2020 was a pivotal year for commercial litigation funding, and the industry approaches 2021 on the cusp of massive growth. Litigation Finance Journal is hosting a special digital conference which will cover the most impactful stories of the past year, and offer insights into what next year will bring. This special one-hour panel discussion and Q&A will explore the major events of the past 12 months, including the Omni/IMF merger, the founding of the ILFA, industry innovation (corporate portfolio funding and financing M&A transactions) and more. Our panel of industry experts will also offer their views on what's in store for 2021 and beyond.

Moderator

Ed Truant Founder Slingshot Capital

Panelists

Andrew Saker CEO Omni Bridgeway

  Neil Purslow Co-Founder Therium Capital Management

   Nick Rowles-Davies Executive Vice Chairman LCM

The event will be held on Thursday, December 17th at 5pm ET. It will be audio-only, and comprise a 45-min panel discussion, followed by a 15-min Q&A with attendees. Tickets can be found here. Anyone who purchases a ticket will receive a recording of the event; it is not necessary to attend to receive the recording.  Questions? Write to: jfreund@litigationfinancejournal.com Hope you enjoy the event! - The LFJ Team

Winshear Gold Corp. (TSX-V: WINS) ("Winshear" or the "Company") provides the following update on arbitration activities related to the expropriation of the SMP Gold Project (the “Project”) by the Government of Tanzania.

Winshear is pleased to advise that it has completed a Litigation Funding Agreement (the “Agreement”) with an affiliate of the Litigation Funder. The Agreement provides for funds to be drawn from a financing facility to meet all fees and expenses relating to the pursuit of certain claims against the Government of Tanzania for the illegal expropriation and loss of the SMP Gold Project, including all costs associated with legal proceedings, media/public relations, geopolitical efforts, and, if necessary, enforcement, of any awards.

Mark Sander, President of Winshear Gold, commented, “Winshear’s legal representatives, Lalive, backed by the financial support of the Litigation Funder, have been engaged to aggressively pursue compensation for the illegal activities of the Government of Tanzania in expropriating the SMP Gold Project. Lalive is highly experienced in arbitration cases in Tanzania with a track record of success for its clients.”

Background information on the arbitration case is contained in Winshear’s press releases of:

• January 10, 2020, which announced delivery of the required 180-day notice of intent to file arbitration proceedings to the Attorney General of Tanzania; and
• July 14, 2020, which announced the commencement of international arbitration proceedings after the 180-day notice period had expired without response from the Government of Tanzania.

Compensation being sought for expropriation of the SMP Gold Project may include, but will not be limited to, the value of the historic investment made by Winshear in Tanzania, the value of the project at the time that tenure was expropriated and damages the Company has suffered as a result of Tanzania’s acts and omissions.

The Company is not able to make any comment in relation to the potential quantum of any claim for compensation at this point.

ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS “Mark Sander” Dr. Mark V. Sander President

For more information, please contact Irene Dorsman at (604) 210-8751 or visit www.winshear.com.

Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

Cautions Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

This news release includes certain statements and information that may contain forward-looking information within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities laws.

Generally, forward-looking information can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as “intends” or “anticipates”, or variations of such words and phrases or statements that certain actions, events or results “may”, “could”, “should”, “would” or “occur”. Forward-looking statements are based on the opinions and estimates of management as of the date such statements are made and they are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause the actual results, level of activity, performance or achievements of the Company to be materially different from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements or forward-looking information, including the risks normally involved in the exploration, development and mining business or as may be otherwise set out in the Company’s filings with Canadian securities regulatory agencies. Although management of the Company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements or forward-looking information, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements and forward-looking information. The Company does not undertake to update any forward-looking statements or forward-looking information that are incorporated by reference herein, except in accordance with applicable securities laws.

