Trending Now

John Freund's Posts

3077 Articles
Consumer

Girardi Legal Woes Mount as Records Show $10MM in Debt to Lit Fin Firm

It’s been asserted that lawyer and reality-show-husband Tom Girardi is currently incapable of active participation in his current legal situation. Documents recently filed assert that the firm Girardi Keese owes Virage SPV more than $10 million. Yet Girardi’s brother maintains that the founder of the firm is suffering from memory loss and requires a guardian ad litem for himself and his firm. Law.com details that Girardi Keese and Girardi are personally facing a contempt judgment of over $2 million. This comes after allegations that Girardi failed to remit settlement monies to clients relating to the crash of Lion Air Flight 610. Girardi is in the midst of both personal and business-related bankruptcies, though his brother insists that Tom Girardi is unable to have a reasoned conversation about his situation. Interim trustees have been appointed to oversee both bankruptcies, including active and recently settled cases that could add funds to the bankruptcy estate. These cases include a 2015 gas leak near Los Angeles. Meanwhile, Virage has produced promissory notes to the 2017 and 2018 loans. One loan, for use in the Porter Ranch gas leak action, was cosigned by lawyers Herman Russomanno (real estate lawyer to President Donald Trump and former president of the Florida Bar), and Bruce Mattock–both of whom have chosen not to comment. Their firms were co-counsel in litigation surrounding concussions in the NFL. Girardi has not responded to either bankruptcy petition. As such, Robert Girardi has asked that the deadline be moved to February 12th. Girardi’s attorney, Evan Jenness, has requested a mental evaluation of Girardi, telling the court that he was incapable of answering questions from the judge regarding the whereabouts of money owed to clients. Girardi’s lawyer and brother both maintain that his inability to respond to the accusations against him would be personally and financially detrimental.
Commercial

Parker Law Firm Forced into Arbitration with Litigation Funder by 8th Circuit Court

A recently filed case in the US Court of Appeals 8th Circuit regarding Timothy Parker and Parker Law Firm has been forced into arbitration. Seeking leave to litigate, the appeals court determined that the dispute in question was addressed by the arbitration clause in the formal agreement between parties.

Leagle details that the case in question is one part of a battle over whether Parker Law Firm was obligated to remit payments to litigation funder PS Finance LLC. The disagreement stemmed from Parker Law Firm’s representation of Eureka Woodworks. Eureka sought funding from PS Finance in exchange for proceeds from a claim against BP relating to the Deepwater Horizon spill. As is common in funding contracts, the agreement affirmed that PS Finance would be paid from monies received via settlement, verdict, or ordered judgment. The contract further detailed that any disputes relating to the contract would be subject to binding arbitration. Hence, the court ruling to disallow litigation.

Appellants recovered two payments in 2012 on behalf of Eureka. According to the contract, PS Finance should have received a portion of the payment after legal fees and costs. However, no portion of the payment was given to PS Finance. Parker and the law firm maintain that the money did not come from a settlement, verdict, or judgment and therefore they are not required to transfer any funds over.

In 2019, Parker and Parker Law sought a declaratory judgment affirming that they owed nothing to PS Finance. Parker made allegations that PS Finance breached its contractual obligations when it brought a lawsuit against Parker. The district court dismissed claims against PS Finance.

Arkansas law regarding policy interpretation is firmly on the side of policyholders. It states that when language is ambiguous, courts will construe the policy dictates in favor of the policyholder and against the insurer.

Commercial Consumer

The New Normal: Legal Services Predictions for 2021

For nearly a year, COVID has kept the world in a state of uncertainty. Temporary changes stretch out for months, and no one is sure when things will ‘get back to normal,’ or indeed, what ‘normal’ will look like when that happens. JD Supra has some predictions for the coming year. First, nobody should expect anything like a new normal until at least next fall. While that news may be disheartening, it may not be all bad. Stay-at-home orders led to sweeping upgrades in digital security, video conferencing, document sharing, and other tech advances that are no doubt here to stay. The legal world is likely to make use of these advancements even after in-person meetings resume and courts reopen. It seems that virtual working is here to stay. Review work in particular is moving to virtual spaces. This allows teams to be more nimble and flexible. It also allows teams to form over great distances, giving firms a much wider pool of talent to utilize. Flexible legal talent is expected to remain a viable career path for young legal professionals. Alternative Legal Service Providers (ALSP) refers to a range of services offered at lower price points than traditional legal services. This is an up-and-coming facet of law that is increasingly innovative, as it evolves to better meet the need of a wider array of clients.
Commercial

Antitrust Enforcement—Who Really Wins?

Since the 90s, competition authorities like the European Commission have been getting tougher on Big Tech. Fines have been coming down on tech giants like Apple, Google, Intel, and Microsoft. Some of these cases have resulted in fines in the billions. But who is really benefitting from the success of these? Harbour Litigation Funding explains that authorities are employing creative theories under which to charge Big Tech companies with harm. Antitrust claims or accusations of misused data have led to policy positions intent on limiting the power of tech companies. But how does that help consumers seek justice? What’s important to remember about the fines levied against tech companies is that those who were purportedly damaged aren’t seeing compensation. When consumers sue a company and an award is levied, plaintiffs receive a share as compensation for their losses. When government agencies pursue big tech, consumers generally see nothing. What happens to the billions being levied against these companies? Theoretically, those who were impacted deserve remuneration. In practice, governments generally keep these monies, arguing that payouts eventually reach citizens through social programs and other government spending. Class actions are still the best way for wronged consumers to gain compensation. Without an opt-out class action regime, however, this isn’t always feasible. Increasingly though, UK courts are seeking out more creative approaches that allow consumers proper redress. Litigation funding could be an essential part of this. Ultimately, what’s needed is a combination of a reasonable framework for collective redress, as well as aggressive enforcement of existing laws governing tech companies. Without that, competition authority enforcement is little more than an attempt at soapboxing. It’s essential that there be a reasonable path for wronged consumers to get the compensation they deserve. Some say such changes are coming. But how much longer will consumers have to wait?
Announcements Consumer

Easy Legal Finance Inc. acquires Settlement Lenders Inc.

