Omni Bridgeway continues its US expansion with three new hires in New York, bringing on Megan Easley and Austin Ginnings as Legal Counsel and increasing gender diversity on its US investment committee with the addition of Martha E. Solinger. Allison K. Chock, Omni Bridgeway’s Chief Investment Officer-US, notes, “Omni Bridgeway has developed a team that delivers what sophisticated clients with meritorious claims need most: a thorough but rapid internal investment analysis. Our quick vetting process is made possible by pairing best-in-class general litigation and arbitration experience with specialization in those practice areas where demand for our financing solutions is high. These hires further distinguish us as the funder that prioritizes the needs of parties seeking commercial disputes funding and anticipates how to best serve them in the days ahead.” Each of the legal counsel hires bring specialized expertise, enhancing Omni Bridgeway’s capabilities in corporate and intellectual property funding, respectively. Megan Easley is the third investment team member to join the company with experience working for a corporate legal department. Before joining Omni Bridgeway, she practiced law at Susman Godfrey LLP, focusing on representing plaintiffs and defendants in commercial litigation matters in federal and state courts. During her time with the firm, Megan was seconded to GE Capital where she spent four years in the role of Special Counsel and managed domestic and international litigation, directing outside counsel handling government and internal investigations and litigation with exposure of more than $1 billion. Austin Ginnings adds to the company’s team of intellectual property funding specialists, which also includes former Kirkland & Ellis LLP partner and patent litigator, Sarah Tsou, and former boutique business and intellectual property firm managing partner and trade secrets litigator, Stephanie Southwick. Austin held a management role at an IP-focused investment and advisory firm before joining Omni Bridgeway. He previously practiced law at elite intellectual property firms Desmarais LLP and Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto, representing plaintiffs and defendants in patent infringement cases, including matters handled on a contingency fee basis. He also advised technology, life sciences and medical device companies on offensive and defensive patent portfolio strategies and IP portfolio development. Earlier in his career, Austin worked with the United States International Trade Commission addressing issues regarding IP and international trade disputes. In their roles as legal counsel, Megan and Austin will conduct due diligence on potential investments and provide legal advice to Omni Bridgeway on matters of US law. The company has also expanded its capabilities in making final decisions about disputes it assesses for investment. Martha E. Solinger brings to the Investment Committee decades of experience gained as the Managing Director of Global Litigation, Insurance and Intellectual Property at Lehman Brothers Inc. pre-bankruptcy, then more recently, as the Co-General Counsel of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. post-bankruptcy. In addition to adding substantial corporate and legal expertise to the committee, Martha helps the company progress towards its goal to increase diversity, becoming the first woman on the company’s US investment committee. Omni Bridgeway is the global leader in dispute resolution finance, with expertise in civil and common law legal and recovery systems, and operations spanning Asia, Australia, Canada, Europe, the Middle East, the UK and the US. Omni Bridgeway offers dispute finance from case inception through to post-judgment enforcement and recovery. Since 1986, it has established a record of funding disputes and enforcement proceedings around the world. Omni Bridgeway is listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX:OBL) and includes the leading dispute funders formerly known as IMF Bentham Limited, Bentham IMF and ROLAND ProzessFinanz. It also includes a joint venture with IFC (part of the World Bank Group). Visit omnibridgeway.com to learn more.

The following article is part of an ongoing column titled ‘Investor Insights.’  Brought to you by Ed Truant, founder and content manager of Slingshot Capital, ‘Investor Insights’ will provide thoughtful and engaging perspectives on all aspects of investing in litigation finance.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• Recent changes in the patent sector have made the case type more attractive to litigation finance
• Litigation finance specialization has started to occur in the intellectual property case market
• Managers focusing on specific case types introduce systematic risk to their portfolios

INVESTOR INSIGHTS

• Investors should understand how the risk/reward characteristics of a patent case differ from plain vanilla commercial cases
• Case type specialization introduces a systematic risk that cannot benefit from the application of portfolio theory
• Patent cases will occupy a larger proportion of commercial litigation finance portfolios
• Patent litigation is a specialized and complex area of law. Managers investing in the space should have the internal resources to properly underwrite these opportunities

Over the past few years, I have noticed a distinct change in the appetite of litigation funders when it comes to getting involved in patent litigations. It used to be the case that patent litigation was viewed negatively by the litigation funding community, due to negative precedents, regulatory changes and trends that were not supportive of providing litigation finance. Then about two years ago, I noticed an increase in the number of patent cases being brought to the attention of funders, and in the number of funders marketing that they are interested in providing financing to patent cases. While I would say that the marketing is a little ahead of reality, there are now many more funders in the litigation finance community that will look at a patent case for potential funding. However, few will actually provide the funding. There seems to be no lack of excuses as to why funders will not fund cases, but they all seem to revolve around outcome risk or duration risk, and the two often go hand-in-hand. To get a better perspective on the trends within the industry, and to get a handle on where patent litigation is heading from a litigation finance perspective, I turned to Trey Hebert of Permentum Capital to provide some industry perspective. I would also like to acknowledge the contributions of Michael Gulliford at Soryn IP and Phillip Mitchell and Steve Wong of Validity IP. Editor's note-- the following contribution appears with illustrative graphs and charts here.   