Trending Now

John Freund's Posts

3311 Articles
Commercial

LCM Interim Results: Half Year Ending Dec 31, 2020

LCM CEO Patrick Moloney details that LCM has made strong progress in the first half of its fiscal year. Quality applications are up, and demand for legal finance is increasing as predicted. Most of the direct investment portfolio is balance sheet funded, and portfolio investments are reaching maturity. While timing remains somewhat unpredictable, that should smooth out as portfolio investments increase over time.

LCM, via Polaris, details strong increases over the period. By the numbers:

  • Total assets under management rose to AUD $322 mil by March—an increase of 92%.
  • Applications increased by 5%, totaling 266.
  • Total invested capital: AUD $99.4 million, which represents a 189% increase.
  • Gross profits: AUD $5.4 million
  • Total Equity: AUD $80.6 million.

LCM has made excellent progress in building portfolio finance agreements with a dozen resolutions in Aviation and Construction Corporate Portfolios—both of which are performing according to expectations. Partnership with DLA Piper is poised to expand reach into newer and less saturated global markets.

Chief executives remain confident of LCM’s ability to rise to the increased demand driven by the continued presence of COVID. It’s expected that financial unrest will continue until COVID is controlled around the globe. Even after a return to normalcy, the rise in insolvencies is expected to persist through the next year and beyond.

Commercial Consumer

Proposed New Jersey Rule May Require Disclosure of Third-Party Legal Funding

The District of New Jersey has proposed an amendment that, if enacted, would require disclosure when a plaintiff or defendant is utilizing third-party legal funding. The proposed Rule 7.1.1 would require filed statements detailing all information about non-parties providing funding for attorney fees and expenses, in exchange for a percentage of any award. Law.com details that the comment period for the new law lasts through May 21. The new rule would only apply to legal funding that covers expenses directly related to the case—not in situations where plaintiffs receive money for household or personal expenses during a claim. If the proposed rule becomes law, New Jersey would become the 25th federal district (out of 95 total districts) to require disclosure of third-party litigation funding. Steven Richman, chairman of the District of New Jersey Lawyers Advisory Committee, cited a recent ruling as the impetus of the new rule. In a case against generic drug Valsartan, the defendants petitioned the court for information regarding third-party funders. The judge ruled that funding was not relevant, and denied the motion. A similar rule is being proposed at the federal level, owing to a negative impression of litigation funders that many say is undeserved. One professor at Cardozo Law School, Anthony Sebok, asserts that mandated disclosure is unlikely to turn litigants away from the practice. He goes on to say that disclosure rules can wind up costing everyone involved additional time and expense.
Commercial

UK Sub-Postmasters Clear Names in Legal Battle

Earlier convictions for theft, fraud, and false accounting have finally been quashed after a legal skirmish lasting more than a decade. Thanks to support from third-party funder, Therium, thirty-nine sub-postmasters cleared their names after being prosecuted by the state-owned Post Office. The employees had been charged over shortfalls in various branch accounts. It was eventually discovered that Horizon, the IT system used by the Post Office, was to blame for the perceived financial shortfalls. Financial Times explains that more than 700 other sub-postmasters were convicted of crimes based on Horizon evidence. Many convictions required defendants to pay back the “stolen” funds. Lives were ruined due to these convictions, marriages ended, bankruptcies declared, some even died as convicted criminals. Prime Minister Boris Johnson referred to the situation as “an appalling injustice” and welcomed the court’s ruling. The court determined that the Post Office ignored sub-postmasters’ complaints about the IT system and disregarded their assertions that the system was to blame. Some defendants have vowed to hold Post Office officials accountable for the damage caused by the malicious prosecutions. Lord Justice Timothy Holroyde stated that the Post Office’s egregious failures of investigation and disclosure were an affront. Were it not for legal funding from Therium, the wronged parties would still be waiting for justice. It’s predicted that this ruling will inspire a civil lawsuit for malicious prosecution, among other charges. In such cases, compensation must return the claimant back to the same financial situation they were in before the prosecution occurred. Meanwhile, the Post Office is asking for governmental help to pay the expected compensation, saying they are in no financial position to do so.
Commercial

Roger Allanson Struck From SRA Roll After Alleged Misuse of Funds

While Litigation Finance is increasingly popular as a means to manage costs, it’s not without risks. Case in point: Roger Brian Allanson has recently been struck from the roll of trusted solicitors following allegations of fraud and misuse of funds. Law Gazette details that Allanson received GBP 19 million from litigation funders in order to pursue mortgage cases. These cases did not produce a return in more than 2.5 years. Some funds were used to pay office expenses, and more than GBP 100,000 was transferred to Allanson’s personal account. He did not dispute the bank transfers but denied any breach of trust or misstatements to investors. A judge determined that Allanson’s conduct was premeditated, and that he was motivated primarily by financial gain. Funders trusted him by providing funds, and Allanson betrayed that trust. After the judgment is published, Allanson has 21 days to appeal the decision.
Commercial

