Trending Now

John Freund's Posts

3123 Articles
Commercial

RBG Holdings Adds Memery Crystal to its Menagerie

RBG Holdings is the parent company for a number of legal entities including legal firm Rosenblatt Limited, Convex Capital Limited, and LionFish Litigation Finance. Now, RBG has added boutique law firm, Memery Crystal, to its stable of businesses. Global Legal Post details that the sale will not impact management as both entities will maintain separate offices and their own management teams. Memery Crystal and Rosenblatt will comprise RBG’s legal services arm to the tune of 29 partners and 66 attorneys. CEO of Memery Crystal, Nick Davis, explains that the purchase will allow the firm to better serve clients by providing a wider range of services via cross-referrals. Staffers will also enjoy more opportunities to add to their skill sets. Subject to regulatory approval, the purchase will be paid in GBP 12 million in cash, and just over GBP 11 million in RBG shares, plus more cash payouts over the next year. The sale is similar to other notable mergers of late—including Kemp Little, bought by Deloitte, and boutique firm Paul Tweed, recently purchased by Gateley.
Commercial

How Legal Funders Help Victims of Investor Fraud

In the United Kingdom, investor fraud is a growing problem. According to the UK’s own national reporting, Action Fraud received more than 17,000 reports of investment fraud—to the tune of over GBP 650 million. So what’s the good news? The Litigation Finance industry can be instrumental in helping defrauded people receive remuneration through collective actions. Pinsent Masons details that the stats we see with regard to fraudulent investment schemes may be just the beginning—because the data collected comes from reported fraud. There may be thousands of investors who don’t realize they were defrauded, and still others who are aware but choose not to report for a variety of reasons—including embarrassment. The numbers surrounding investment fraud are staggering. The UK’s police think tank, the Police Foundation, estimates that over GBP 4 billion has been scammed from pensioners in 2018 alone. As the general public, via the media, becomes increasingly aware of widespread fraud, the government has stepped up its efforts to identify and contain it. Litigation funding is already playing a part in helping defrauded investors find justice. Sadly, defrauded investors are less likely to have the disposable income needed to invest in a legal team. England and Wales are considered strong jurisdictions for litigation funders and claimants due to factors including robust freezing orders and increased use of legal technology. Massive fraud cases with multiple plaintiffs can result in awards in the tens of millions. So it makes sense that funders and legal pros alike are turning their attention to collective actions for investment fraud. As funders step up to provide wronged parties the resources they need to seek justice, fraudsters may soon realize that fleecing average citizens will come with a price. Ultimately, group litigation in fraud cases promises to be a major growth area for third-party legal funders in the coming years.
Commercial

Examining Litigation Funding Models

Managing Director of Bench Walk Advisors, Adrian Chopin, makes it his business to dissect and quantify different aspects of the litigation funding market. Recently, Chopin examined the impact of operating costs by comparing two hypothetical cost structures used by funders. Dispute Resolution Blog details Chopin’s analysis as it focuses on hypothetical Funder 1 and Funder 2. F1 has high operating costs. Over a year, it deploys a total of $250 million into various single case investments. This winds up making $150 million in net profits, minus $100 million in annual operating costs—leaving the funder with a profit of $50 million. Presuming the funder wins 2/3 of all funded cases, it needs to charge just over two times the invested capital just to break even. Meanwhile, Funder 2 has lower operating costs and according to Chopin, only needs to charge 1.77 times the invested amount in order to cover costs—again, presuming a 2/3 win rate. Obviously, these numbers are simplified. Most firms don’t take on solely single-case investments, for example. But they do illustrate that when it comes to price, there are many factors that must be considered, and even the most careful planning can be upset by one negative outcome. Does it make sense to carry high operating costs? Some funders say yes—that the extra investment required to keep due diligence in-house nets better results and a higher percentage of wins than outsourcing. There’s no definitive answer to be found, since adequate statistics aren’t available to determine whether keeping vetting and due diligence in-house is worth the extra expense. The results a funder produces can snowball over time. A funder with a higher win rate will attract more client interest than a smaller firm with a lower win rate. More client applicants mean funders can be more discerning, leading to better case selection and more wins.
Announcements Commercial

Delta Capital Partners Management Announces New Hire and Promotions

Delta Capital Partners Management LLC, a global private equity firm specializing in litigation and legal finance, is pleased to announce a new senior executive hire and promotions within the firm. Todd Schneider has joined Delta as Chief Financial Officer and Chief Compliance Officer; and Gabriel Olearnik and Daniel Bond have been promoted to Director of Investor Relations and Director of Underwriting, respectively.

Todd Schneider Hired as CFO and CCO.

Mr. Schneider will oversee the implementation and management of all financial activities for Delta and also will work closely with Delta’s senior management and investment committee. Mr. Schneider has served as the Chief Financial Officer and Chief Compliance Officer of Shorehill Capital LLC, a private equity firm focused on investing in middle market industrial products, industrial services, and distribution businesses. Mr. Schneider also served as the Chief Financial Officer and Chief Compliance Officer of CHS Capital LLC, the precursor firm of Shorehill Capital. Throughout their histories, CHS Capital and Shorehill Capital made investments in more than 400 businesses and invested over $3 billion of capital. Prior to CHS Capital, Mr. Schneider was the Chief Financial Officer of Conversus Asset Management, the asset manager for Conversus Capital L.P., formerly the world’s largest publicly traded private equity fund of funds designed to provide investors liquidity in a historically illiquid asset class. Mr. Schneider has also held positions as a Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer of FBOP Corporation, as well as a senior manager at KPMG, where Mr. Schneider began his professional career.

Christopher DeLise, Delta’s Founder, CEO and CO-CIO, stated, “Delta is pleased to have Todd join our team as Chief Financial Officer and Chief Compliance Officer. Todd’s extensive background as a senior financial professional and organizational leader, knowledge of various asset classes, and intimate familiarity with all aspects of operating, financing, and successfully scaling private equity firms, will enable Delta to continue its remarkable growth and position the firm to be a funder of choice for sophisticated claimants and respondents across the globe.”

Gabriel Oleanrik Promoted to Managing Director and Director of Investor Relations.

Mr. Olearnik is currently a Managing Director overseeing international deal origination, operations, and strategic alliances and ventures for Delta. Now, Mr. Olearnik also will serve as Director of Investor Relations, where he will be responsible for overseeing global investor relations for Delta. Prior to joining Delta, Mr. Olearnik was the General Counsel of a major private equity firm in London and a Partner and Chair of the Private Equity Practice Group at Kochanski & Partners, a leading independent European law firm. Prior to those roles, Mr. Olearnik was a corporate finance attorney at Clifford Chance, Mayer Brown and at Dentons.