Easy Legal Finance Inc. a Canadian litigation financing firm, announced today the acquisition of Settlement Lenders Inc. Based in Edmonton, Settlement Lenders Inc. started serving clients in the early 1990s as one of the first firms in the country to offer pre-settlement lending to personal injury plaintiffs. With this announcement, the Easy Legal Group of Companies has acquired the three original and most established litigation lenders in the country, creating an unparalleled portfolio of national brands. "Despite the challenges presented by COVID-19, we remain focused on our goal of strategic growth, through the acquisition of well-established and successful businesses. This acquisition, in addition to Seahold Legal Finance completed last year, demonstrates our continued commitment to servicing this sector," said Larry Herscu, President & CEO of Easy Legal Finance Inc. "Over the past 30 years, we have been providing personal injury plaintiffs with the financial support required, through the legal process," said Tim Latimer, President & CEO of Settlement Lenders. "Easy Legal's reputation for client service is uniquely aligned with ours and I'm pleased to have them further expand our service offering and evolve the firm, for the benefit of our clients and lawyer partners." Mr. Herscu also added that, "The Easy Legal Group of Companies will maintain its mission and remain dedicated to helping those who have been hurt, are in need of financial support, in partnership with the plaintiff bar and its service providers." About the Easy Legal Group of Companies
The Easy Legal Group of Companies is a Canadian litigation financing firm. Its lending solutions service the personal injury sector including plaintiffs with pending injury claims, their legal representatives and the service providers involved in their cases. The firm is registered to conduct business in Ontario, B.C., Alberta, and the Atlantic provinces. Services are delivered through four brands: Easy Legal Finance Inc., Rhino Legal Finance, Seahold Legal Finance and Settlement Lenders. www.easylegal.ca www.rhinofinance.com www.seahold.ca www.settlementlenders.com
Read More
Commercial Covid-19

Insolvency Claims in 2021

Given the impact of COVID, insolvencies are on everybody’s mind--how to avoid them or how to navigate them. Knowing what to do when you find yourself in the middle of a business or personal insolvency is crucial. Litigation funding may be one of the most valuable tools in the insolvency toolbox.

Harbour Litigation Funding director Charles Jeffrey has some predictions for 2021. He explains that in the UK, insolvencies were actually down in 2020 despite the ravages of COVID on numerous industries. This is because government assistance has been plentiful. Most programs helping small businesses have been extended through March of this year. After that, things become more unpredictable.

Jeffrey details that businesses in the most danger of insolvency are those that were already struggling. But he stresses that few businesses are pandemic-proof. He also notes that when any business goes under, it has the potential to impact supply chains, creditors, and others that might set off an insolvency chain reaction.

Common claims often pursued in insolvency cases include:

1. Unlawful dividends 2. Undervalued transactions 3. Malfeasance 4. Breach of Duty 5. Wrongful trading

Litigation funding can be a key part of successfully navigating insolvency. Legal costs can add up fast, and insolvent businesses or estates are generally not flush with liquidity. Insolvency practitioners are duty-bound to look into legal funding if funds aren’t available to bring appropriate claims. Jeffrey details that IP’s can assign claims to a funder in exchange for payment upfront. This can be used to cover legal fees and the IP’s fees during the liquidation. Monetizing claims are not allowed in all jurisdictions, but become a valuable financial tool when available.

A conversation with a litigation funder can increase understanding of one’s options during an insolvency situation. Experienced funders will be adept at navigating the process, and explaining one's options in a way that allows one to make informed decisions on how best to proceed.

Commercial

Litigation Finance Provides Peace of Mind in Trade Secrets Cases

As any lawyer will tell you, emotion and litigation are not a good mix. Still, it can be difficult not to feel emotional when a betrayal, theft, or other act of deliberate impropriety leads to trade secrets litigation. Omni Bridgeway explains how a third-party litigation funder can make the litigation process more effective and less disruptive to the business at hand. Experienced funders will be adept at vetting cases in terms of merit, the likelihood of success, and the process that will be needed to ensure that any awards will be collected. Funders can also advise on strategy—though final decisions are always left to clients and their legal teams. Because funders look at cases as investment opportunities, they’re more adept at seeing the facts objectively. The due diligence conducted by potential funders can increase client understanding of the potential pitfalls of the case. Trade secrets cases are among the most complex cases to litigate. The increase in digital information and remote work means that data is more vulnerable than ever. Having an established funding firm on your side provides more than funds—it provides a wealth of knowledge and sophistication that only comes from experience. Trade secrets cases can lead to huge awards, with some recent cases reaching into the nine figures. Cases may also move to federal courts in some circumstances, owing to the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act. This 2016 law encourages filing trade secrets cases in federal district courts. If pursuing trade secrets legislation is in keeping with the business objectives of your company, having experienced third-party funders in your corner is a savvy move.
Commercial

Liability Rates See Major Increases

Some say Litigation Finance is partly to blame for the latest round of insurance rate increases. Many speculate that an increase in the number of cases and award sizes have led to significant rate hikes. Business Insurance details that auto liability rates climbed about 11%, and general liability went up 6%. Excess liability, however, saw a staggering rate hike of between 50-160%. Some businesses that saw rate increases last year believed they’d be immune in 2021. Not so. Some policyholders who saw huge rate increases last year are still enduring 10-20% rate hikes this year. In addition to the raising of rates, policies are more likely to include exclusions related to infectious disease. This obvious response to COVID means policyholders may not even be getting the protection they’re paying for. This is one of many factors that has led to the purchase of less coverage overall. As policyholders deal with increased risk or losses, they face the possibility of being dropped by their incumbent insurers, leaving them without affordable options. Why is Litigation Finance being touted as a reason for higher insurance rates? Third-party legal funding has been an instrumental part of class action cases for over a decade. Its influence continues to grow, as legal professionals come to appreciate its value. By increasing access to justice for those who can afford it least, litigation funding also increases accountability among insurers who may now have their feet held to the proverbial fire. Perhaps in addition to raising rates, insurers can do more to ensure that their conduct doesn’t inspire a need for class actions. Negating the need to pursue litigation may be the best way to avoid paying a judgment.
Commercial

Hausfeld Adds Two New Partners to Roster

Two London-based lawyers have been promoted to Partner at specialist litigation firm, Hausfeld. These promotions echo the number of partnership elevations from the previous year. Hausfeld has added a litigation funding arm to its operation, making it one of a growing number of law firms that has done so. Global Legal Post details that Lucy Rigby specializes in collective redress, and had been promoted to counsel last year. Luke Streatfield is currently involved in the first class action claim under the Consumer Rights Act. He is a competition litigation specialist. Global vice-chair for Hausfeld, Anthony Maton, affirms that while Hausfeld has had a challenging 2020, the firm is pleased to recognize and elevate exceptional talent. The London team has been busy, filing four UK collective actions in the past year. These appointments bring Hausfeld’s partner number to 18, 45% of whom are women.
Commercial

