Lloyds of London Class Action Seeks Additional Claimants

Attorneys for a class-action case filed against Lloyds of London are asking other affected businesses to join the action. The focus of the case involves business interruption insurance, and whether or not COVID-related closures should be covered. Jeweller Magazine reports that noted Australian funder Omni Bridgeway is financing the action. This means that there is no upfront cost to impacted parties who wish to sign on as potential claimants. Cody Opal Australia, the parent company of the National Opal Collection, has joined the action. Cody Opal’s claim on the policy was rejected in May of last year despite business losses of more than $3 million. The sticking point here is whether the losses happened because of events taking place within 20km of the business premises, rather than because of the pandemic on the whole.   A town hall-style webinar will be held on August 18th. Interested parties may access the meeting via the attorney’s website: Gordon Legal. One partner at Gordon Legal, Andrew Grech, stated that the insurers have wrongly denied claims, failing to support jewelry and gem merchants when they were at their most vulnerable. Representatives for Gordon Legal advise policyholders to start the normal claim process and seek out their own legal advice. Business owners are welcome to submit their policies to determine eligibility for the class action.
Case Developments

Of Course You Should Always Read the NDA Before Signing!

Sometimes an NDA feels so basic there doesn’t seem to be a need to read it. At the same time, not reading something before you sign is folly—unless you’re talking about iTunes terms and conditions. In a recent case, Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Ltd, a partner in a law firm admitted to not reading the NDA before signing. Not surprisingly, the judges were not amused. This oversight caused pointedly negative consequences for the law firm and the litigation funder. Omni Bridgeway details that the dispute in question involves Volkswagen and the company's emissions defeat device. Your Lawyers was one firm that focused on consumer claims against the German automaker, with an eye toward seeking a Group Litigation Order to pursue a collective action. Your Lawyers teamed up with Harcus Sinclair (a more experienced firm) to seek out funding and insurance. In April of 2016, Your Lawyers sent Harcus Sinclair a largely standard NDA. It contained a provision stating that Harcus Sinclair would not accept instructions for, or act on behalf of, another claimant group without permission from Your Lawyers. This provision would ostensibly last for six years. Essentially, Your Lawyers gave Harcus Sinclair work product, and wanted to ensure that they would not be excluded from the case, should Harcus Sinclair choose to move forward alone. Partnering with a more experienced firm would likely make the case more attractive to funders—but opened up Your Lawyers to risks they wanted to protect themselves against. By October 2016, Your Lawyers' fears became reality, when Harcus Sinclair began their own book building before seeking a GLO of their own. The dispute between the firms ultimately found its way to the Supreme Court. It determined that Your Lawyers should be protected by the NDA, though Harcus Sinclair could have attempted to argue that restraining them from the case could negatively impact claimants. In the end, Harcus Sinclair could not represent clients, and therefore not obtain third-party funding.
Fundraising

AxiaFunder Boasts 100% Success Rate on Completed Cases

Since January of 2019, UK-based AxiaFunder has secured nearly GBP 2 million in funds from investors. So far, the litigation funding platform has funded 13 cases, netting an impressive average investor return of 55%. Hedge Week reports that AxiaFunder has eight active cases at present, including its first international case in Barcelona. Other active cases include a shareholder action and a group claim against two retail banks. Co-founder and CEO Cormac Leech explains that one of the main attractions of litigation funding is its lack of correlation to larger economic conditions. Litigation is simply not impacted by outside economic growth the way that traditional investments are. AxiaFunder also uses ATE insurance to cover adverse costs where applicable. Funded attorneys often are paid in part by conditional fee agreements.
Case Developments Commercial

New Zealand Weather Tightness Case Settles for NZ $1.25 Million

This week, James Hardie Industries announced a settlement in a weather tightness class action heard in Auckland High Court—in the middle of a trial expected to last 17 weeks. James Hardie, a global producer of fiber cement and fiber gypsum, will receive NZ $1.25 million as part of the settlement. Yahoo! Finance details that Harbour Litigation Funding will pay James Hardie’s award, and neither party will make an admission of liability. This represents a final settlement for the ‘White litigation’ regarding Harditex cladding. However, two more claims remain—the Cridge litigation and the Waitakere litigation. Country Manager John Arneil stated that the outcome of the White litigation supports the stance that the allegations were lacking in merit. A ruling in the Cridge litigation is expected sometime this month. An Auckland High Court is not expected to hear the Waitakere litigation until the summer of 2023.