DeLise noted, “Gabriel has done a tremendous job representing Delta as a litigation funder throughout Europe. Gabriel’s experience with Delta and many successes since joining the firm, his prior experience as the General Counsel of a private equity firm, and his intimate knowledge and familiarity with all legal and operational facets of private investment funds, makes him the perfect choice to serve as Delta’s Director of Investor Relations. In that role, Gabriel will materially contribute to the firm’s growth plans by expanding and enhancing Delta’s relationships with its existing investors.”

Daniel Bond Promoted to Managing Director and Director of Underwriting.

Mr. Bond is currently a Managing Director for Delta, where he oversees intake, evaluation, due diligence, and monitoring efforts in connection with new equity investment opportunities. Now, Mr. Bond also will also serve as Director of Underwriting, where he will be responsible for overseeing all facets of litigation and arbitration underwriting for Delta across all of its product and service offerings worldwide, including equity and credit solutions for plaintiffs and defendants. Prior to joining Delta, Mr. Bond was a Partner at Kirkland Ellis and had an over-10-year law firm career with experience in the conduct, management, and planning of commercial litigation and dispute resolution. Mr. Bond’s experience encompasses a range of intellectual property and complex civil litigation matters and he has successfully litigated numerous high-profile lawsuits for blue chip clients in a variety of fields.

DeLise remarked, “Daniel’s tremendous success managing litigation and arbitration underwriting for Delta’s equity-oriented investments makes him the ideal choice to serve as worldwide Director of Underwriting across all of Delta’s product and services offerings as Delta continues to expand its platform to include litigation finance solutions for defendants, municipalities and governments; managed solutions for businesses; and credit-based products.  With these new offerings all coming online within the next several weeks, and with Daniel at the helm of our underwriting process, Delta expects to be able to significantly increase deal capacity while diminishing throughput time.”

About Delta

Delta Capital Partners Management LLC is a global private equity firm specializing in litigation and legal finance, judgment enforcement, asset recovery, and related strategies. Delta provides capital and related services to individuals, businesses, private investment funds, law firms and other professional service firms across the world that seek to hedge their financial exposure, reduce legal spending, enhance the probability of a successful and timely resolution of claims, and maximize the effectiveness of their core businesses.

Commercial

Insights from Emily Tillett: VP at Burford Capital

Emily Tillett is a Vice President at Burford Capital and leads investment activity and operations in Hong Kong. She recently sat down to answer questions about her career trajectory and the litigation funding industry. Burford Capital details that Tillett joined Burford after more than ten years in private practice, where she handled contentious insolvencies and cross-border litigation among other specialties. The litigation finance market in Hong Kong is still developing, and Tillett finds herself in a unique position to educate the public about the practice and its benefits. Hong Kong’s legal system is unique in that it maintains its own common law jurisdiction, apart from the Chinese government. Hong Kong is friendly toward arbitration and is well-situated both economically and geographically for cross-border litigation. The financial upheaval brought about by COVID is likely to lead to a rise in demand for claim monetization as companies struggle to stretch operating funds. Meanwhile, impending changes in laws surrounding success fees for lawyers have people talking. Some say the law should be amended to allow outcome-related fee agreements—which would enable firms to take on more risky cases, as they share costs and risks with third-party funders. How does one promote legal funding in areas where it’s not commonly in use? The first step is educating the legal and business communities about the practice and its inherent benefits. While Hong Kong lawyers may have a passing familiarity with litigation funding, many have not made use of it themselves. Opportunities for industry growth abound in Hong Kong. It’s expected that as lawyers and businesses come to understand the value and versatility of legal funding, the practice will flourish in Hong Kong, as it has in the rest of the world.
Commercial

No More Patent Reviews Means Spike in Lawsuits Against Banks

Until last September, the US Patent and Trademark Office ran a review program when financial services companies are accused of infringing patents. The program was developed to adjudicate IP violation cases in less time and with more cost-effective conditions. That program has since expired—exposing banks and other financial service providers to a greater danger of lawsuits. As Bloomberg Law explains, almost three times the typical average for patent lawsuits have been filed against banks in recent months. This includes Bank of America Corp, Bank NA, and JPMorgan Chase among others. Many banks, including the National Retail Federation, believe the program should be reinstated. Legislators seem in no hurry to do so, however. Meanwhile, the US engineer group IEEE-USA is fighting the renewal of the program, saying it has outlived its usefulness. Since August, nearly 100 suits have been filed against large companies or banks. This includes retail giant Walmart—sued for infringing multiple patents for its mobile payment app. Healthie, a telehealth app, was sued over its internet billing app. Software company ShopKeep had been sued over a patent involving secure customer transactions. Interestingly, what has been bad news for banks is good news for litigation funders. When the review program was live, portfolios of patent cases appeared less profitable to funders—which may have contributed to the dearth of patent litigation while the program was in place. The current influx in new cases should keep funders busy for a while. Overall, patent litigation increased 11% in 2020. This rise is likely to continue, and may be fueled by companies selling off patents amid financial turmoil. One study from Richardson Oliver Law Group showed a huge spike in patents being bought by non-practicing entities. That’s a trend likely to inspire even more litigation in what some are referring to as a ‘feeding frenzy.’
Commercial

IP Law Firm Faces Claim of ‘Secret Commissions’

A collective action has been filed against IP law firm Marks & Clerk. The suit alleges that the firm overcharged multiple small businesses—possibly thousands—by engaging in a scheme with CPA Global, an IP management firm. Legal Futures reports that the action is being brought by CRL, Commission Recovery Ltd. This company was founded by Peter Rouse, a former lawyer and IP specialist with the intent to help wronged businesses seeking compensation and justice. The case is being funded by a third-party legal funder whose identity has not been disclosed, and is led by Signature Litigation. The case alleges decades of overcharging businesses, and of referring clients to CPA global in exchange for commissions clients were unaware of. Existing evidence appears to suggest that more than 20% of what clients paid were related to CPA Global, and that Marks & Clerk may have made more than GBP 50 million during the time in which they ran the scheme. CRL asserts that the scheme began around 1969, when various partners from a handful of professional service companies formed a new company that eventually became CPA Global. In time, they allegedly began a system of clandestine commissions funded by clients. While the CRL remains certain that the parties concealed their scheme and commissions from clients, Marks & Clerk as well as CPA Global deny wrongdoing and plan to defend themselves vigorously.
Announcements Commercial