The following is a contributed piece from Nick Rowles-Davies, Executive Vice Chairman of Litigation Capital Management. Along with Andrew Saker, CEO of Omni Bridgeway, and Neil Purslow, Co-Founder of Therium, Nick will be a panelist on LFJ's upcoming special digital conference -- an industry roundup of the major events impacting commercial litigation funding in 2020, and what to expect in 2021.  Recently, there has been a lot of discussion around litigation finance. This is generally a good thing, as although litigation finance is no longer an unknown dark art, the industry still benefits from a heightened profile as it progresses on the journey from obscure to mainstream. That said, recent theoretical musings have concerned the ethics surrounding a funder’s involvement in a case, some funders’ closer associations with law firms and the duties of the lawyers running funded cases. These are important issues that should be discussed and debated openly, albeit more usefully by practitioners and funders who have real experience of such matters in jurisdictions where funding is permitted, so as to avoid naïve commentary that betrays a lack of practical knowledge and understanding of how these matters actually work. One issue raised recently is the concern that using funding can create a conflict between the duties of the lawyer to their client and any duty to the funder. There is a suggestion that in this regard, funders create a ‘practical difficulty’ for lawyers, who are torn between protecting the interests of their clients and pleasing investors. The only duty of the lawyers in a matter which is financed by a third-party funder is always the one to their client. Professional funders invariably include a provision within their funding agreements that requires the lawyers to act in accordance with their professional duties and any regulatory requirements. That said, the practical reality is that any professional funder will wish to ensure that the interests of the client and the funder are entirely aligned. No funder wants to create a situation where the client has little or nothing to gain from the outcome of the case. The simple reason for this is that the funder does not influence or control the decision making in the litigation or arbitration. They cannot, and attempting to do so would put the funder’s investment at risk. Funders provide passive capital and once they have decided to invest in a case there are only certain circumstances where a withdrawal from the case is permitted. In reality, given the experience of the established professional funding cohort, most clients are keen to discuss their case with the funder in a way that seeks out the funder’s views and gives the client the benefit of the many years of experience that the funders have gained. Despite the suggested concerns, funders do only have a limited and pre-agreed role in any decision making, and the funding agreements reflect that position. It has also been suggested that clients should seek independent advice on the terms of the funding agreement, namely alternative advice from the lawyers running the actual case. That does happen, although it is not mandatory given that the parties are commercial entities seeking to enter into a commercial agreement, but then neither is it mandatory for a client entering into a DBA/contingency fee agreement with their lawyers in England and Wales. It has been observed that there are law firms who are forging closer links or associations with funders and whether that, also, raises questions of duty or loyalty. The commentary above is equally applicable to this. Lawyers know where their duty lies, and professional funders have no interest in interfering in that. Perhaps a more pertinent question is to ask why these associations are happening. Since the last financial crisis, the law firm model has been changing with corporate clients insisting on higher value and better predictability on fees. In a downward trend since 2008, law firms have been losing out on collections on billable time. Moreover, the most important issue and the area that in house legal teams believe needs the most attention is the provision of more creative and alternative billing solutions.[1] One way in which law firms can offer an alternative is by the provision of litigation finance. Law firms that are forging closer associations with funders are showing that they understand their clients’ needs and are reacting to their clients’ requests by offering an alternative. The legal market is extremely competitive. It should be assumed that all the lawyers pitching commercial clients for work are very good lawyers. Law firms, particularly in the current financial climate, not only have to address the requirements of those commercial and corporate clients, but they need to set themselves apart from the competition. They need to change the narrative and distinguish themselves in a crowded market. The firms that have made such arrangements are benefitting from the ability to do this and are gaining more work from existing clients and winning new clients with the benefit of their associations with litigation funders. Used intelligently, litigation finance is an excellent business development tool for law firms. However, these associations go much further than simply being a response to in house corporate demands or the business development needs of law firms. The benefits to the law firms and to their clients are numerous, as they are of course to the funders. Nothing in these arrangements is, should be, or indeed could be, exclusive. The law firm should always act in the client’s best interests. Whilst the funder may see all of a firm’s potential funding opportunities, it is incumbent on the funder to create an arrangement that is always going to be competitive for the law firm’s clients. That is a significant benefit to all parties. The established professional funders consider every case on its own merit and risk profile and could not guarantee that they will always offer the cheapest terms – to do so would undermine one of the cardinal rules practiced by real funders, namely the pricing of risk. Accordingly, there will be occasions where the funder with whom the firm has an association cannot provide terms that meet the client’s demands for a particular case. Whilst the regular referral of cases is a benefit to the funder, there is real value to both funder and law firm in the knowledge and experience gained by working closely together, understanding the methodology and then adopting the processes and the thinking undertaken by the funders, even using similar terminology and document precedents. This exchange of information means that the law firm really understands what it takes to obtain approval for funding. That leads to a better result for clients. There is no time and money wasted in hopeless applications and cases that can be funded are executed more swiftly whilst those that cannot be funded rejected swiftly, or do not make it past the law firm’s triage process which has been honed by continued education from the funder. It is incumbent on any new industry to listen to concerns, ethical or otherwise, and respond with appropriate understanding and professionalism to address those concerns. All of the issues raised recently have been asked and answered many times before. The litigation finance industry has matured significantly in the last 10 years and is now treated, rightly, as a useful and often necessary tool in any disputes lawyer’s toolbox. The general international trend is one of growing acceptance, increasing adoption of, and accelerated adaptation to, litigation finance—particularly in sophisticated international hubs for dispute resolution.   [1] (2019 Report on the State Of The Legal Market by the Georgetown University Law Centre and Thomson Reuters Legal Executive Institute & Peer Monitor)