Trey Hebert: Although many litigation funders were historically hesitant to invest in patent litigation, there are signs that patent litigation is becoming an attractive case type for litigation finance. Such signs include changes in the law, increased patent-litigation filings, and patent-friendly rules in certain jurisdictions. Below we provide context for patent disputes, review how certain judicial and legislative events made patent litigation riskier and less profitable, and highlight signs of change in patent litigation. This article then presents successful examples of third-party funding in patent litigation and offers insights from investors, before discussing the future of litigation funding in the patent arena. I. Patent Disputes & Patent Trolls Patents have long held a special position in U.S. litigation. Though rarely discussed, patent protection has its roots in Article I of the U.S. Constitution. Because patent protection is federal in nature, all patent cases are heard in federal court. Generically, patent disputes involve a fight between parties over the exclusive right to a patented invention. A non-practicing entity (NPE)—often pejoratively referred to as a patent troll—is an entity that does not itself employ an invention, but nevertheless uses the patent to extract licensing fees. One of the earliest well-known examples of NPE patent assertion was by renowned inventor Eli Whitney in connection with his famous cotton gin invention, patented in 1794. After his own attempts to commercialize the cotton gin failed, Mr. Whitney sued plantation owners that had started using his patented invention. While Mr. Whitney ultimately recovered little for his patent assertion efforts, his case showed future litigants that a plaintiff’s use of a patent was not a prerequisite. In some respects, patent lawsuits brought by NPEs are a type of litigation finance. After all, litigation finance uses current capital to obtain a future financial benefit through litigation. Likewise, an NPE or patent troll spends current capital on acquiring and asserting patent rights for the future financial benefit of court awards or licensing fees. The number of lawsuits filed by NPEs grew in the wake of the 2001 and 2008 recessions. As the tech bubble burst and companies folded, many businesses holding patents failed, and their patents were snapped up at bargain prices by patent-holding companies. A few years later, those patents were being litigated. Suits brought by NPEs tend to be a breed apart. Traditional defense strategies such as filing counterclaims and employing cost-increasing litigation tactics, such as conducting burdensome discovery, are generally ineffective against NPEs. By-definition, NPEs are unlikely to have committed any bad acts and are often formed as shell companies with few documents or employees. And they don’t face the same type of public-relations issues that customer-facing companies might need to consider. II. The Patent-Dispute Landscape As the number of NPE suits increased, the judiciary and Congress responded. Several judicial and legislative changes made patent litigation longer and more difficult, increasing the risk and decreasing the profitability. eBay In 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. held that a successful patent plaintiff was not guaranteed the right to a permanent injunction against the losing defender. Prior to this decision, courts would almost always issue permanent injunctions against patent infringers. The threat of an injunction likely forced earlier and higher settlements. eBay didn’t completely kill the injunction, but it undoubtedly devalued patent litigation. America Invents Act The America Invents Act of 2011 was the most significant statutory overhaul of the U.S. patent system in half a century. Perhaps most impactful, Congress expanded the process to invalidate a patent through Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) before a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). An IPR is now commonly used by lawsuit defendants to challenge the validity of the patents asserted against them. District courts regularly pause litigation while the PTAB resolves the IPR. Because few patents survived early IPR—Federal Circuit Chief Judge Rader famously referred to the PTAB as “death squads killing property rights”—IPR is a favorite mechanism for defendants to either end litigation early or increase costs and delay resolution. Alice In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank changed how courts analyzed patent validity, encouraging defendants to seek an early ruling that asserted patents were invalid. In Alice’s wake, defendants began to routinely ask courts to kill patents, arguing that they were concerned non-patentable, abstract ideas, and waves of patents were invalidated early in litigation. Plaintiffs, therefore, faced greater uncertainty, and defendants capitalized on the ability to attempt a relatively cheap escape maneuver prior to expensive discovery. TC Heartland In 2017, in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, the U.S. Supreme curtailed the places that a corporate defendant could be sued: venue is only proper in the district where (1) a defendant is incorporated or (2) has a regular, established place of business and committed acts of infringement. Before TC Heartland, the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX) was the favorite watering-hole of patent plaintiffs, because it offered high damages awards and a “rocket docket” to trial. TC Heartland gutted EDTX’s hold on patent litigation, increasing uncertainty in the short term, as plaintiffs were forced to try new venues. III. Signs of Change: Fertile Ground for Litigation Finance Many funders have traditionally shied away from patent litigation, citing its expense, difficulty, risk, and duration. But analysis reveals that these alleged drawbacks are either less pronounced than anticipated, or are changing.