Out of the Shadows: The Mainstreaming of Litigation Finance

Litigation funders provide non-recourse funding to litigants, in order to enable them to pursue a meritorious case they couldn’t otherwise afford. It’s a straightforward process with a net societal gain of increasing access to justice. So why aren’t more people making use of it? The CLS Blue Sky Blog details that a newly-published article in the Vanderbilt Law Review, The Shadows of Litigation Finance, explores how Litigation Finance can overcome barriers that have been placed in its path. In the piece, authors Suneal Bedi (Professor at Indiana University and Maurer School of Law) and Willian C Marra (Investment Manager at Validity Finance), examine the awareness problem that plagues the industry, and lay out a scholarly framework with which to evaluate the full impact of litigation funding pre-trial, during the case, and after a case is resolved. Third-party legal finance is an enormous step forward in terms of social justice. Until this industry came to be, those who lacked financial means often lacked any way to seek justice when wronged—particularly by a large business, utility, or government. Litigation funding allows average citizens to pursue valid cases while preventing frivolous claims from clogging court dockets. After all, no funder wants to invest in a frivolous case that’s unlikely to be profitable. One of the interesting points made in the article is that there’s no specific framework to measure the success and benefits of non-recourse legal funding, hence it is difficult to counter the assertion that the use of litigation funding necessitates increased regulation. The pre-claim and post-claim impact of litigation funding are some of the key measurements explored by Marra and Bedi. By examining how funding changes the behavior of litigants at these stages, the authors hope to illustrate the heretofore unseen benefits of litigation funding—such as increased compliance and more equitable bargaining.
Commercial

How to Proceed After a Defendant Files for Bankruptcy

It may seem like a meritorious case and a competent legal team are all a plaintiff needs to recover funds. But what happens when a defendant declares bankruptcy? The situation becomes more complex for all involved—but it’s certainly not insurmountable if you know how to proceed. Omni Bridgeway explains that after a defendant files for bankruptcy, plaintiffs may feel pressured into taking a lowball settlement or even ending the claim. Plaintiffs may need to hire additional counsel or investigators, prompting costs to escalate significantly. For high-value claims, however, third-party legal funding may be a valuable part of the strategy going forward. Once a bankruptcy is declared, all legal actions against the debtor cease. Often, plaintiffs will ask judges to lift the stay—which gives the judge the option to enforce the stay or to deny the motion without prejudice. Effectively navigating this part of the process is essential, as a judge’s decision here may impact—or even end—the case. In bankruptcy court, plaintiffs often find themselves taking a discount on their claim. The trade-off is that disclosure of the defendant’s finances is more complete, and collecting the funds becomes less complicated. Any settlement stemming from bankruptcy court must gain court approval. Contentious settlements may be subjected to a procedure similar to a small trial—which may require additional counsel and other surprise expenses. More agreeable settlements can be fast-tracked in as few as 21 days. An experienced bankruptcy lawyer is essential for plaintiffs whose disputes wind up in bankruptcy court. Litigation Finance is a good way to fund surprise expenses while sharing risk with the funders—who provide financial help on a non-recourse basis. Ideally, funders should be well-versed in bankruptcy laws and collection strategies to better assist the plaintiffs moving forward.  
Commercial

Is Climate Litigation a New Frontier for Litigation Funding?

As the science becomes more definitive, climate-related lawsuits are growing in number and size. Since 2018, legal actions relating to climate change have almost doubled—at over 1,700 cases globally. Thus far, nearly ¾ of the total lawsuits have been aimed at governments. This is sure to continue as closer attention is paid to the stated goals of the Paris Climate Accord. Capital Monitor explains that this development may be a boon to the Litigation Finance industry on the whole. The emphasis on climate change lawsuits is likely to shift from governments to private businesses, with numbers that may even rival cigarette lawsuits. Maurice MacSweeney, director at Harbor Litigation Funding, stated that his firm has been increasingly investing in commercial disputes. He’s seeing a higher number of climate claims, which is a good opportunity for funders, partly because of the possibility of high awards. At the same time, pursuing cases against climate-destroying corporates is a net gain for the Earth. Sometimes the possibility of a lawsuit is the only thing forcing businesses to behave ethically with regard to the environment. Head of Clyde & Co law firm, Nigel Brook, details that these last few years have been transformational—even before COVID. Human rights cases are being presented with new thinking and theories of culpability. When these lawsuits are won by plaintiffs, a precedent is created and more cases emerge. Product liability legislation can be used to address climate change—for example, an oil company being held accountable for environmental damage. While that hasn’t happened yet, it may eventually, leading to huge changes in the way such cases are argued. Litigation costs can be high, but surely not as high as the price we pay when corporations poison the world we live in. Legal funding provides a viable solution.
Commercial

UKs Largest Divorce Case Ends With $100 Million Award to Ex-Wife

 Temur Akhmedov, the adult son of divorced Russian oligarchs Farkhad Akhmedov and Tatiana Akhmedova, has been ordered by a judge to pay his mother GBP 100 million. The judge, Gwynneth Knowles, reportedly called the younger Akhmedov “dishonest,” saying he would stop at nothing to assist his father. Bloomberg reports that after being awarded a  GBP 627 million divorce judgment, Tatiana Akhmedova’s ex-husband refused to pay. When she learned that her son was helping hide assets from her, she decided her only recourse was legal action. Temur reportedly moved millions into his account from his father’s, later claiming he lost GBP 50 million in stock trades. Akhmedova’s cases in six countries have been funded by Burford Capital. It’s expected that Burford will also finance the recovery of the award, as both Temur and Farkhad have expressed reticence to pay. Because this recent ruling occurred in an English court, Temur’s local assets are likely to be forfeited. Temur described this development as ‘upsetting.’ Tatiana Akhmedova is also seeking to seize a superyacht currently anchored in Dubai, access to a luxury London apartment, as well as a trove of modern artworks being stored in Liechtenstein. She describes her current relationship with her son as ‘very strained.’
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.