Montero Receives Litigation Funding for Case Against Tanzanian Government

Last year, mining and exploration giant Montero, announced its intention for arbitration after accusing the government of violating several provisions of the Bilateral Investment Treaty. The dispute pertains to acts and omissions by the Government of Tanzania that allegedly breached BIT and caused harm to Montero and others. Mining Review explains that the Canadian arm of Omni Bridgeway is providing more than $2.3 million in funds to cover fees, expenses, and legal costs, including enforcement if necessary. Jeantet, who represents the plaintiff, plans to aggressively pursue appropriate compensation in relation to the illegal acts of the Tanzanian Government. Montero declined to comment on the case. It is believed, however, that Montero lost the entirety of its investment in the project in question when its retention license was canceled in 2018. This occurred as part of amendments to existing mining acts, that ultimately gave licensing back to the government. Compensation, if awarded, is expected to include the original investment value, the value of the project itself, and the damages suffered by the company itself. Filing a notice of intent begins a six month consultation period where parties are encouraged to settle out of court. Tanzanian Government officials allegedly made no effort to find a compromise.
Commercial

Scandalous Allegations in Class Action Against Australian Government

A boy sent to Christmas Island in spite of being only 14 is now leading a class action against the Australian government. He is one of at least 100 children prosecuted during a 2-year period beginning in 2010. Ali Yasmin was judged to be an adult after using wrist X-rays, a now-discredited method of determining age. The class action is being funded by an undisclosed litigation finance firm. Yasmin et al are represented by Ken Cush & Associates. The Guardian details that Yasmin’s conviction for smuggling asylum seekers was overturned eventually, but not before he spent more than two years in an adult prison. The Australian Human Rights Commission had already determined that multiple breaches of international human rights laws had been committed. Solicitors for the Australian government are calling the allegations ‘vague’ and needlessly sensationalized, despite breaches detailed in the AHRC’s 2012 report. Yasmin also asserts that nearly 100 days of his prison stay were an unlawful breach of the Migration Act and its requirement that detention only be applied to minors in extreme circumstances. This case illustrates yet again the power of litigation funding to increase access to justice to the marginalized. Without financial backing, class actions like this would be unlikely to move forward.
Commercial

New Talent Flocks to Litigation Finance

New year, new job. Litigation Finance has been expanding as an industry for over a decade. Investment size is growing, more and more clients are seeking out funding, and big names in law, tech, and finance are clamoring to get in on the action. Westlaw reports that Delta Capital Partners Management LLC has brought in a new president. Peter Cornell is formerly of Clifford Chance, and joins the Chicago-based private equity firm this year. A new legal finance firm, Contingency Capital, has hired Jeff Cohen—formerly of Greenwich, Connecticut firm Southpaw Asset Management. Cohen joins the New York firm as a partner and managing director. Some say that legal finance came into its own with the formation of the International Legal Finance Association—an advocacy organization made up of funders from around the world. If these two hires are any indication, prominent law firm and investment professionals are eager to join the growing industry. 
Commercial

What’s Ahead in 2021 for Litigation Funding

As COVID, politics, and financial uncertainty continue into a new year, savvy predictions are the order of the day. With that in mind, CEO of Validity Finance, Ralph Sutton, shares his predictions for third-party legal funding in the coming year. Bloomberg Tax details that in 2020, Litigation Finance saw increased transparency as well as the formation of the industry’s first international association. Portfolio funding and monetization of cases grew in number and sophistication. And of course, returns have been exceptional across the industry. COVID has brought about much in the way of innovation. Communications have become more reliant on digital, long-distance tech. Privacy and security infrastructure has been expanded due to the absence of face-to-face meetings. Mediation also replaces litigation more often, when possible. Litigation Finance is poised to increase its engagement with large corporations and in-house counsel. The ongoing need for liquidity brought about by COVID will likely continue as businesses and firms require ready access to operating or expansion funds. Right now, litigation funders are flush with cash. Investments in the industry are staggeringly high, which means competition for high-profit cases may become robust. More funders will likely find themselves with fewer strong cases to choose from, creating a market where greater risk-taking is necessary. In the coming year, more mergers are expected, as well as the addition of complementary business to existing funding firms. Litigation funders might do well to add economic experts to their repertoire. Ditto claims management professionals, asset recovery specialists, and tech experts, who might all add value to existing litigation funding firms. Ultimately, relationships will play a key role in the success or failure of litigation funders in 2021. Building trust, a reputation for fair dealing, and strong client relationships will make all the difference.
Commercial

Sydney’s Family Court of Australia Can Cost Clients Millions

In Australia, Litigation Finance may have found a new niche—Family Court. Some would say that the Sydney registry of Australia’s Family Court is already highly adversarial. The court is known for wealthy divorcing couples playing out their acrimony in a public setting. Legal teams often seem to encourage this. The Sydney Morning Herald details one couple whose legal fees topped $6 million in less than five years. The wife in that couple ultimately signed away 30% of her settlement in exchange for third-party litigation funding. She claimed that her ex’s lawyers made multiple ‘ludicrous’ applications meant to drain her resources. One family law attorney, Daniella Ruggero, decried the normalization of litigation funding in Family Court. She explained that many family lawyers advise their clients to seek out litigation funding because it gets them an upfront payment for legal fees. It’s been asserted that the Sydney registry is weighed down with protracted legal skirmishes between wealthy divorcing couples—and that they’re using time and resources at the expense of less-wealthy litigants. Runaway legal fees are a growing concern in Australian courts. Jacoba Brasch QC, president of the Law Council of Australia, has said that the law does not allow fees that are not fair, proportional, or reasonable. She affirms that the Law Council takes allegations of overcharging very seriously. Still, one man unknowingly retained a lawyer who had been sanctioned by a judge for running up unnecessarily high legal fees on spurious matters. An assessor found that the man had been charged nearly twice what he should have. Another client was charged nearly $60,000 in legal fees in under two months—which included time spent on matters a judge called ‘immaterial.’ John Walker, chair of the Australian Association of Litigation Funders, explains that Litigation Finance is unlikely to become a major player in Family Law. Most litigants would find the 15-25% fees that funders charge to be excessive and outside their budgets.
Consumer