1. Patent litigation is expensive, but awards can be gigantic. Through trial, a patent case typically costs $5-10 million. Yet, there is significant pressure on law firms to reduce costs, and legal technology companies are paving the way for more efficient case management. Further, damages available in patent litigation suits can far outweigh the costs. And enhanced damages—discretionary punitive damages that can triple compensatory damages—are more readily accessible after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., which relaxed the standard for finding willful infringement.
2. Patent litigation is complicated, but such complication is an advantage for funders that develop expertise. Because patent litigation includes so many traps for the unwary, it is hard to evaluate a patent lawsuit at the outset. Assessing a patent case requires familiarity with the twists and turns of patent litigation, and few funders have the expertise to model the costs, outcomes, expected damages, and timing of a case from start to finish. But that difficulty means that a sophisticated litigation funder who takes the time to understand patent litigation, and carefully considers patent-litigation opportunities, will face fewer competitors and potentially higher rewards for the risk.
3. Patent litigation has a high risk of early dismissal, but courts may be more reluctant to dismiss. As discussed in Part II, patent suits have several early choke points. The recent Federal Circuit decision in Berkheimer v. HP Inc. signaled a retreat from early invalidation. Berkheimer recognized that fact issues may preclude courts from resolving early validity That limitation on those challenges provides additional leverage to patent plaintiffs who are prepared to frame factual disputes for maximum effect.
4. Patent litigation can take a long time, but key venues are shifting—and speeding up. Relative to other attractive case types, patent disputes can require an extended time horizon, and IPR can freeze litigation in its tracks. Furthermore, the “optimal” strategy for a patent plaintiff might push back recovery by design. For example, a patent plaintiff may wish to litigate against a smaller defendant first, to work through any prior art (earlier uses of the technology that might impact patent validity) and/or claim construction (interpreting the patent claim language) and gain key favorable rulings, then attack the big fish with a cleaner path through litigation. More complex litigation strategies can further challenge the litigation funder. After TC Heartland hobbled EDTX in 2017 and patent litigator Alan Albright took the bench in 2018, the Western District of Texas (WDTX) is now the hottest venue for patent litigation. This year, one in five patent complaints are filed in WDTX, in part because of the speed to resolution plaintiffs can expect there. Judge Albright has resisted litigation stays pending IPR proceedings, he offers to resolve discovery disputes by phone as they happen, and many observers find his scheduling orders “fast-paced,” to say the least. His only completed patent trial (so far) was held less than 13 months after the complaint was filed! Further, because Judge Albright is the only judge in the Waco division, plaintiffs can file there knowing Judge Albright will preside over their case and its schedule. Not only are patent-friendly changes underway at the district courts, there have been favorable trends in another important institution. At the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, where patent defendants commonly seek patent invalidation, Inter Partes Review institution rates have fallen from 87% in FY13 to less than 60% in partial FY20. Institution is the first major hurdle for patent challengers in IPR, and falling institution rates mean fewer patents will be tried (and potentially invalidated) by the PTAB. As a result, IPR is less attractive to patent challengers, and IPR risk to patent holders is declining.
5. Patents can be monetized by sale or license, but this option is often unattractive to patent-holders. Unlike commercial litigation claims, which are not (yet?) bought, sold, and licensed with third parties, patents are directly marketable to third parties. A patent holder that wishes to extract value is not forced to hire an army of attorneys to sue an infringer; it can sell or license the patent instead. But many patent holders do not wish to sell or license their patents. Especially in lawsuits against a company's competitor, a dynamic that many funders prefer, the loss of control associated with selling or licensing the patent might be unpalatable to the patent owner. Litigation funding provides patent owners with a way to monetize the patent without losing control of it. And if the patent holder and litigation funder were interested, the funder could purchase a stake in the patent to achieve even better alignment, an option not generally available for other types of litigation.
6. Patent litigation had been on the decline, but recent filings suggest a trend reversal. As shown below, patent litigation filings peaked in 2013, remained high through 2015, then fell three straight years through 2018. But recent data suggests patent litigation is reversing course. Interest in patent protection, as measured by the number of patents granted each year, has been trending up since 2009. Patent litigation filings were flat for 2019, and up for the first six months of 2020, despite the COVID-19 crisis. If the second half of 2020 matches the first, annual totals would be up by more than 25%, as projected below. As patent litigation grows, patent opportunities for litigation funders are likely to follow.