Launching of new specialist legal finance investment firm, Orington Capital

Legal finance investment professional, Wei-Khing Seow, today launched Orington Capital (“Orington”), a specialist legal finance investment firm with globally first attributes. 
Making Orington distinctively different from traditional litigation funders is the ability to invest holistically in the sector globally across the entire capital and investment structure, both in public and private markets. This provides the opportunity to back industry participants with bespoke capital solutions. The launch of the new firm combines Wei-Khing’s deep expertise in legal finance, having been a successful investor in the asset class over the last 6 years. His 20 years of experience in global equities,REITs, private credit, managed funds and parts of the derivative markets provides significant broader investment knowledge. This includes assisting in the portfolio management of an A$1.5bn global investment fund. In addition, Wei-Khing will draw from his broad commercial acumen developed as an executive in commerce and as a management consultant to analyse the commerciality of individual cases and funders’ business models. Commenting on the formation of Orington, Mr Seow said: “I am extremely pleased to be bringing a unique offering to market that provides smart and dedicated capital to this rapidly growing and exciting asset class. Orington has the ability to invest holistically and unconstrained across the entire sector, partnering with litigation funders by co-investing in cases and in their capital structure. In addition, we provide law firms, which services clients on contingent basis, working capital.”  Mr Seow said the sector is growing quickly and as it is a capital intense industry, participants like Orington will aid the maturity and profile of the industry. “Orington’s underlying goal is to back meritorious claims, either directly or indirectly. Additionally, the firm will operate as a social enterprise with a strong and positive environmental, societal, governance(ESG) philosophy. Our investments aid access to justice, enforce rule of law and provide both a deterrent, as well as outcomes to environmental and societal damages.” Mr Seow said. Lastly, Orington is investigating ways to bring its intellectual property through a product offering to market for external investors to participate.
About Orington Capital
 Orington Capital (Orington) is an Australian private investment firm established in 2021 specialising in the global legal finance industry. The firm participates as a dedicated capital provider to litigation funders and law firms working on contingent cases. Uniquely, Orington invests holistically and unconstrained across the entire capital and investment structure in both public and private markets. Orington provides the most comprehensive, dedicated and bespoke capital solutions. Visit orington.com for further details. About Wei-Khing Seow Wei-Khing Seow (Managing Director & Portfolio Manager), has 20-years of experience in global equities,REITs, private credit, managed funds and parts of the derivative markets. Additionally he has established a successful 6-year track record in the legal finance industry. Wei-Khing combines deep legal finance knowledge with unique capability to access, create and execute opportunities across the entire capital and investment structure in both private and public markets. Wei-Khing's career spans assisting the portfolio management of A$1.5bn global fund, executive roles in multi-national companies, as well as management consulting. He has a strong philosophy in allocating capital and living in a sustainable manner, with his goal of leaving this planet, from all angles of ESG, in a better position than when he entered. Orington is a key contributor to him reaching his goal.
Consumer Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Special Digital Event: “Investor Insights into Consumer Legal Funding”

This past Tuesday, Litigation Finance Journal hosted a special digital event, "Investor Insights into Consumer Legal Funding." The panel discussion featured a trio of institutional investors, including Ben Kaplan (BK), co-founder of C9 Partners, Don Plotsky (DP), co-founder of Uinta Investments, and Michael Morris (MM), Managing Director of Northleaf Capital. Dan Avnir (DA), Managing Director of Bryant Park Capital moderated the discussion.  The panel covered a wide range of ground on Consumer Legal Funding as an asset class. Below are some key takeaways from the event:             DA: What types of investments do you target across the legal funding marketplace? BK: We target investments in operating companies. Operating companies with direct or indirect exposure to underlying consumer litigation assets which can include funded assets, with medical liens being the core focus. DP: We’re looking to basically get investment exposure to the asset—the way we do it is typically in some sort of structured transaction where we’re providing liquidity to the funding company. We’re definitely not plaintiff-facing...we’ll also buy cases directly and partner with funding companies that might be too large for their balance sheets. MM: We’re about a 15 billion dollar AUM, operating a range of strategies across the credit to equity continuum to get exposure to underlying assets. Generally, we’re looking to deploy $25-200 million or so, in some sort of partnership form with the funder.  DA: What can you say about your experience with collections these days? Have there been any variants, as compared to pre-COVID levels? BK: Interesting questions, pre-COVID versus post-COVID. Again, what I’m sharing is from the viewpoint of medical liens where there’s probably more volatility in and around that asset class depending on geography and a myriad of other circumstances—the nature of the treatment whether it’s surgery or MRI. To summarize, when COVID hit, there was actually, we experienced across a few different areas, a massive acceleration. At the outset of COVID, the takeaway is that there was an acceleration of collections. What I would say is that COVID has advanced...what we’re starting to see now is a backlog of cases attributable to court closures and other issues, that I would say at the beginning of 2021 has started to slow down collections a bit. Insurance companies have taken more of an aggressive posture with respect to litigation and they’re fighting those a little bit more aggressively. So I think we’ve seen an acceleration early on in COVID, and a bit of a slowdown in early 2021. DA: Don, what are you seeing out there from the funders you’ve been partnering with? Are trials in most states delayed? DP: In many cases, if not most typically, there’s some sort of settlement involved, rather than necessarily a trial verdict. But we’ve definitely noted an extension of maturity of the assets in the portfolio. Statistically, we would look at an 18-month duration to a three-year final type of profile on the assets that we buy, and we’re seeing things really creep out there beyond three years. Some of the assets that we own, we expected to have gotten greater cash flows than we received so far. We hear from the funding companies that business has definitely slowed down 20 or 30%, and we’re noting the extension of the portfolio. That certainly seems to be COVID-related. DA: What are your current return expectations across these assets that you’re investing in? Have the results lived up to the expectations you had? MM: There are two different lenses through which to look at it. I think in the space overall, in the two primary areas of the US...I do think over the last several years going back even before COVID, you seen some return compression at the asset level. As more money has come into the space, the search for yield that you can’t help but read about, it has made its way into the space a bit. DA: Are you seeing origination levels still down across the board as compared to pre-COVID levels, or are we beginning to see an uptick as of late? DP: Again, we’re not plaintiff-facing, so we don’t have people coming through the door. What we do see is fairly steady activity from the funding companies we deal with. What I’ll point out, is that more so than the actual volume of cases, it’s the condition of the financial markets surrounding this asset that are really driving supply. DA: What is the typical ROI target for a facility to a pre-settlement funding company? What information would you look to review in consideration of a facility? DP: From an investment perspective, we’re looking for a low-to-mid teen preferred rate of return...so in terms of total return on investment, we would hope to get perhaps slightly higher than that. When you look at all the components of the net return to investors, you also have to take into account that there are enormous cash flows here. We look to deliver 10-12% net annual return to our investors, and after that, 15% IRR. MM: For us, we’re sort of looking for kind of the best run cleanest plain vanilla senior debt, to make high single digits, and go up from there. DA: On pre-settlement funding side, if a group starting an origination platform today, what would you say would be the biggest challenges and opportunities? BK: I think the greatest opportunity is probably that there exists enough people who have been involved with businesses that have become institutional at this point, that there’s some good talent out there in terms of people who really know how to run a business and manage balance sheets and understand the industry. I think it’s an opportunity as the industry has grown...there’s better human capital out there.
Consumer