Lawyer Accused of Misappropriating Litigation Funding Faces Charges

The Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department brought disciplinary charges against Don Anthony Carlos Jr. He had been admitted to the State Bar of New York in 1993. The case, listed at Justia explains that Carlos has had an office at the Second Judicial Department for some time. In late 2018, Carlos was suspended from the practice of law. This came after a joint motion alleging the misappropriation of escrow funds, tax evasion, and giving false testimony while under oath. The suspension was initially expected to last two years. At the time of this suspension, Carlos had already received three official admonitions—including misuse of escrow funds, lax bookkeeping, and failing to file retainer statements. The following year, Carlos was served with seven charges. These allege that prior to his suspension from the practice of law, Carlos forged his client’s signatures on documents without their knowledge. The documents included agreements with third-party litigation funders. He was also accused of using someone else’s notary stamp without authority or permission—falsely notarizing the signatures of his clients. It was further alleged that Carlos misappropriated the fraudulently obtained funds meant for client litigation for personal use, and that he mishandled as many as eight personal injury cases. When served with notice of a sanction hearing, Carlos declined to appear. The Referee noted that Carlos had received adequate notice of his obligation to appear, but chose not to do so. It was at this point that disbarment was suggested by the AGC. The Referee agreed. The recommendation for sanction was ultimately granted, and Carlos is effectively disbarred. His name is therefore stricken from the State of NY list of attorneys and counselors-at-law, and must not practice law in any jurisdiction. As of January 5th, Carlos must also relinquish secure cards and other proprietary security items.
Commercial

Akhmedov Divorce Rancor Continues with Funding from Burford Capital

The largest divorce settlement in history is still unsettled. While the ex-wife of Russian billionaire Farkhad Akhmedov was awarded over $600 million in the divorce, she has received next to nothing from her ex-husband. To combat this, she enlisted help from Burford Capital, a publicly-traded legal funder. Baltimore Sun reports that Akhmedova is currently suing her son in a London court for almost $100 million. This includes a significant amount of cash, as well as assets such as art and property. Because Farkhad refused to pay the settlement, Akhmedova’s legal team opted to pursue monies via the couple’s oldest son. Temur Akhmedov is a resident in the UK, which means his assets may be seized to uphold a London court ruling. The Akhmedova lawyers have asserted that Temur was instrumental in helping to hide his father’s assets from his mother—a charge that he strenuously denies. London has long been perceived as a haven for wealthy Russians, many of whom have homes there and even stash their assets in London banks. A “superyacht” owned by the elder Akhmedov was ordered to be handed over to Akhmedova, but the order was refused. This led to the yacht being seized and held in Dubai. Ultimately, Shariah law prevented the enforcement of Akhmedova’s claim to the yacht. Temur has insisted that he was not involved in attempts to hide money from his mother or her legal team. However, the courts appeared to find this suspicious. An assertion that he moved $100 million in paintings to a boat for sheer aesthetic pleasure was scoffed at. Farkhad maintains his refusal to pay the court-ordered judgment against him. Among other things, he specifically mentioned that one-third of all monies given to Akhmedova would go to litigation funder Burford Capital as part of their funding agreement.
Announcements Consumer

New Securitization Fuels Growth for Golden Pear Funding OpCo, LLC

Golden Pear Funding OpCo, LLC announced Kroll Bond Rating Agency (KBRA) assigns a rating to one class of notes from PEAR 2020-1, LLC - an $80 million litigation finance asset backed security (ABS) transaction. The PEAR 2020-1, LLC transaction represents Golden Pear’s first rated security collateralized by litigation finance receivables. “Golden Pear continues to experience tremendous growth and has emerged as a leader in the consumer litigation finance industry. We are excited for this milestone and look forward to continuing to serve our clients and partners,” says Gary Amos, CEO at Golden Pear Funding OpCo, LLC. “Access to the securitization market increases our liquidity and supports our financial performance in this next stage of growth,” says Daniel Amsellem, CFO at Golden Pear Funding OpCo, LLC. The offering was oversubscribed, which represents a recognition of Golden Pear’s strong fundamentals as well as a desire by institutional investors to invest in the growing litigation finance industry. Golden Pear has funded over $675 million in aggregate advances since its inception in 2008. The company’s growth and differentiation in the consumer litigation marketplace have been achieved by industry-leading innovation and a focus on service for both attorneys and their clients. About Golden Pear Funding OpCo, LLC: Golden Pear is one of the largest specialty finance companies in the United States funding legal matters and purchasing medical receivables from physicians and medical centers. The company empowers its clients navigate the legal system and provides them with financial solutions that work. Golden Pear is backed by a partnership of several private equity firms that allow for the stability and continued institutional growth of the firm.
Read More
Commercial

Legislative Changes Lead to Increase in Class Actions

It cannot be denied that as acceptance of Litigation Finance increases, class actions increase in number. This is viewed by most as a positive, as it demonstrates that the practice is affording access to the legal system. Increasingly, class actions involving pension fund-related investment losses are cropping up across the US and Europe. IPE Magazine explains that as institutional investors become more active, they’ve also become more litigious when big losses occur. As European investors are seeing more sizable losses for a number of reasons, they are seen as the driving force behind this new wave of litigation. Jeroen can Kwawegen, a partner in New York firm BLBG, explains that European pension funds are markedly different from those in the US. In Europe, pension funds focus on sustainability, environmental concerns, and investing in social programs. In a sense, these class actions are a kind of corporate governance tool to enforce responsible behavior and to recover losses. Some say that litigation is an effective way to engage with a company when informal options are exhausted. But this ‘punishment litigation’ is not always appropriate or effective. After all, investors may not want to break off their relationships with a company—yet it is essential that the misconduct not become repetitive. The recent REST settlement illustrates that litigation can have a positive impact beyond the claimants involved. When the Retail Employees Superannuation Trust settled, they agreed to a net-zero carbon footprint by 2050, along with increased transparency and a more careful assessment of climate change risks as they pertain to investment. Neil Purslow, CIO at Australia’s Therium Capital, states that the REST settlement is unlikely to unleash a flurry of similar cases in other countries. While the Litigation Finance community is well-funded and poised to invest in meritorious cases, it’s unlikely that Australia will see the same type of investor cases.
Commercial