IV. Successful Examples of Third-Party Funding for Patent Litigation UC Santa Barbara LED Filament Campaign UC Santa Barbara is a public research university that routinely applies for and receives patents related to technology developed in its labs. One patented technology developed there involves LED bulbs, and UC Santa Barbara believed multiple infringers were using the technology to make and sell lightbulbs through U.S. retailers. Rather than pursue each infringing manufacturer, UC Santa Barbara has targeted retailers, seeking to license the technology so that the retailer is free to sell bulbs that use the patented technology from any manufacturer. With the public backing of a litigation funder, the University was able to pursue the infringement claims and reinvest in education and research, free from concerns about misuse of public funds for litigation. The campaign is ongoing, but so far, several major retailers have licensed the technology. i4i v Microsoft There are several attributes of a potential patent case that funders might find attractive: a strong infringement read… a good “story” about the plaintiff… potentially high damages… a defendant that can pay. A classic example of such a case is i4i v Microsoft, a true David v Goliath litigation. i4i developed technology that gave users a better way to edit markup languages like XML. When Microsoft was asked to provide similar functionality on a federal project, Microsoft invited i4i to meet with its government sales team. After successfully landing the project with i4i’s help, Microsoft excluded i4i, but still used the patented technology. i4i could not afford to litigate against Microsoft, so it sought third-party funding to assert its patent. i4i obtained the funding it needed, and was ultimately awarded $290 million. V. Future of Patent Litigation Funding Increase in Litigation Tied to Patent Licensing Disputes Michael Gulliford, of Soryn IP, has watched the patent litigation funding landscape shift over the past several years. He observes that, "unfortunately, in today’s post-patent reform world - which shifted quite a bit of leverage to infringers - many companies choose to copy a patented technology rather than pay to license it. Once that happens, the dispute almost invariably gets resolved in the courtroom. In a sense, when it comes to patent licensing, litigation has just become an expected, albeit expensive, part of the patent licensing business negotiation.” Sonos, the company behind much of the wireless home audio revolution, is one public example that demonstrates even the most high-end technology companies may be forced to litigate their patents. Sonos claims that after sharing its technology with Google to further their shared technology integration goals, Google then launched its own competing product using Sonos’ patented technology. Unlike Sonos, many companies in a similar position are unable to afford the expensive litigation which forces larger companies to the license negotiation table. Mr. Gulliford continued, “these days, if a company is doing something interesting from a technology standpoint, it can almost count on the fact that there will be some form of copying. Assuming the technology was patented, the resulting licensing discussions will most often lead to patent litigation, which could easily cost $5-20M depending on the scope of the dispute. Those expenses can cause quite a big hit to the income statement and that’s where litigation finance can really help.” As the technology world moves toward further collaboration and integration between products, the table is set for licensing disputes to increase. And as patent litigation becomes an increasingly standard part of innovators’ attempts to license their technology, already expensive patent litigation is likely to increase as well. These increased costs will exacerbate the need for financial solutions like litigation finance. Specialization In Patent Funding As the litigation funding industry matures, one trend to watch is specialization by funders seeking to target patent litigation, with Fortress’ IP Fund and Soryn being prime early examples. Fund-level specialization provides strategic diversification options to investors, and facilitates the development of expertise in evaluating patent litigation investment opportunities. Firm-level specialization avoids some of the challenges faced by large-firm patent attorneys with respect to conflicts and plaintiff-side representation, and it presents opportunities for innovative litigation finance structures that help clients and the firm. Investor Insights In my article about “Edge”, I referenced a trend toward specialization, and patent litigation finance is certainly a sub-sector that would qualify as an area of specialization, given the complexity of the cases and the economics at stake. There are a couple of risks inherent in patent litigation that attract my immediate attention as an investor. The first is duration risk, as there are many potential delay tactics, procedural strategies and stumbling blocks that could interfere with the timelines of a patent case. In certain circumstances, the quantum of the issue at risk is so significant that it forces the defendant to push to the bitter end, which results in long timelines and reduces time-based returns. The second issue has to do with early-stage case risk. In the patent space, there are procedural hurdles (IPR, ‘Alice’, Markman, etc.) that could disqualify a case from proceeding, and this adds another element of risk in the early stages of the case. Investors should think about bifurcating (mentally and structurally) this risk into two phases. The first phase encompasses the early stage risk of the case, and investors should be prepared to have a lower win rate during this phase of the case and accept increased loss rates, but also put fewer dollars at risk with the potential for larger rewards. The second phase would be after the hurdles in the first phase have been overcome, whereby investors can take some comfort from the de-risking involved with overcoming these hurdles, but should also expect lower returns with more dollars at risk relative to investors in the first phase. One could argue the patent space has two separate and discrete risk/return profiles, depending on where the case is in its life cycle. Validity IP is presently working on a solution to this problem, which may encourage the litigation finance industry to pursue cases that currently get passed over, due to the presence of phase 1 risks. Edward Truant is the founder of Slingshot Capital Inc., an investor in the litigation finance industry (consumer and commercial) and a former partner in a mid-market leveraged buy-out private equity firm. Ed is currently designing a new fund focused on institutional investors who are seeking to make allocations to the commercial litigation finance asset class. Trey Hebert is a Director at Permentum Capital. Before joining Permentum, he practiced at Vinson & Elkins LLP, where he represented both plaintiffs and defendants in complex commercial litigation with an emphasis on patent and trade-secret disputes. He has represented clients in federal district and appellate courts and in international arbitration. Trey has first-hand experience with high-stakes, plaintiff-side representation in third party funded litigation. Validity provides core analytical and advisory services that assist clients in developing, optimizing, and asserting patent portfolios.  Validity is currently designing an innovative litigation fund to capitalize on patent opportunities in its network that are overlooked by traditional funders.

