Omni Bridgeway’s most recent podcast features commentary by Junior Surivar of McCarthy Tetrault, and Jon Drummer of Paul Hastings. The episode is part two in a series detailing litigation relating to mining disputes. Geoff Moysa hosts.
Below are some highlights from the podcast:
JS: There’s been a noteworthy spike in disputes addressing the finer points of royalties, where before, most disputes related to shareholders and joint ventures.
GM: Why?
JS: New partners can impact how royalties are seen by everyone. The precise interpretation of royalty agreements can be subject to multiple readings. Any time partners shuffle, there’s a chance that royalty agreements will be reread and reinterpreted.
Royalty agreements are generally entered early in a partnership. As situations change over time, the intention of the original agreement may be lost or changed dramatically. When a new party enters the arrangement, everything changes.
JD: Agreed. Intent versus the written document can lead to multiple interpretations.
GM: How likely is it that these disputes can be solved with negotiation?
JS: When there are differences of opinion or interpretation advanced in good faith, negotiation can go a long way.
JD: Yes, and expedited negotiations fast-tracked for results are common.
GM: What about multiple royalties or layers of objections? Have there been increases in disputes from specialized mining royalties?
JD: Not really. But there are many reasons partners might revisit royalty agreements for reinterpretation. There is a rise in mining royalty companies, which leads to all involved parties looking at the value of their royalties more seriously.
GM: Are disputes arising from M&As?
JD: That’s been a trend, yes. There’s been a rise in cases on environmental issues, as well as health and safety concerns, and others on securities disclosure laws. We expect that to continue.
JS: In Canada, we are seeing that on the environmental issues, but in Ontario, changes to the Class Proceedings Act make it more challenging to certify a class. This leads to funders or plaintiffs being less willing to invest in a class action.
Claims of direct losses and loss of opportunity are some of the accusations being levied regarding the collapse of the Woodford Equity Income Fund. The claim, led by RGL Management group, is against Link Fund Solutions as well as Hargreaves Lansdown Asset Management.
Daily Business Group details that there are several rival claims addressing losses linked to the failure of WEIF. If successful, RGL will get 25% of any award given. In other pending claims, Harcus Parker is taking 42% and Leigh Day is taking 30%.
Link Fund Solutions was the authorized corporate director of WEIF. According to RGL, this obligated Link to ensure that the fund complied with what investors had been told. Link was also responsible to ensure appropriate liquidity and diversity in the fund. RGL’s claims state that Link failed to manage and administer the fund appropriately. LBAs have been sent to Link and Hargreaves Lansdown—formally beginning the legal process.
Estimates suggest that at least 300,000 investors have been impacted by the collapse of WEIF. Anyone who invested in the fund can register their interest with RGL regardless of the investment amount. Because the case is using third-party litigation funding as well as ATE insurance, there is no fee required for claimants to participate unless and until the case is successful.
Fully digital law firms are on the way, thanks to a new B2B SaaS platform developed by Legl, a London firm. Founded by Julia Salasky in 2019, Legl focuses on law operations.
Business Cloud details that Legl has received funding from angel investors as well as from Samaipata, and First Round Capital among others.
While much legal tech focuses on the actual practice of law, Legl is making advancements in improving the client experience. Startups like Legl are a sign that advancements in legal tech are here to stay.