Brexit Propels Ireland to Become Litigation Destination

As anticipated, Brexit has led to uncertainty—even chaos in some industries. In the legal landscape, Ireland is in a perfect position to capitalize on its status as an EU member state. Ireland’s legal system and laws are largely similar to those of Britain, which allows it to offer similar legal remedies with the same basic enforcement. Business Post details that Brexit has brought welcome changes as well, like the formation of the Ireland for Law Initiative. Considered a focal point of Brexit strategy, it endeavors to make Ireland the jurisdiction of choice for business-related litigation. Many speculate that this will include creating conditions under which third-party litigation funding may be used. Ireland, however, will be competing with common law courts in places like Netherlands and France. With this in mind, government investment in the court system will be a vital part of Ireland’s legal future. A Review of Civil Justice Group has released a report detailing a variety of proposals that are currently being vetted and prioritized for possible implementation. Among these are provisions for Litigation Finance. Currently, Ireland prohibits the practice of third-party legal funding, but that’s a remnant of medieval law. As litigation funding has taken off in most of the developed world, Ireland seems poised to adopt the example set by London in allowing the practice. There is a multitude of reasons Ireland would benefit from allowing Litigation Finance, including increasing access to justice. Legal funding can also be used for risk management in a business context, or to provide resources for class actions. Many feel that beginning with legal finance for liquidators and administrators makes sense, as the practice was first implemented in the insolvency sector. The EU Bar Association and the Irish Society for European Law made a joint recommendation to provide provisions for the use of litigation funding. If Ireland intends to compete on the global legal stage, embracing litigation funding will be essential.
Consumer Special Features

Consumer Legal Funding Going into 2021

The following article was contributed by Eric Schuller, President of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC).  As we put 2020 in our rear-view mirror, let us look at what took place in the space of Consumer Legal Funding. The American Bar Association (ABA) adopted the Best Practices for Third-Party Litigation Funding. In it, the ABA lays out a set of guidelines that attorneys should follow when working with Consumer Legal Funding companies. This will ensure that consumers, attorneys, and funding companies will be protected, and the product will be offered properly. The New Jersey State Bar Association (NJSBA) board voted to support the ABA resolution on litigation financing. To ensure consistency across the country, ARC updated our set of Best Practices to be in line with the ABA set of Best Practices on the industry. This will ensure that a consumer in Maine will have the same set of Best Practices as a consumer in Oregon. As a follow-up to the new set of Best Practices, the ABA held a virtual CLE to explain how they would be implemented. ARC participated and explained how our Best Practices are beneficial for consumers and the industry as a whole. In addition to the ABA, the New York City Bar Association published its report on use of Litigation Funding for Consumers. In the report, they publish a set of guidelines that should be followed in a contract with the consumer, including stating that the agreement is a non-recourse transaction, ensuring acknowledgement by the consumer’s attorney, and affirming non-compensation to the consumer’s attorney. The California Bar Association also published its opinion on the industry, which was consistent with what was stated by the ABA and the New York City Bar Association. Additionally, the state of Utah introduced and passed legislation to regulate Consumer Legal Funding. The legislation—which was passed nearly unanimously—insists on clear notice and disclosure to the consumer as to the terms and conditions of the contract. The consumer’s attorney will be made aware of the transaction and that there are no rate restrictions on the product, thereby allowing the free market to dictate rates. Each company will have to report on an annual basis the rates they do charge to the state. As we roll into 2021, we are hoping that other State Associations will follow the lead of the ABA, NJSBA, the New York City Bar Association and the California Bar Association in setting up practical guidelines for the use of Consumer Legal Funding. We also hope that other State Legislatures follow what Utah, Nebraska, Ohio, Maine, and Oklahoma have done in passing sensible legislation that provides consumer protections while allowing the industry to operate in a free market environment. Eric Schuller President ARC
Read More
Commercial

Is India Ready to Embrace Litigation Finance?

Litigation Finance has exploded in popularity over the last decade. This was caused by a number of factors, and cemented by the impact of COVID. Litigation Finance is now a powerful industry with major financial strength behind it. But it hasn’t yet reached every corner of the globe. Could India be the next frontier? India Legal Live explains that Indian law expressly prohibits advocates from funding litigation or arbitration. While funders do lack decision making powers in the cases they fund elsewhere, India’s existing laws may frown on funders looking for contingency fees when deciding which cases to bankroll. Some refer to India’s current financial climate as a ‘liberalization’ of policy, as foreign investors are welcomed and India moves toward becoming a destination for international arbitration. Still, the use of third-party litigation funding is scarce. Current contract law in India contains provisions to prevent lopsided bargains. It may be assumed that claimants have greater financial need than defendants, and may therefore be more likely to be exploited by funders. Contract law might then have to be updated or clarified before litigation funding can gain more mainstream acceptance. A recent court case determined that litigation funding agreements must be carefully scrutinized to ensure fairness. This came after an affirmation that litigation funding does increase access to justice for those who cannot otherwise afford it. There are already countries in which litigation funding arrangements must be approved by courts. India may adopt similar legislation. Confidentiality is another contentious issue. Every nation holds confidentiality to be a necessary part of lawyer/client relations. It’s vital to ensure that confidentiality is maintained even as courts maintain a close eye on funding arrangements. Omni Bridgeway’s Tom Glasgow is optimistic about the future of Litigation Finance in India, saying that opportunities to aid in de-risking litigation are plentiful. As part of the ILFA Working Group, Omni Bridgeway hopes to be instrumental in bringing international best practices to India.
Commercial

Sarah Tsou Speaks About Patent Litigation Funding

Sarah Tsou is an investment manager with funding leader Omni Bridgeway, where she specializes in patent litigation. In IP Watchdog’s recent podcast, Tsou explains the modus operandi most commonly used to defend against patent suits. Well-monied defendants can drag out even a meritorious patent suit for years—depleting the resources of patent owners. The proliferation of litigation funding now means that patient owners with strong cases can enter into funding agreements—increasing the chances of seeing justice done. Tsou also expounds on:
  • Finding and vetting cases
  • Tips for building a patent portfolio
  • Patent litigation funding for in-house legal teams
  • Risk sharing
Below are some highlights from the podcast. Tsou: My experience taught me that having a really good understanding of remedies, so not just damages, but also injunctive relief and the kinds of pressure those remedies can put on litigants is really important. Tsou: Across the company, our rejection rate might be something like 99% on the patent cases that we get. I think our philosophy is that we have to find the good cases. It takes time, it takes in-house experience, it takes trusted relationships from good law firms that we know, who are showing us good cases and good companies that we know have valuable assets—and it’s just putting in the work upfront. Because one common saying in funding is that in patent cases, ‘there are a million ways to die.’ Tsou: One of the important requirements for our funding is that the law firm needs to be able to take some risk. And that usually means some kind of contingency arrangement or hybrid arrangement where they only get a portion of their fees, say 50%, along the way. In exchange for that risk, they get a substantial percentage of the reward. That way we know we’re working with a law firm that’s just as aligned and sharing in the risk as we are. Tsou: Be prepared for litigation and the things that can come up beyond cost. Have realistic expectations. The more that a company can start thinking about patent litigation as something that’s not going to be a billion dollar claim, because there are very few claims that result in a billion dollars, or having a realistic expectation for the time it’s going to take, and how much money could actually be received at the end of the day...the better off they’ll be.
Commercial