The insurance industry is facing a hard market thanks to multiple factors including the COVID pandemic. Hard markets are a time of high insurance premiums, more precise and complex underwriting, fewer policies being written, and a shrinking pool of competitors. With that in mind, insurers are raising money to make the most of opportunities as they arise. At the same time, investors are understandably cautious. Intelligent Insurer details a recent panel discussion on hard markets with commentary from Stefan Holzberger of AM Best and Jon Warwick of ILS Capital. The experts predict how investors may respond to hard market conditions and how that will impact the insurance industry in the coming months. Holzberger notes that factors affecting the market cycle include low-interest rates, loss creep from previous catastrophic events, and litigation finance. He predicts a sustained hard market. Lit fin can be a particular thorn in the side of insurers, since it affords ordinary people the opportunity to pursue insurance claims even after they’ve been denied. Warwick explains that while investor confidence is favorable, capacity is reduced. This reduced capacity can create more difficult conditions for reinsurance programs. That’s bound to cause a spike in prices. In some areas, rates have increased as much as 75%. While some factors were in place even before the start of the year, the uncertainty brought about by COVID has brought extreme volatility to the market. Holzberger predicts that this rate of hardening will continue to increase and intensify. Warwick predicts that rate hikes will impact territories and classes differently. He refers to one company that doubled its insurance—causing premiums to go up a shocking 1,000%. Both experts predict good things for the future of the insurance industry. Despite some difficulties, the market is well-capitalized with solid liquidity.  

Bryant Park Capital (“BPC”), a leading middle market investment bank, announced today that Fast Cash Legal, LLC (“Fast Cash” or the “Company”) recently closed on a $25 million senior debt transaction with a leading institutional investor to the specialty  finance space. BPC served as the exclusive financial advisor to Fast Cash in connection with this transaction. “Bryant Park Capital was a valuable asset to our team throughout this process.  Their wealth of industry knowledge and experience proved crucial in representing Fast Cash Legal's interests and specific needs.  Litigation Finance is a unique product, and BPC's team exhibited the market expertise necessary for reaching a successful outcome.  Every step of the way they provided guidance, resources, and advice to ensure a smooth process.   We feel confident that we made the right choice having them on our team,” said Zamir Kazi, CEO of Fast Cash. About Fast Cash Legal, LLC Fast Cash was established in 2016 as an originator in consumer litigation finance, specializing in providing pre- and post-settlement legal funding to plaintiffs nationwide. In its early history, Fast Cash has already originated a successful and diversified portfolio across multiple states leveraging a team of professionals who have extensive operating experience in the sector. For more information about Fast Cash, please visit www.fastcashlegal.com.

Liability exposures for companies around the world are increasing. Factors such as rising litigation, collective redress and large court verdicts, costly and frequent recalls in the automotive and food sectors, the disruptive impact of civil unrest and riots in a growing number of countries, and environmental concerns such as indoor air quality and higher fines and remediation standards will likely impact businesses and their insurers in the future – all in the face of a challenging global pandemic, according to a new report from Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty (AGCS) which highlights five trends for the sector. “Pricing in the liability insurance market may have turned in recent months, however social inflation trends and large court verdicts continue in the United States. This combined with expanded exposures for non-US companies doing business in the US and an increase in automotive part recalls are putting pressure on liability insurers,” says Ciara Brady, Global Head of Liability at AGCS. “Overlay this with the uncertain economic outlook, political instability and unknown impacts from coronavirus and this is creating a challenging market for clients, brokers and insurers alike. While we have to react to new loss trends in underwriting, AGCS remains committed to supporting our clients with solid risk transfer solutions and capacity to address today’s liability exposures.” Social inflation in the US and rise of collective redress globally Social inflation is a phenomenon especially prevalent in the US, driven by the growing emergence of litigation funders, higher jury awards, more liberal workers’ compensation claims, as well as new tort and negligence concepts. The median settlement amount of the top 50 US verdicts from 2014 to 2018 nearly doubled from $28mn to $54mn. Litigation funding is not only on the rise in the US, but also in Europe and elsewhere around the world, contributing to a growing trend of collective redress as hurdles for consumers are lowered to embark on class actions. Countries that may not be historically associated with this development, such as Saudi Arabia and South Africa, are classified as being “medium risk” that a company may face a collective action in these jurisdictions, according to AGCS’ litigation funding country guide. Another factor influencing the size of settlements in the US is the increasing sophistication of the plaintiff’s bar with specialist consultants and psychologists being deployed to influence the jury’s decision. The legal system in the US has seen a deterioration in consumer confidence towards corporations. This lack of confidence is driving an anger by individuals or classes of individuals toward perceived “greedy corporates” that is resulting in so-called “nuclear” verdicts. According to AGCS experts, it’s too early to identify a reverse trend, but court closures due to the Covid-19 pandemic may slow down social inflation as plaintiffs