Law Finance Raises $20 Million in Capital

Law Finance is currently raising capital for growth and debt restructuring. This includes a $3 million debt facility and a $17.2 million placement. Placement shares were sold at 1.3 cents each—a discount of almost 40%. Financial Review details that the lead managers on the deal, MST Financial and Conrad Capital Investments, were seeking bids into the placement. Law Finance has stated its intention to convert existing corporate debt to equity at 3.7 cents per share—reducing corporate debt by 92%.
Commercial

Funders Seize on Bankruptcies for Big Returns

Business bankruptcy filings were up 29% in 2020 from the previous year. These numbers dipped slightly in 2021 thanks to government stimulus measures like PPP. However, as financial help from the government winds down—financial experts anticipate bankruptcy filings to spike again. Business Insider explains that bankruptcies are an opportunity for litigation funders, who profit by investing in recoveries and receive a portion of recovered assets. Last year, Burford Capital, the largest funding firm, invested nearly $100 million in bankruptcy and insolvency cases—up from $83 million the previous year. Similarly, LexShares, Legalist, and others, report more requests for funding than in previous years. Consider that a company in financial distress may be unable to pursue its most valuable assets—pending litigation claims. By providing businesses the funds needed to pursue valid claims, opportunities for returns increase for the business and funders. Rather than forgoing the case or accepting a small settlement, businesses can hire a quality legal team and pursue claims with vigor. Litigation funders are poised for a spike in bankruptcy filings and litigation as financial markets settle into a new normal. Some firms, like Legalist, are preparing to provide DIP loans to small businesses. These low-risk bankruptcy loans are typically not available to the small businesses Legalist serves. No doubt, litigation funding is here to stay. The pandemic and ensuing financial upheaval have prompted the conditions that enable this practice to achieve relevance on a global scale.
Commercial

What is Driving Social Inflation?

What exactly is social inflation? In the insurance context, it refers to progressively larger losses to insurers in the form of massive awards from juries. VerdictSearch data shows a 300%+ increase in verdicts in excess of $20 million compared to ten years ago. In the US alone, 79 class action settlements totaled an astonishing $2.3 billion last year. Social inflation is definitely occurring. But what’s causing it? NU Property Casualty 360 suggests that there is a combination of factors influencing social inflation. Generally speaking, the public has a mistrust of large corporations, and is more likely to side with plaintiffs against those they may see as ‘fat cats.’ Plaintiff counsel has become more sophisticated in recent years, employing psychologists and other jury consultants to encourage the likelihood of larger awards. Changes in jury pools are also cited as a factor. As the mindsets and perspectives of jurors change, so too do attitudes inside a jury room. Litigation Finance is another facet of the changing legal landscape. Given legal funding’s demonstrated capacity to increase access to justice and create a more level playing field in the courtroom, its expansion has been welcomed around the world. The practice has led to more inclusive theories of liability, weakening exclusions to existing policies, and an increased focus on social justice—and hence, to larger awards for plaintiffs. While it’s not surprising that some insurers and even governments are uncomfortable with people of average means suddenly having more power to fight injustice, it’s a net gain for society. Some sectors saw a bigger impact on verdicts than others. Industries most impacted include tech and biotech, financial services, and manufacturing.
Commercial

Legal Funding Specialist Joins SSB Group

SSB Group, the parent company to SSB Law, is launching a new funding division. Its aim is to manage legal funding for clients and grow outreach between funders, insurers, and workers. Insider Media Limited explains that Rick Gregory has been appointed as managing director of the new division: SSB Funding. Gregory has worked with PM Law and Lexelle among others, and boasts more than 26 years in legal funding. SSB Group was founded in 2007 and currently has over 150 employees. Jeremy Brooke, co-founder of SSB Group, stated that 2021 will be a time of vital growth for SSB. Gregory is a respected industry expert who is sure to create great new opportunities for us.
Announcements Consumer

Counsel Financial Continues Business of Law Sponsorship at Mass Torts Made Perfect

Counsel Financial will continue its long-standing commitment as the headline sponsor "Business of Law" program during the Mass Torts Made Perfect™ Virtual Vegas seminar (MTMP) this week. The three-day virtual conference will offer continuing education, informative sessions on the latest litigations from leading attorneys and networking opportunities. The conference agenda is tailored to plaintiffs' attorneys focused on mass tort litigation and those looking to enter the practice area or build upon their existing case portfolio. MTMP hosts prominent speakers to share their insight on emerging litigations, adding to and diversifying caseload, lien resolution, financing and advertising. With in-person events still largely stalled, MTMP's virtual platform provides for networking between trial lawyers from across the nation, as well as with vendors and legal service providers.

Counsel Financial will present during the Business of Law track, outlining creative financial solutions available to law firms. Navigating the options in today's marketplace can be confusing—the Company will share concrete examples of actual financings to help provide clarity on what is available to contingent-fee firms. In addition, members of the Counsel Financial team will participate in two panel discussions during the seminar's Nuts & Bolts and Class Actions programs. President & CEO, Paul Cody, hosts class action leaders Greg Coleman, Esq. and Dan Bryson, Esq. of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman who will discuss some of the top class actions slated to make significant progress in 2021, legal issues to be aware of and the impact of COVID-19 on class action litigation.

Counsel Financial provides innovative financing solutions that are tailored to meet the unique challenges faced by plaintiffs' attorneys, including those looking to add a mass tort component to their portfolio or firms who are heavily involved in mass tort litigation. With enhanced flexibility and better terms, it can now meet any law firm need with financing options from $500,000 to $100 million+. The attorneys and professionals on staff work with each individual law firm client to ensure the financing is customized to address each specific firm's situation. About Counsel Financial Counsel Financial is the largest provider of working capital lines of credit and other funding exclusively to plaintiffs' attorneys in the litigation finance industry, having loaned almost $2.0 billion to law firms since inception. Counsel Financial sets the standard for innovation and flexibility in its loan and funding offerings, structuring terms that are conducive to the unique demands of contingency-fee practices. Leveraging 200+ years of internal legal experience, Counsel Financial has financed the growth of firms in every area of plaintiffs' litigation, including personal injury, mass torts, class action, environmental and labor and employment. The company is exclusively endorsed by multiple national and state trial organizations, including the American Association for Justice and The National Trial Lawyers.
Commercial