Four Hot Litigation Finance Trends for the Coming Year

This year has been unique in terms of obstacles, uncertainty, and hardship. Record layoffs and business closures have caused disruption around the globe, and the legal world is beset by delays juxtaposed with a tidal wave of new litigation. Thankfully, it has also brought about a rise in the use of litigation funding. Law.com details four vital trends in Litigation Finance to keep an eye on in 2021. The first of these concerns transparency. Right now, there’s a disconnect between the right to confidentiality and the need to keep third-party funding transparent and above board. We can expect new legislation and recommendations that outline clear guidelines and legal expectations that apply to funders, lawyers, plaintiffs, and courtrooms. At present, laws regarding the use of third-party legal funding lack cohesiveness. Different countries, and indeed, different US states will have their own laws governing funding, how it may be used, who can be involved, and what disclosures must be made. Standardization is desired, and 2021 will likely show progress toward that aim—even though such moves are currently in legislative limbo. As more funding entities emerge, consolidation becomes likely. The recent merger of IMF Bentham with Omni Bridgeway turned industry heads. New, specialized firms may find themselves acquired by bigger, monied entities. This may be an overall advantage to an industry that is still a mystery to much of the public. Court delays are still ongoing, and the increase in court matters will only make the backlogs worse. As such, it’s expected that settlements, mediation, and out-of-court arbitration will become more commonplace. Remote working is likely to continue even after the pandemic as employers see that productivity goals can be met from home. Litigation Finance proves to be a game-changer in the legal world. It’s also got the financial backing it needs to meet the increasing demand.
Commercial

Is Covid-19 an Impetus for Litigation Finance in India?

India is currently one of the world’s top five economies. That’s good news. But like most top economies, Covid is causing disruption and discord. The pandemic may also lead to a flurry of new litigation as it has in much of the developed world. Will India be joining the likes of Germany, Australia, UK, Singapore, and others in their acceptance of litigation funding? Bar and Bench explains that with trying financial times comes a need for creative solutions. Litigation Finance is not as well established in India as it is elsewhere, but the practice is poised to catch on. The recent success of the Indian economy has made it a desirable destination for international investors. In 2016, the Indian Government was involved in over $9 billion in arbitration disputes relating to infrastructure. As businesses find themselves with dwindling resources and limited access to credit, the idea of third party funding becomes increasingly attractive. Indian courts seem to be moving ever-closer to widespread acceptance of litigation funding. In one case, the Privy Council approved the practice of one party funding a case for another in exchange for a share of the reward. This is predicated on the arrangement being fair and the case being meritorious. A later case established that champerty rules did not apply in India, and that there was no public policy prohibition against the practice. Still, the acceptance and use of the practice in India promises to be complex. Public policy, for example, is not a written law, but a generally understood set of principles. The ‘right to sue’ is more complicated in India, and issues of conflict of interest and even confidentiality are more convoluted. This may impede or slow the widespread use of litigation funding as legal precedents are set to refine the practice. Finally, there’s the question of qualifications for third-party funders. Australia and elsewhere have stringent rules about who can provide funding and how they must conduct themselves. India seems headed toward a similar regulatory path.
Commercial

Does the Japanese Legal Landscape Herald the Coming of Litigation Finance?

A recent announcement from Anderson Mori & Tomotsune indicates the formation of a “foreign law joint enterprise.” In essence, the firm is taking on partners who are registered lawyers from the US, UK, and Mainland China. All are fluent in Japanese. LawFuel details that this is expected to enhance and strengthen the ability of the firm to take on cross-jurisdictional cases. This push toward globalization and inclusivity is a bold step forward for the firm, which has been in business since 1952. As client needs become more complicated and far-reaching, firms are evolving to keep up. Might this mean that other western practices are on the rise in Japan? Litigation funding has yet to be adopted by the Japanese legal system. But the increase in globalization may well bring about a rise in third-party litigation finance. Only time will tell. 
Commercial

Litigation Finance: Experiencing is Believing

Litigation Finance is increasing in use and acceptance as an innovative, ethical option when money is scarce. According to the 2020 Legal Finance Report, use of third-party litigation funding is up 105% since 2017. Burford Capital explains that as more firms and companies utilize litigation funding, the more folks are talking about the good it can do. In just a few short years, the practice has evolved from a niche option to a widely sought solution for a variety of common financial woes. One thing is certain: the need for education. While use of litigation funding is up, lawyers are increasingly admitting that they know very little about the practice. Third party funding isn’t just for class actions against deep-pockets. Modern benefits of legal finance include monetizing legal assets to offset the impact of the pandemic, or to fund a portfolio of cases without adding to balance sheets. Are legal professionals, as they claim, largely ignorant of all that litigation funding can do? Or do they recognize the need for education so they can make the most of this evolving option?
Commercial

Why CFOs Should Look to Legal Funding—Without Delay

In these trying and potentially volatile economic times, CFOs may have every reason to worry. They also have reason to innovate, adapt, and find creative solutions to maintaining balance sheets. Global Bank and Finance explains that with job losses hitting record highs (over 800,000 jobs lost during the pandemic), insolvencies and liquidations are also way up. Some suggest that nearly 2/3 of businesses are currently at risk of folding. Nearly 15% of UK businesses have suspended trading. Still, it doesn’t have to be that way for everyone. CFOs should be looking for assets that can be liquidated. Unrealized litigation, for example, can be monetized. Breach of contract, lack of payment, fraud—any viable claim can be turned into a liquid asset with help from funders. By covering the costs of bringing a vetted claim, funders create solutions that let litigation move forward without tying up capital. Successful cases make money for funders, while unsuccessfully funded cases do not impact the firm—because funding is provided on a non-recourse basis. While funders seek out meritorious cases with a good chance of recovery, the right commercial dispute can be worth millions. Savvy CFOs would do well to seek out potentially profitable claims that can be monetized. Economically tenuous times don’t impact Litigation Finance as one might expect, because this asset class is uncorrelated to the market. Currently, funders are well-monied and looking for cases to fund.
Commercial