realize that it could take years before their case is tried before a jury and therefore may be more willing to settle outside court. Rising automotive repair and recall costs In recent years there has been a growing number of recalls in the automotive industry in both the US and Europe. In the US, there were 966 safety recalls affecting well over 50 million vehicles in 2019 – more than two every day. In many cases, components can be produced by one of a handful of suppliers that services the entire industry, which can make it prone to accumulation risks – as a result, recalls have become larger and more costly over time. For example, an airbag or an engine could be recalled due to a defect, affecting many companies and models. The increasing complexity of technology is another significant driver of industry losses, due to factors such as increased time and labor rates to make repairs, more specialized training for mechanics and other repairers, and the increasing price of parts. Costly food safety risks and recalls Food recalls are on the rise globally due to factors such as global manufacturing, fewer suppliers in complex supply chains, enhanced regulatory scrutiny, as well as improved technology which allows for better traceability and pathogen detection. Manufacturers need to recognize these factors and be diligent about who their suppliers are and conduct regular audits. The coronavirus pandemic could have a significant impact on – and pose special challenges for – food recalls in future: On one hand, hygiene standards have dramatically increased, which could reduce contamination risks which are a major cause of food and beverage recalls. On the other hand, with new operations, temporarily closed and restarted factories, remote workforces, decreases in regulatory visits and erratic supply chains, risk exposures could also swell moving forward. Riots and civil unrest threaten beyond physical damage The “yellow vest” protests in France, civil unrest in Chile, Hong Kong and Bolivia and most recently the racially-charged riots in the US are high-profile examples of the rise of civil unrest globally. Political violence increasingly causes property damage, disruption and loss of attraction and revenues to many businesses. For example, civil disorder in the wake of the death of George Floyd in many US cities is expected to have caused losses of more than $1bn. There are numerous insurance claims notified under strikes, riots and civil commotion or looting insurance coverages. According to AGCS experts, the coronavirus outbreak may have temporarily suppressed civil unrest in some countries, but the underlying social issues have not been solved, and further protests will likely occur in the near future. Indoor air quality after coronavirus Environmental pollution incidents can have damaging consequences for a business – two risks are particularly paramount: indoor air quality concerns with legionella and mold growth and, secondly the increasing risk of environmentally-driven prosecutions, fines and remedial actions, as public awareness for pollution and natural capital depletion grows. Mold and legionella risks have been exacerbated by the coronavirus shutdown of commercial buildings or hotels: When certain air quality systems or water installation systems are dormant for a while they are more susceptible to contamination by bacteria. On top of that, continued, undetected mold growth may result from real estate companies delaying planned maintenance or renovation activities. Major causes of liability claims and potential coronavirus impacts The report also analyzes some of the major causes of insurance industry liability claims over the past five years – defective product incidents account for half of the value of all claims –and looks at how the coronavirus outbreak is already impacting the insurance sector. With more people staying at home through the pandemic, and with the temporary closure of many shops, airports and businesses, notifications of slip and fall incidents, which are one of the major causes of liability claims, have slowed. However, the market could see claims brought by third-parties for injury or property damage due to failure to adequately protect against the coronavirus, as well as employee action against employers who did not appropriately protect them. Product liability and recall claims tend to follow economic activity, so there could be an impact in these areas with the economic downturn. Meanwhile, restarting production after periods of hibernation may give rise to human error incidents. About Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty SE Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty (AGCS) SE is a leading global corporate insurance carrier and a key business unit of Allianz Group. We provide risk consultancy, Property-Casualty insurance solutions and alternative risk transfer for a wide spectrum of commercial, corporate and specialty risks across 10 dedicated lines of business. Our customers are as diverse as business can be, ranging from Fortune Global 500 companies to small businesses, and private individuals. Among them are not only the world’s largest consumer brands, tech companies and the global aviation and shipping industry, but also wineries, satellite operators or Hollywood film productions. They all look to AGCS for smart answers to their largest and most complex risks in a dynamic, multinational business environment and trust us to deliver an outstanding claims experience. Worldwide, AGCS operates with its own teams in 32 countries and through the Allianz Group network and partners in over 200 countries and territories, employing over 4,450 people. As one of the largest Property-Casualty units of Allianz Group, we are backed by strong and stable financial ratings. In 2019, AGCS generated a total of €9.1 billion gross premium globally. www.agcs.allianz.com