Kroll Bond Rating Agency (KBRA) assigns a preliminary rating to one class of notes from PEAR 2020-1, LLC, an $80 million litigation finance ABS transaction serviced by Golden Pear Funding OpCo, LLC (“Golden Pear”). The PEAR 2020-1, LLC transaction represents Golden Pear’s first ABS collateralized by litigation finance receivables. Golden Pear is a litigation finance company that conducts business throughout the US but is concentrated primarily in the New York area. As of June 30, 2020, the company has funded over $626 million in aggregate advances dating back to 2008. The portfolio securing the transaction has an aggregate discounted receivable balance (“ADPB”), including assumed prefunding, of approximately $108 million as of the October 30, 2020 cutoff date. The ADPB is the aggregate discounted cash flows of the collections associated with the PEAR 2020-1, LLC portfolio’s litigation funding receivables. The discount rate used to calculate the ADPB is a percentage equal to the sum of the assumed interest rate on the notes, the servicing fee rate of 1.00%, and an additional 0.10%. As of the cutoff date, the receivables comprise pre-settlement litigation funding receivables with an average advance to expected settlement case value of approximately 13%. No post-settlement advances or medical lien receivables are included in the pool. The notes benefit from credit enhancement in the form of overcollateralization, a cash reserve account and a capitalized interest account. The transaction also features a $15 million prefunding account that may be used to purchase additional receivables during the three months after closing, subject to certain eligibility criteria. Click here to view the report. To access ratings and relevant documents, click here. Disclosures Further information on key credit considerations, sensitivity analyses that consider what factors can affect these credit ratings and how they could lead to an upgrade or a downgrade, and ESG factors (where they are a key driver behind the change to the credit rating or rating outlook) can be found in the full rating report referenced above. A description of all substantially material sources that were used to prepare the credit rating and information on the methodology(ies) (inclusive of any material models and sensitivity analyses of the relevant key rating assumptions, as applicable) used in determining the credit rating is available in the U.S. Information Disclosure Form located here. Information on the meaning of each rating category can be located here. Further disclosures relating to this rating action are available in the U.S. Information Disclosure Form referenced above. Additional information regarding KBRA policies, methodologies, rating scales and disclosures are available at www.kbra.com. About KBRA KBRA is a full-service credit rating agency registered as an NRSRO with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, KBRA is designated as a designated rating organization by the Ontario Securities Commission for issuers of asset-backed securities to file a short form prospectus or shelf prospectus. KBRA is also recognized by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners as a Credit Rating Provider and is a certified Credit Rating Agency (CRA) with the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). Kroll Bond Rating Agency Europe is registered with ESMA as a CRA.