Australian Joint Committee Seeks Further Regulation of Litigation Funders

Massive new oversight is needed to reign in the litigation funding industry—that’s the conclusion according to a report from the parliamentary joint committee on corporations and financial services. An array of recommendations has been suggested, though it did not include Frydenburg’s most severe requirements. Independent Financial Advisor details some of the recommendations suggested by the committee. These include the appointment of independent fee assessors to vet fees and agreements involving firms, funders, and class participants. Oversight is also recommended with regard to who may fund cases, and what percentages they will be allowed to take before a settlement can be accepted by the court. Essentially, the new regulations are meant to stem what the committee sees as excessive, unreasonable, or disproportionate fees to funders—often at the expense of those who were actually wronged. It’s also meant to reduce the desirability of Australia as a hot spot for international or cross-jurisdictional litigation. As of now, no regulator has taken legal action against a funder. But that may change if the committee gets its way and new regulations are adopted. Many believe there is a lack of symmetry that needs to be addressed in order to maintain public confidence in litigation funding.
Announcements Commercial

Odyssey Marine Exploration Prepared for Strong 2021 with Increased NAFTA Funding and 2020 Successes

Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. (NASDAQ:OMEX), a deep-ocean exploration pioneer engaged in the discovery, development and extraction of deep-ocean minerals, has secured up to an additional $10 million to support its pending North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) claim against Mexico and provided an update on the successful execution of Odyssey’s 2020 business plan objectives.

The NAFTA claim relates to the unlawful denial of the environmental permit for subsidiary Exploraciones Oceanicas’ (ExO’s) offshore phosphate project. Odyssey’s existing litigation funder, Poplar Grove, LLC, has agreed to provide up to an additional $10 million to fully support the NAFTA claim under substantially the same terms as our prior agreement. Poplar Grove is managed by Drumcliffe LLC, a private investment management firm that oversees a high-value litigation funding portfolio representing more than $14 billion in claims.

“Drumcliffe’s sole focus is to finance and support the recovery of value for the victims of global fraud, corruption and wrongdoing. The strength of the First Memorial filed by Odyssey in this case reinforces our belief in a successful outcome and supports our decision to invest additional capital to fund the case through the hearing and anticipated award,” explained James C. Little, CEO of Drumcliffe.

“One of our key objectives for 2020 was advancing the realization of value from the significant investment we have made in our ExO Phosphate Project in Mexico,” stated Mark D. Gordon, Chairman and CEO of Odyssey. In September, we filed a strong and compelling First Memorial in the NAFTA case. It was the culmination of many months of work by our legal team at Cooley, supported by our internal project development and research team, to gather documentary evidence and 20 expert reports and witness statements that demonstrate the merits of the case, the strategic size and grade of the resource, the operational viability of the project, and the project’s value. We are extremely confident in our case and, with the addition of the expanded funding commitment from Poplar Grove, we are prepared to take the case through to its final conclusion to realize the more than $2 billion value of this asset.

“In addition to making substantial progress on the ExO Phosphate Project, the Odyssey team has continued to move the business forward by advancing the development and value of our diversified mineral project portfolio and positioning the company for significant successes in the coming 18 months. Our achievements, despite being in the middle of a once-in-a-century worldwide pandemic, are a tribute to our dedicated team of professionals who tirelessly work to live our core values and achieve the ambitious goals we set for ourselves. Investors’ confidence in our business plan and the progress we continue to demonstrate enabled us to achieve a major goal of securing multi-year operational funding,” added Gordon.

Realizing the Value from the ExO Project:

Odyssey’s most significant project is the ExO Phosphate Project in Mexico, which is one of the largest and highest quality phosphate sands deposits in the world. It is currently the subject of $2.36 billion claim against Mexico under NAFTA. In early September, Odyssey’s legal team filed the First Memorial in the case alleging that Mexico’s prior political administration wrongfully denied environmental approval of the ExO Phosphate Project in breach of NAFTA.

In 2012, ExO was granted a 50-year mining license by Mexico (extendable for another 50 years at ExO’s option) for the deposit that lies 25-40 km offshore in Baja California Sur. The company spent more than three years preparing an environmentally sustainable development plan with the assistance of experts in marine dredging and leading environmental scientists from around the world. Key features of the environmental plan included:

  • No chemicals would be used in the dredging process or released into the sea
  • A specialized return down pipe that exceeds international best practices to manage the return of dredged sands close to the seabed, limiting plume or impact to the water column and marine ecosystem (including primary production)
  • The seabed would be restored after dredging in such a way as to promote rapid regeneration of seabed organisms in dredged areas
  • Ecotoxicology tests demonstrated that the dredging and return of sediment to the seabed would not have toxic effects on organisms
  • Sound propagation studies concluded that noise levels generated during dredging would be similar to whale-watching vessels, merchant ships and fisherman’s ships that already regularly transit this area, proving the system is not a threat to marine mammals
  • Dredging limited to less than one square kilometer each year, which means the project would operate in only a tiny proportion of the concession area each year
  • Proven turtle protection measures were incorporated even though the deposit and the dredging activity are much deeper and colder than where turtles feed and live, making material harm to the species unfeasible
  • There will be no material impact on local fisheries as fishermen have historically avoided the water column directly above the deposit due to the naturally low occurrence of fish there
  • The project would not be visible from the shoreline and would not impact tourism or coastal activities
  • Precautionary mitigation measures were incorporated into the development plan in line with best-practice global operational standards
  • The technology proposed to recover the phosphate sands has been safely used in Mexican waters for over 20 years on more than 200 projects by ExO’s operating partner, illustrating the hypocrisy of the denial of the environmental permit for the project, especially when one considers that Mexico approved much higher impact dredging projects in areas that its own environmental agency deemed “environmentally sensitive areas” during this same time period.
Notwithstanding the factors stated above, the Mexican Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) unlawfully rejected the permission to move forward with the project, even after the Federal Court of Administrative Justice (TFJA) unanimously ruled that this rejection was unlawful and ordered SEMARNAT to re-take its decision in 2018. To date, SEMARNAT has not been able to present any proof that supports a legal basis for rejecting this project, and its actions have deprived the Mexican people from realizing the tremendous societal and economic benefits this project would deliver. ExO is once again challenging the unlawful decision of the Peña Nieto administration before the TFJA. The case is being heard before the same tribunal that previously ruled that Mexico acted unlawfully in their rejection of the environmental approval of the ExO Phosphate Project. In addition, Mexico is facing an arbitration before an international tribunal for breaching the investment protection provisions under NAFTA. ExO is seeking compensation of over $2 billion on the basis that SEMARNAT’s wrongful repeated denial of authorization has destroyed the value of its investment in the country and is in violation of the following provisions of NAFTA:
  • Article 1102. National Treatment.
  • Article 1105. Minimum Standard of Treatment; and
  • Article 1110. Expropriation and compensation.