Segue Cloud Services, a division of Woodstock Capital Holdings, has released its Segue 3.0 platform, a cloud-based platform which  combines all pre-settlement funding workflows and processes, data recovery, and digitized document management features. Segue is a leading provider of cloud-based management tools for the legal and specialty finance community. It has served litigation finance companies and law offices around the country since 2010. The Segue 3.0 platform offers several new and enhanced features that will help customers expedite processing, streamline workflows, and reduce operating costs. Recent upgrades include integrations with Intuit’s QuickBooks platform and OwnBackup, a recognized data recovery and security provider that ensures all case data is securely stored in the cloud. In addition, Segue has enhanced its reporting and analytics capabilities, determines profitability by organizational role as well as clients and law firms, and supports flexible fees. Segue technology enables pre-settlement funding companies to manage their entire business —from intake to settlement—through an intuitive, browser-based interface. Through this technology, litigation finance companies can manage workflows, intake forms, track funding, notify stakeholders, and run reports, from any location. Segue’s 3.0 platform is accessible from any mobile device, facilitating pre-settlement funding during work-from-home and social distancing mandates. The platform instantly digitizes and automates documents, populates signatures, delivers alerts and account status updates to stakeholders, and provides real-time reporting. It reduces much of the labor and human error associated in manual tracking of the often-burdensome pre-settlement funding process. Through this solution, Segue can help litigation finance firms place funds into the hands of plaintiffs and attorneys in as little as 24 hours, providing financial security during the pre-settlement period. Segue 3.0 is also capable of tracking medical receivables. The platform’s tight integration with Salesforce enables customers to retrieve all Segue tools and features directly from the Salesforce portal, allowing the organization an efficient method to access case information and leverage advanced analytics and reporting capabilities from any device, anywhere in the world. Segue has also extended its relationship with document management leader Conga, giving lenders and law firms the ability to manage all document management tasks from the cloud, simplifying business processes and accelerating time to funding. These features let Segue automate company notifications, contracts, pay-off letters, and electronic signatures. “Segue has built a loyal following in the pre-settlement community not just for our technology’s  reliability and efficiency, but for our ability to automate the labor-intensive, cumbersome tasks that have been associated with pre-settlement funding,” said Kevin Flood, Segue’s chief operating officer. “The introduction of our Segue 3.0 platform represents a quantum leap forward for our customers. “By creating a new partnership with Intuit and Own Backup, as well as strengthening existing ties with Salesforce and Conga, we have added compelling new capabilities and features that make our platform more secure, resilient, and functional. We anticipate that both existing and new clients will be very satisfied with the myriad benefits they receive from this compelling platform.” For additional information, please visit www.seguecloudservices.com,

Delta Capital Partners Management LLC, a global private equity firm specializing in litigation and legal finance, has announced a new appointment to its Board of Advisors, Robert Brown, CEO of the Americas at Lincoln International. Rob has nearly 30 years of experience advising leading private equity groups, privately owned businesses and large public companies on divestitures, acquisitions and other strategic initiatives. Rob helped start Lincoln's industrials and consumer practices and led the firm's business services practice for more than a decade. Rob is a frequent guest on WBBM's Noon Business Hour in Chicago and a speaker and author on mergers and acquisitions-related topics. Rob sits on the board of UNICEF USA and the Dean's Business Council for the Gies School of Business at the University of Illinois. He is also President of the Board of Regents at Saint Ignatius College Prep in Chicago. Delta's Chief Executive Officer, Christopher DeLise, commented that "Rob is a recognized expert in private equity and complex financing transactions, as well as one of the architects and senior executives that have built Lincoln into one of the world's most respected and successful investment banks. The ability to draw on his wisdom, experience and leadership will enable Delta to continue to build its firm into one of the most successful companies in the litigation finance industry." Rob joins an Advisory Board comprised of Ian Casewell – London Office Managing Partner of the Mintz Group.  Nitin Chadda – Co-Founder and Managing Partner of WestExec Advisors, former Senior Advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Defense, and former Director at the White House National Security Council.  David Hellier – Partner and Chair of the Capital Markets Group at Bertram Capital, member of the Board of Directors of the Association for Corporate Growth.  Brian Maddox – Senior Managing Director at FTI Strategic Communications.  Bill Moran – Retired Four-Star Admiral who served as the Vice Chief of Operations and Chief of Personnel for the United States Navy.  Ileana Ros-Lehtinen – former Chairperson of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee, and member of United States Congress for nearly 30 years.  Dennis Ross – former special assistant to the United States President and former Director at the White House National Security Council and Geoffrey Verhoff – Senior Advisor at Akin Gump, and former Vice Chairman of the Republican National Committee's Finance Committee. About Delta
Delta Capital Partners Management LLC is a US-based global private equity firm specializing in litigation and legal finance, judgment enforcement, asset recovery, and related strategies serving claimants, businesses, private investment funds, law firm and other professional service firms across the world. The firm provides capital and expertise that enables such parties to shift risk, significantly enhance the probability of a successful and timely resolution of claims, and/or maximize the effectiveness of their businesses.