Third-Party Legal Funding in the Construction Industry

Litigation funding has dramatically increased its reach in the last few years. Last year, one global construction company entered into a portfolio funding arrangement that covered multiple jurisdictions—including some that were not privy to litigation funding before. As the Driver Trett Digest points out, construction disputes grow in number and scope as insolvencies rise and supply chains are interrupted. Even before COVID, multiple major contractors shuttered. Now that profit margins are thinner than ever, schedules aren’t being met, and delays and late payments abound—the construction industry seems well-suited for legal funding. Middle Eastern companies in particular are learning the value of third-party legal funding. Monetization of judgment or incomplete cases can be helpful to struggling firms who want to reduce risk while still pursuing meritorious litigation. Portfolio funding may work better for construction businesses, as it mitigates risk and enables cases which might be ineligible for funding on their own, to be pursued. Singapore and Hong Kong are among those with newly adopted laws that permit third-party funding—joining the UK, Australia, and the US in embracing the practice. UAE has made similar strides in recent years, after introducing funding-friendly laws in 2018. This has impacted insolvencies in particular. As the number of big-ticket construction disputes in the Middle East rises, the industry will no doubt find new ways to meet the needs of clients. Single case funding is unlikely to fall out of favor, even as more and more businesses make use of portfolio funding as an option for monetization of legal departments. Many different types of clients are now making use of litigation funding that wouldn’t have just a few years ago.
Commercial

Worldwide Asset Freeze May Set Precedent

A recent ruling made by the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida is getting significant attention. The decision to enforce an ex-party order freezing assets represents the first worldwide asset-freeze in a US court. Burford Capital explains that in Gorsoan Ltd v Bullock 2020, the court sided with the plaintiff, targeting a $7 million condo. The ruling is good news for those hoping Florida courts will allow them to pursue foreign debtors. It also represents a change in the state’s position on freezing assets. In the US, courts follow a principle that creditors and debtors share equal rights under the law. Asset-freeze orders are seen as contrary to this and have therefore rarely been used in the US. A 1999 case, Grupo Mexicano de Desarollo SA v Alliance Bond Fund Inc 1999, saw an asset-freeze order overturned by SCOTUS. The Supreme Court held that a freeze order would interfere with the defendant’s right to use their own property, shifting the balance of power to the plaintiff. Typically, US courts follow SCOTUS’s example on this topic—until now. The impact of the ruling in Gorsoan v Bullock is significant. With regard to the ruling, the court concluded that according to public policy, it could enforce an order issued by an impartial court—even a foreign court—so long as it had appropriate jurisdiction. We can’t know yet whether other states will follow Florida’s example, but this is definitely a development worth keeping an eye on.
Consumer

Donation by Legal Funders Raises Questions

The New York State Trial Lawyers Association received a donation that has people talking. US Claims, a litigation funder based in Florida, gave $100,000 in a move some speculate is meant to influence government officials seeking to increase regulation. Legal Newsline details that legal funding is often treated with suspicion, particularly by those who haven’t used it. As of now, New York regulations on funding are minimal, though there is a bill in committee that would limit the finance charges funders could impose. Some accuse the legal funding industry of high-interest rates and fees, incomplete disclosure, and even collusion with lawyers. Meanwhile, funders maintain that the fees they charge are commensurate with the risk they take when funding cases on a non-recourse basis. US Claims is being accused of attempting to sway regulators. That charge seems dubious, based on the relatively small figure (we're not talking millions here), as well as the fact that funding isn't under severe threat in New York, so it's hard to imagine why a funder would go to such extreme measures. That said, the accusation alone against US Claims shows how vigilant the anti-funding community is.
Commercial

Miner Dispute Against Tanzanian Government to be Heard at Tribunal

Next week, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes will hear an international claim filed against the government of Tanzania. The East African explains that the suit, brought by Australian company Indiana Resources Ltd, represents the interests of shareholders who invested in Ntaka Nickel Holdings LTD and Nachingwea UK Ltd. The claim could be worth close to $100 million. Litigation Capital Management is funding the case to the tune of $4.6 million. LCM is an AIM-listed company on the London Stock Exchange. Additionally, Montero Mining & Exploration, and Winshear Gold Corporation, have separately secured legal funding in order to pursue litigation against the Tanzanian government for unlawfully seizing multiple rare earth projects.
Commercial

Business Interruption Insurance Claims—One Solution

Since the SCOTUS decision in FCA v Arch Insurance et al, Manolete has been developing new ways to approach making claims for businesses in the midst of insolvency. In many instances, it’s possible to get assistance in the form of immediate cash payments that leave room for a sizable share of recovered assets, and protection from costs. Manolete is an industry leader in financing insolvency claims, and an upcoming leader in business interruption claims. Recently, Manolete joined forces with Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP to pursue viable insurance claims. Depending on specific wording, SCOTUS has made clarifications on what insurers should cover—and includes interruptions caused by “notifiable disease” that would include COVID, and when the government or other public authority prohibits the use of the business premises. Obviously, that would mean that COVID-related business closures should be covered. It also means that partial closures should be covered as well as complete ones. Those who believe they may have an insurance claim that could impact insolvency should first review their insurance contract with a broker. If there is a claim, the next step would be contacting a litigation funder like Manolete, who can advise business owners on the best course of action.
Announcements Commercial

Global litigation funder Omni Bridgeway offers funding to Folli Follie Bondholders

To current and past holders of the CHF 150 million 3.25% 2017-2021 bonds Issued by FF Group Finance Luxembourg II SA Guaranteed by Folli Follie ISIN CH0385518052. This offer for litigation funding does not purport to be complete and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the terms of a Claims Purchase Agreement, a Claims Assignment Agreement and a Litigation Funding Agreement. This letter summarises the principal terms on which Omni Bridgeway is prepared to offer a litigation funding arrangement to holders of the CHF 150 million 3.25% 2017 2021 (ISIN CH0385518052) bonds issued by FF Group Finance Luxembourg II SA and guaranteed by Folli Follie Commercial Manufacturing and Technical S.A. (ISIN CH0385518052) (the "Bondholder(s)" and the "Folli Follie Bonds”, respectively). Alcimos Limited ("Alcimos") shall be cooperating with Omni Bridgeway in its efforts to assemble a group of claimants in relation to the proposed litigation funding arrangement. Omni Bridgeway is an established, global litigation funder which already has a litigation funding arrangement in place with a group of Bondholders holding Folli Follie Bonds with a face value in excess of CHF 23 million for the purposes of bringing an action before the Swiss courts against UBS AG (the "Defendant") on the basis of their role as bookrunners for the offering of the Folli Follie Bonds. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (Schweiz) GmbH (QE) has been engaged by the group to litigate the claims based on prospectus liability. Omni Bridgeway and Alcimos are inviting current and past Bondholders who are not subscribed to the existing group action, to sign-up to the subsequent group action on or before 15 May 2021. In order for Bondholders to be eligible to participate in the group action, subject to this offer, they must have purchased the Folli Follie Bonds prior to 2 May 2018. Omni Bridgeway is committed to bearing the costs associated with the litigation of the claims, on a non-recourse basis on the terms of a Litigation Funding Agreement and will not be entitled to any payment (nor to reimbursement of its funded costs) unless the litigation strategy results in a recovery. No payments to Omni Bridgeway can ever be more than the ultimate recovery. Furthermore, Omni Bridgeway will be responsible for (court) fees and/or costs the Defendant may incur in the litigation process should the case be lost and the claimants be ordered to pay adverse costs. Interested current or past Bondholders will assign their claims to CH0385518052 - Bonds Claims Enforcement GmbH, an entity which has been set-up to facilitate the efficient management of the litigation process. As such, after subscribing to the group action, it is expected that no active involvement in the litigation will be required from the Bondholders.
Commercial