The First Memorial in the NAFTA case was filed in September. It is supported by documentary evidence and 20 expert reports and witness statements.  In summary, this evidence includes:

  • MERITS:  Testimony from independent environmental experts that the environmental impact of ExO’s phosphate project is minimal and readily mitigated by the mitigation measures proposed by ExO.  Witnesses also testified that Mexico’s denial of environmental approval by the prior administration was politically motivated and not justified on environmental grounds, and that Mexico granted environmental permits to similar dredging projects in areas that are considered more environmentally sensitive than ExO’s project location.
  • RESOURCE:  An independent certified marine geologist testified as to the size and character of the resource.
  • OPERATIONAL VIABILITY:  Engineering experts testified that the project uses established dredging and processing technology, and the project’s anticipated CAPEX and OPEX was reasonable.
  • VALUE:  A Phosphate market analyst testified that the project’s projected CAPEX and OPEX would make the project one of the lowest cost phosphate rock resources in the world, and damages experts testified the project would be commercially viable and profitable.

This NAFTA arbitration is being administered by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and it is expected that a redacted version of the First Memorial will be available to the public shortly. Once the Memorial is made available by ICSID, Odyssey will provide a link to the filing on its website, www.odysseymarine.com.

The NAFTA hearing is scheduled to take place in January 2022 unless settled earlier by the parties.

Increasing Portfolio Value

Odyssey increases the value of its mineral portfolio in multiple ways: adding new projects to the portfolio through development or acquisition, gaining or increasing equity ownership in mineral projects through investment or a leveraged contracting model, and by de-risking projects and moving them up the value curve toward full operating production.

During 2020, in addition to the ExO phosphate project, Odyssey worked on further developing the value of two highly prospective subsea mineral projects, CIC and Lihir Subsea Gold. The company is also actively developing new projects through its proprietary Global Prospectivity Program, with the goal of identifying new, highly valuable and societally significant subsea resources.

CIC: Odyssey is a member of the CIC Consortium, which is seeking an exploration license in an island nation’s Exclusive Economic Zone. The CIC Consortium was founded and is led by Odyssey co-founder and former CEO, Greg Stemm, and includes Royal Boskalis Westminster NV and Odyssey Marine Exploration.

Through a wholly owned subsidiary, Odyssey Marine Minerals, Odyssey has already acquired 15 million shares (representing approximately 12% of current outstanding shares of this project) through the provision of services related to resource assessment, project planning, research and project management, and Odyssey has an option to acquire an additional 5 million shares.

Lihir Subsea Gold: The project’s license area is adjacent to Lihir Island in Papua New Guinea where one of the world’s largest known terrestrial gold deposits is currently being mined and processed by Newcrest Mining. The license area includes at least five prospective exploration targets in two different mineralization types: seamount-related epithermal and modern placer gold. Odyssey owns approximately 80% of the Bismarck Mining Corporation, Ltd, the Papua New Guinea company that holds the exploration license.

While the COVID-19 pandemic delayed plans for additional offshore exploration work in 2020, presentations to the public were made in December 2020 in compliance with and in support of the regulatory process in PNG. Upon renewal of the exploration license, work will begin with the goal of conducting offshore validation work in 2021. “We are extremely excited to complete the exploration program to verify and quantify the mineralization of this potentially valuable resource and to fully understand the environmental setting in which it lies. We were on the cusp of executing this program in 2020 when the pandemic hit, making marine operations impossible to execute. The renewal will allow us to execute the same exploration program that was approved in the last license period,” said John Longley, President & COO of Odyssey.

About Odyssey Marine Exploration Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. (Nasdaq:OMEX) is engaged in deep-ocean exploration using innovative methods and state-of-the-art technology to provide access to critical resources worldwide. Our core focus is the discovery, development and extraction of deep-ocean minerals. Odyssey also provides marine services for private clients and governments. For additional details, please visit www.odysseymarine.com.

Forward Looking Information Odyssey Marine Exploration believes the information set forth in this Press Release may include "forward looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Act of 1934. Certain factors that could cause results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements are set forth in "Risk Factors" in Part I, Item 1A of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019, which was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2020. The financial and operating projections as well as estimates of mining assets are based solely on the assumptions developed by Odyssey that it believes are reasonable based upon information available to Odyssey as of the date of this release. All projections and estimates are subject to material uncertainties and should not be viewed as a prediction or an assurance of actual future performance. The validity and accuracy of Odyssey's projections will depend upon unpredictable future events, many of which are beyond Odyssey's control and, accordingly, no assurance can be given that Odyssey's assumptions will prove true or that its projected results will be achieved.

Cautionary Note to U.S. Investors The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) permits mining companies, in their filings with the SEC, to disclose only those mineral deposits that a company can economically and legally extract or produce. We use certain terms in this press release, such as "measured", "indicated," "inferred" and "resources," which the SEC guidelines strictly prohibit us from including in our filings with the SEC. "Inferred mineral resources" have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence, and great uncertainty as to their economic and legal feasibility. It cannot be assumed that all or any part of an inferred mineral resource will ever be upgraded to a higher category. U.S. investors are cautioned not to assume that part or all of the inferred mineral resource exists, or is economically or legally mineable, and are urged to consider closely the disclosures in our Form 10-K which may be secured from us or from the SEC's website at http://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml.

Read More
Commercial

Omni Bridgeway’s Exceptional 200+% Return

Could anyone have predicted these insane Omni Bridgeway returns? Omni Bridgeway isn’t making a profit currently. For the previous five years, revenue has trended downward at a rate of more than 30% per year. Simply Wall St explains that revenue growth is expected when companies aren’t making a profit, but that hasn’t been the case here. Yet the share price has risen at a rate of around 25% per year over the last five years. Unexpected? For sure. Throughout 2020, insiders at Omni Bridgeway have been making significant purchases. Most analysts take that as a positive sign. Still, this doesn’t necessarily translate to high shareholder earnings. Looking at the TSR (total shareholder return) is a vital part of determining potential value. This figure looks at discounted capital, spin-offs, and dividends—presuming that dividends are reinvested. From 2015-2020, the TSR at Omni Bridgeway was a whopping 234%, even better than the 25% share price return. Still, Omni Bridgeway’s investors suffered a loss of nearly 8% this year, including dividends. Long-term shareholders did better, gaining more than 25% over the last five years. Obviously, market conditions can impact share price—but litigation funding is also largely uncorrelated with the market.