Omni Bridgeway (ASX:OBL) is delighted to welcome renowned leader in emerging markets debt restructuring, Tim DeSieno as its new Global Director of Distressed Debt and Senior Investment Manager. Mr DeSieno will be based in New York and will be responsible for developing Omni Bridgeway’s global distressed debt business, which the Company has decided is a key part of its strategic growth. Mr DeSieno will also help identify and manage distress-related litigation funding opportunities in emerging markets globally, with a special focus on Latin America. Mr DeSieno has over 30 years’ leading law firm experience advising institutional investors in managing their distressed debt investments around the globe, including most recently as a senior partner at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. His work for clients has spanned junk bond workouts in the 1980s/1990s, the Asian currency crisis in 1998, the global financial crisis in 2008, and the financial fallout of Covid-19. “Omni Bridgeway is expanding its global footprint and service offering, and principal investing in distressed debt is an important part of our strategy. Mr DeSieno is a highly respected leader in his field of emerging markets debt restructuring, and we are very fortunate to have him join us to spearhead this work. His expertise complements our insolvency, enforcement, and asset tracing teams, and it is particularly relevant in the current economic climate,” said Mr Andrew Saker, CEO of Omni Bridgeway. Tim DeSieno said: “I am beyond excited to join the Omni Bridgeway team. The Company’s successes and strategic growth, including in fields directly related to mine, have made it very attractive. I am confident that the largest dispute finance team in the world will be an excellent platform for creating a distressed debt business and a Latin America-focused litigation finance portfolio. It also does not hurt that I have known and respected Mr Saker for close to two decades – I certainly look forward to teaming up with him again!” Omni Bridgeway is the global leader in dispute resolution finance, with expertise in civil and common law legal and recovery systems, and operations spanning Asia, Australia, Canada, Europe, the Middle East, the UK and the US. Omni Bridgeway offers dispute finance from case inception through to post-judgment enforcement and recovery. Since 1986, it has established a record of funding disputes and enforcement proceedings around the world. Omni Bridgeway is listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX:OBL) and includes the leading dispute funders formerly known as IMF Bentham Limited, Bentham IMF and ROLAND ProzessFinanz. It also includes a joint venture with IFC (part of the World Bank Group). Visit omnibridgeway.com to learn more.

Forbes Ventures is pleased to announce that, further to the announcement of 2 March 2020, it has established a wholly owned UK subsidiary, Forbes Ventures Cell 1 Limited (the “UK Cell”). The UK Cell has been established to acquire UK-issued litigation funding loans, through the assignment of the related receivables - i.e. the litigation funding loans themselves and the interest thereon (“the Securitised Assets”) - to Forbes Ventures CC 1 (the “Maltese Cell”). The Maltese Cell is a Securitisation Cell Company in Malta, which is held in a bankruptcy remote structure and as such is not owned by the Company. To finance this securitisation, the Maltese Cell will shortly be issuing a prospectus relating to the proposed offer (the “Offer”) of 2-year bonds (the “Bonds”) and their admission to trading on the Malta Stock Exchange.  The Offer has an aggregate value of EUR 35 million.  A further announcement will be made at the time of closing of the Offer, which is expected later in September 2020. The net proceeds of the Offer will be paid to the UK Cell as consideration for the assignment of the Securitised Assets  to the Maltese Cell, and will provide the funds for the UK Cell to acquire litigation funds in the UK. Forbes Ventures’ wholly owned subsidiary, Forbes Ventures Investment Management Limited (“FVIM”), acts as originator and collateral agent for the UK Cell and is responsible for the selection and oversight of the Securitised Assets.  FVIM will receive a cash fee for this transaction, upon closing, equivalent to 2% of the funds raised in the Offer. It is the Company’s intention that the infrastructure which it has established for this securitisation will also be used to facilitate the securitisation of both further litigation funding and other assets across a range of industries.  The Company confirms it is in discussion with multiple prospective counterparties from whom it may purchase assets for this purpose. Further announcements will be made upon the Company entering into any such arrangements. The Directors of Forbes accept responsibility for the contents of this announcement.

Affiniti Finance, the UK’s leading Consumer Credit litigation funder announces a £250m capital raise deal with a multi-billion dollar US based fund, which it said would ‘significantly’ increase its ability to fund the large volume of mid-range cases, specifically in the financial mis-selling and personal injury sector in the UK. Affiniti Finance’s current investments include more than 5,000 individual litigation matters, numbers in 2021 are expected to reach in excess of 50,000. The capital raise is backed by a highly diversified global investment manager which is a partner well suited to Affiniti Finance given the investor’s previous experience with legal financing. Chief Executive Officer, Ian Cunningham said: “This new debt line provides a significant increase to our available capital and a boost to our investment capability. This enables us to broaden and accelerate the expansion of our portfolio, with a view to ultimately delivering greater returns for all stakeholders and providing clients with access to justice . We are continuing our capital raise for our new commercial litigation division which will see a further £150M available for large ticket commercial transactions. We are expecting to close this raise by the fourth quarter of this year”