The Future of Litigation Funding: Episode 5, Part 2

Episode 5, part 2 of the Turnaround Time podcast features the rest of the panel discussion on what we can expect to see in Litigation Funding trends (our coverage of episode 1 can be found here). David Prager of Duff and Phelps moderates a panel including Tatiana Markel of BakerHostetler, Kenneth Epstein of Omni Bridgeway, and Howard Brownstein of The Brownstein Corporation. Topics include transparency and disclosure in bankruptcy cases that utilize litigation funding. Below are some key takeaways from the discussion:   DP: Howard, can you talk us through a real world example of litigation funding in a bankruptcy context? And how that led to the dynamics we see today? HB: In the Fastship case, we used bankruptcy as a tool to enable litigation. Fastship was a company that had patents advertising they could build a huge cargo vessel that would cross the Atlantic in three days. So they raised money to promote the company. The ships themselves would cost about a billion dollars for a small fleet. The money they raised got used up before they could raise financing to build ships. They came to our firm and said ‘what do we do, we’re running out of money,’ and didn’t see any hope of revenue. We did an orderly wind down of the company, to avoid personal liability for the directors. Then they discovered someone had built three ships, and they were sure they infringed on the patents. But there was no money to pursue a case. I found a law firm that liked the case. They would take it on a contingency basis, they wouldn’t put up money for experts and such—back in 2012 before litigation funding. We ended up getting a DIP loan from the party funding the litigation (debtor-in-possession financing to keep a business in bankruptcy operating)...we were out of bankruptcy in a few months. It was a totally novel use of Chapter 11. As the liquidating trustee, I filed suit in federal court, because these were Navy ships. When you sue the government, they don’t settle. The case took forever. Fast forward to 2017. We won the case. The government appealed and we won there. We’ve been paid the judgement, but are still negotiating fees for costs. Not only had there been misuse of patents, but also an alleged misappropriation of trade secrets. DP: Is there a nexus between litigation funding and bankruptcy? Why haven’t we seen much pure litigation funding in bankruptcy cases? KE: There are a number of reasons why we haven’t seen that en masse yet. The ideal situation for litigation funding on the front end of the case is one in which claims against third parties are outside relative the other assets in the case. There will be increased use of litigation funding either on the front end or the back end when the trust gets set up. It’s a matter of finding the right case, and people haven’t been very aware of (litigation funding) and how it’s used. That’s part of what I do—educating the public on what funding can do, and to consider it when there’s a financial need. DP: It seems unprecedented to take a contingency bankruptcy case. Is that an opening for litigation funding? TM: That’s not really the type of work that we do. We do use litigation funding at the debtor level. That’s something I do in the international asset recovery field. The targets of our asset recovery are often offshore, and are shell companies, and you have to dig through various levels of beneficial ownership before you get to the right people. What we do in that context is, when that issue comes up, we use involuntary bankruptcy, as we, the debtor, could be the largest creditor of one of these offshores—we’d put it into involuntary bankruptcy. That means court supervision and appointment of a liquidator, which has to be funded to prosecute the claims. DP: Everyone in the industry seems to have their own proprietary structure, how do you think about that in the ‘in court’ part of bankruptcy, where disclosure is required? How will that impact pricing and competition? HB: There’s a transparency and disclosure that’s undeniable. If funders want to play in this space, they’re going to have to get comfortable with that dynamic. We’re happy to disclose material to firms, though that will get some scrutiny from shareholders. KE: There’s a necessary transparency that comes with all of this—and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Many funders will embrace that, but it has to be commensurate to the risk. If a loan has recourse, you really can’t charge non-recourse rates. I’m not suggesting that’s going on—but judges are reacting to risk. Pricing needs to reflect the risk.
Commercial

Burford Capital Limited: Takeaways from the 2020 Annual Report

Burford Capital, the largest litigation finance firm in the world, released its 2020 annual report recently. Incorporated in 2009, Burford trades on the London Stock Exchange's AIM, as well as the NYSE. It counts 60 full-time lawyers among its 133 full-time staff. Burford boasts a total portfolio of $4.5 billion, including balance sheet assets, strategic capital, and private funds. Seeking Alpha shares cautiously optimistic insights on Burford’s numbers. Burford currently has $2.7 billion in private funds under management. This includes funds currently invested, and is split into the Strategic Value Fund ($500 million), Burford Opportunity Fund ($300 million), and Burford Alternative Income Fund ($300 million). Most of the current investments Burford makes are in Litigation Finance in European markets. Exceptions include an evergreen investment in American markets and some post-settlement asset deployment. Moving forward, it’s believed that COVID-related litigation will lead to increased funding activity in the months and years ahead. Burford’s addressable market is too large and varied to pin down. Globally, $860 billion is spent on legal fees—nearly half of that in the United States alone. By cost, Burford has achieved positive outcomes in 84% of its funding deployments. Eight Burford-funded cases which were realized last year produced ROICs of 199% or more. This suggests that Burford relies on big-ticket cases as well as profitable settlements as a core part of its earnings strategy. To date, Burford has deployed $831 million and recovered more than $1.5 billion. This, combined with a conservative debt structure, leave Burford well-positioned for further investments in the coming year. Some even speculate that the Muddy Waters attack has strengthened Burford’s reputation in the community, and its commitment to transparency. With Burford co-founders Chris Bogart and Jonathan Molot recently purchasing millions in shares, it's obvious the company execs believe Burford's success will continue, and that will eventually translate into share price appreciation. 
Announcements Consumer

Tribeca Capital Group Provides Litigation Loans To Qui Tam Whistleblower Claimants

Tribeca Capital Group, LLC, one of the nation's leading litigation loan companies, has announced a drive to help support the financial needs of whistleblowers who bring actions to expose fraudulent corporate activities and other wrongdoing. Tribeca Capital Group offers help in the form of commercial litigation loans to claimants with whistleblower actions. Tribeca is one of the few litigation loan companies in the United States to offer advances to plaintiffs in what are called qui tam cases, a special type of commercial whistleblower litigation brought under the False Claims Act against a company that has defrauded or otherwise wrongfully made a claim against the federal government. Many states have also enacted their own false claims statutes. In general, qui tam and other whistleblower actions are designed to protect the integrity of government revenue and procurement systems by allowing an individual with specific knowledge of wrongdoing to bring a suit on behalf of the government and claim a reward, usually a percentage of what the government recovers. A case filed under the False Claims Act can result in a whistleblower reward of 15 to 25 percent. Candice Payrovi, Chief Operating Officer of Tribeca Capital Group, LLC described the impetus for some common qui tam cases. "The highest percentage of cases brought by qui tam claimants involve health care and health care-adjacent services, particularly overbilling by unscrupulous Medicare and Medicaid providers. Coronavirus suits are also gaining steam. Companies that procure and supply the government with goods are frequent targets of whistleblower suits, as are defense contractors. Consider the infamous $640 toilet seat and $435 hammer." Payrovi explained why her company is eager to work with whistleblower claimants. "Qui tam and suits under the False Claims Act" are particularly challenging because they are by definition high dollar matters, and much is at stake. The people who bring these cases are protected by law against retaliation in employment, but many are wrongfully forced out of what are often lucrative jobs, and it could be some time before their matters are resolved." Because qui tam and False Claims actions do not follow the traditional litigation model, many brave souls who bring these cases do not realize that they could qualify for a litigation loan from Tribeca. Rewards in a qui tam matter can be substantial, but resolution of complex cases can take months or even years. A litigation loan from Tribeca can help whistleblowers survive the financial stress that often accompanies these cases. Donadio also emphasized that whistleblowers are protected by a guarantee that eliminates their personal liability for repayment if for some reason the case results in no reward. If you have filed a whistleblower action and would like to explore whether you qualify for a litigation loan on your award, contact Candice Payrovi, Tribeca Capital Group at (866) 388-2288.
Commercial

Securities Litigation—Trends and Strategies

Challenging economic times for a business can shed light on prior corporate misconduct. In 2020, there were multiple examples of corporate fraud exposed. As litigation related to insolvencies and fraud grows, institutional investors should be seeking out new strategies to ensure maximum possible recoveries. Burford Capital explains that the Wirecard litigation, which took place in Germany, is an excellent example of how experienced funders can improve case outcomes. Burford worked closely with law firm Quinn Emanuel. Together, the team built the largest shareholder group action against the financial tech firm, and will continue to maximize recovery for their clients. The Economist suggests that as much as a decade’s worth of fraud will soon be exposed.  Securities litigation is about to happen on a scale we haven’t seen since the 2008 financial unrest. This is sure to include jurisdictions that are new to large-scale securities activity. This means institutional investors may find themselves seeking guidance from experienced industry partners that offer insight, as well as funding. The impact of COVID may be changing over time. It remains uncertain when a new normalcy will emerge, and what it will look like when it does. With that in mind, developing a strategic litigation plan should be at the forefront of every GC’s mind over the coming year and beyond. What should that plan entail? Burford Capital recommends portfolio financing to preserve assets and mitigate risk. A portfolio funding arrangement allows fund managers to pursue multiple claims by streamlining processes and lowering costs overall. Monetizing claims is another way legal funding can be employed to free up working capital that may be needed for day-to-day operations. A sizable part of weathering financial uncertainty is to plan and adapt for the future.
Commercial

Case Study: Liquidation Using Portfolio Funding

How is portfolio funding valuable during liquidation? One case study may help explain. LCM details that the case in question involves the liquidation of a trading entity that was part of a group of construction and development businesses. The complexities of the liquidation combined with accusations of misconduct led to the liquidator spending a disproportionate amount of time assisting with the ASIC investigation, and being largely unfunded. By entering a portfolio funding arrangement with a legal funder, non-recourse funds are provided. The claims themselves are cross-collateralized, lowering the funder’s risk. This type of funding supports the pursuit of all meritorious claims—not just the most lucrative few. Ultimately, portfolio funding can increase the size of recoveries in a liquidation case while ensuring that funding is priced fairly and all claims are followed to completion.
Commercial

East to West—Patent Cases Find a New Favorite Jurisdiction

Why are patent cases suddenly more plentiful in the Western District of Texas, when for years, the Eastern District of Texas was the reigning king? It could be the recent $2.18 billion verdict in a case against Intel Corp. The jury’s willingness to hand down such a high award is likely to attract interest in trying patent cases in the jurisdiction. Omni Bridgeway explains that the West District of Texas may be positioning itself to become a destination for patent cases. This would be good news for companies hoping to pursue infringement litigation. Over the last two years, patent cases filed in the Western District surged from 2.5% of cases to nearly 20%. Most of these cases eventually land in the lap of Judge Alan Albright. Albright is reluctant to transfer cases outside the district and has expressed enthusiasm for patent cases in general. Patent infringement claims often are not pursued for financial reasons—leaving money on the table. But litigation funders can take the risk out of patent litigation in many situations. Which means funders should have their eyes on the Western District of Texas, and the IP claims that are adjudicated there. 
Announcements Commercial

Burford Capital announces closing of private offering of senior notes

Burford Capital Limited (“Burford” or “Burford Capital”), the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, today announces the closing on April 5, 2021 of the private offering of $400 million aggregate principal amount of 6.25% senior notes due 2028 (the “Notes”) by its indirect, wholly owned subsidiary, Burford Capital Global Finance LLC. The Notes are guaranteed on a senior unsecured basis by Burford Capital as well as Burford Capital Finance LLC and Burford Capital PLC, both indirect, wholly owned subsidiaries of Burford Capital (such guarantees, together with the Notes, the “Securities”).
Burford Capital intends to use the net proceeds from the offering for general corporate purposes, including the potential repayment or retirement of existing indebtedness. The Securities have not been, and will not be, registered under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), or the laws of any other jurisdiction, and may not be offered or sold within the United States or to, or for the account or benefit of, U.S. persons absent registration or an applicable exemption from registration under the Securities Act or any applicable state securities laws. The Securities will be offered only to persons reasonably believed to be “Qualified Institutional Buyers” within the meaning of Rule 144A under the Securities Act or non-U.S. persons outside the United States pursuant to Regulation S under the Securities Act, in each case, who are “Qualified Purchasers” as defined in Section (2)(a)(51)(A) under the U.S. Investment Company Act of 1940.
For further information, please contact:
Burford Capital Limited 
Jim Kilman, Chief Financial Officer+1 917 985 9840
Robert Bailhache, Head of Investor Relations, EMEA and Asia+44 (0)20 3530 2023
Jim Ballan, Head of Investor Relations, Americas+1 (646) 793 9176
  
Numis Securities Limited - NOMAD and Joint Broker+44 (0)20 7260 1000
Kevin Cruickshank (NOMAD) 
Charlie Farquhar / Jonathan Abbott (Joint Broker) 
  
Jefferies International Limited - Joint Broker+44 (0)20 7029 8000
Graham Davidson 
Tony White 
About Burford Capital Burford Capital is the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law. Its businesses include litigation finance and risk management, asset 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 York, London, Chicago, Washington, Singapore and Sydney. This communication shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any 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. PRIIPs Regulation / Prohibition of sales to EEA retail investors. The securities described in this announcement are not intended to be offered, sold or otherwise made available to and should not be offered, sold or otherwise made available to any retail investor in the European Economic Area ("EEA"). For these purposes, a retail investor means a person who is one (or more) of: (i) a retail client as defined in point (11) of Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/65/EU (as amended, "MiFID II"); or (ii) a customer within the meaning of Directive 2016/97/ EU (the "Insurance Distribution Directive"), where that customer would not qualify as a professional client as defined in point (10) of Article 4(1) of MiFID II. Consequently no key information document required by Regulation (EU) No 1286/2014 (as amended, the "PRIIPs Regulation") for offering or selling the securities described in this announcement or otherwise making them available to retail investors in the EEA has been prepared and therefore offering or selling the securities described in this announcement or otherwise making them available to any retail investor in the EEA may be unlawful under the PRIIPs Regulation. Prohibition of sales to UK retail investors. The securities described in this announcement are not intended to be offered, sold or otherwise made available to and should not be offered, sold or otherwise made available to any retail investor in the United Kingdom ("UK"). For these purposes, a retail investor means a person who is one (or more) of: (i) a retail client, as defined in point (8) of Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 2017/565 as it forms part of domestic law by virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 ("EUWA"); or (ii) a customer within the meaning of the provisions of the FSMA and any rules or regulations made under the FSMA to implement Directive (EU) 2016/97, where that customer would not qualify as a professional client, as defined in point (8) of Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) No 600/2014 as it forms part of domestic law by virtue of the EUWA. Consequently no key information document required by Regulation (EU) No 1286/2014 as it forms part of domestic law by virtue of the EUWA (the "UK PRIIPs Regulation") for offering or selling the securities described in this announcement or otherwise making them available to retail investors in the UK has been prepared and therefore offering or selling the securities described in this announcement or otherwise making them available to any retail investor in the UK may be unlawful under the UK PRIIPs Regulation. IN MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA, THIS ANNOUNCEMENT IS DIRECTED ONLY AT PERSONS WHO ARE "QUALIFIED INVESTORS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF PROSPECTUS REGULATION (EU) 2017/1129 IN SUCH MEMBER STATE, AND SUCH OTHER PERSONS AS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE ADDRESSED ON LEGAL GROUNDS, AND NO PERSON THAT IS NOT A RELEVANT PERSON OR QUALIFIED INVESTOR MAY ACT OR RELY ON THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY OF ITS CONTENTS. IN THE UK, THIS ANNOUNCEMENT IS DIRECTED ONLY AT PERSONS WHO ARE "QUALIFIED INVESTORS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF PROSPECTUS REGULATION (EU) 2017/1129 AS IT FORMS PART OF DOMESTIC LAW BY VIRTUE OF THE EUWA IN THE UK, AND SUCH OTHER PERSONS AS THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE ADDRESSED ON LEGAL GROUNDS, AND NO PERSON THAT IS NOT A RELEVANT PERSON OR QUALIFIED INVESTOR MAY ACT OR RELY ON THIS DOCUMENT OR ANY OF ITS CONTENTS. 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.
Announcements Consumer

LFJ Hosts a Special Digital Conference on “Investor Insights into Consumer Legal Funding” 

Litigation Finance Journal has announced an upcoming roundtable discussion on third-party legal funding. A panel of institutional investors will discuss their thoughts on Consumer Legal Funding as an asset class. This special event will be held April 13 from 11:30 am-12:30 pm EST. Tickets can be found here.  This digital conference will be moderated by Dan Avnir, Managing Director of Bryant Park Capital. Featured panelists include Ben Kaplan, Co-founder of C9 Partners, Don Plotsky, Co-Founder of Uinta Investment Partners, and Michael Morris, Managing Director of Northleaf Capital Partners.  Topics to be covered will include:
  • The unique challenges of investing in litigation
  • How do institutional investors vet fund managers?
  • Expected returns, risk/reward profiles, and manager best practices
  • Predictions for the future of the industry
There will also be a Q&A with attendees after the panel discussion. Tickets are available now.  Please note: The event will be recorded, and all who purchase a ticket will receive a link to the recording. 
Commercial

COVID as a Factor in Securities for Costs

An order for securities for costs is meant to ensure that defendants can receive remuneration from an unsuccessful plaintiff. Monies are verified or set aside until the case is completed. If a securities for costs order is not met, a case may be dismissed. For the courts, deciding whether this is necessary can be a balancing act that weighs the hardship of a defendant who cannot recover costs, versus the financial burden to the plaintiff. LCM details one case that illustrates the precarious nature of this balancing exercise. The case is Grocon Group Holdings Pty Limited v Infrastructure NSW (2020) NSWSC 1194, which involves accusations of deceptive and misleading conduct during the bidding for the Central Barangaroo Development. INSW requested that Grocon be ordered to put up security for costs. The law says that to ask for securities for costs, the defendant is responsible for demonstrating that the plaintiffs may not be able to pay the costs if necessary. INSW used Grocon’s own financial reports that demonstrated more liabilities than assets. Grocon declined to provide evidence to the contrary. Interestingly, the judge did say that the impact of COVID might have influenced his order for securities for costs if Grocon had submitted evidence to that effect. Another recent case referenced by the judge held that if a business is significantly disrupted due to COVID, a securities for costs order could hurt the business even further—and is therefore not in the interests of justice. Security for costs orders are largely left to the judge’s discretion. A judge does have the discretion to decline to order securities for costs if there is a legitimate financial reason. But in this instance, the judge wanted evidence that Grocon was in financial peril—and not merely unwilling to put up securities for costs. Ultimately, the judge ordered Grocon to pay security for costs.
Commercial

Burford CEO Purchases Company Stock

It’s always a good idea to keep an eye on which CEOs are buying shares of their own stock. Christopher Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital just made a sizable stock purchase—GBP 46,000. Simply Wall St explains that this marks the second time Burford insiders bought company stock this year, after a stock purchase of GBP 242,000 occurred earlier this year. Yet these stock purchases may not be as telling as they seem. While it’s a good sign to see company insiders purchasing shares, many analysts find the circumstance a less meaningful indicator of a company’s wellbeing when the stock price is historically low, as is the case with Burford shares currently. It is noteworthy, however, that no Burford insiders sold any shares. Strong insider ownership is generally a good sign for any company. It’s also indicative of a company’s dedication to shareholders.