Trending Now

John Freund's Posts

3077 Articles
Commercial

Burford Capital Makes NYSE Debut

Law firms and businesses alike are making even greater use of Litigation Finance in the wake of COVID. That’s good news for Burford Capital, whose listing on the New York Stock Exchange went live this week. Recent reporting on the popularity of the practice, combined with this new NYSE listing and the formation of the ILFA, makes it clear that litigation funding is on the rise. Westlaw explains that the NYSE listing represents an important milestone for Burford, indicating a company that has grown by leaps and bounds in the last decade. The industry is growing and adapting as well. The International Legal Finance Association is a newly formed coalition of funders that now has over a dozen members. David Perla, co-COO at Burford, explains that the term ‘legal finance’ might be more accurate than ‘litigation finance,’ as the practice has become more versatile in recent years. When asked about the Muddy Waters short-selling attack, Perla affirmed that a listing on the NYSE was the best answer to that question.
Commercial

Stolen Wages Lawsuit Filed by Indigenous Workers in Western Australia

As many as 8,000 people are believed to have been directly impacted by Western Australia’s practice of kidnapping and enslaving children in the 1940s and beyond. A class action has been filed to collect wages that were never paid to the workers. So far, at least 1,000 of those affected have registered their intent to seek remuneration. News.com AU explains that the stolen children were forced to work the mines in unbearable conditions, without proper equipment, wages, or proper food. Workers are represented in the case by Shine Lawyers, who received litigation funding from Litigation Lending Services. Litigation Lending funded a similar case in 2019 that settled for $190 million. Jan Sadler, head of class actions at Shine, explains that while the harm done cannot be erased with money, workers deserve compensation for the inhumane treatment they endured. The case is expected to go through mediation. The WA government appears to appreciate and acknowledge the effect that government policies have had on Aboriginal people.
Commercial

Maximizing Liquidity Through Litigation Portfolios

The COVID pandemic has led to the need for creativity, quick thinking, and adaptability for many legal firms. Roughly half of all firms and in-house counsel alike are expecting drops in revenues (and consequently, budgets) within the next year. But this doesn’t have to be dire news. Burford Capital explains that while things may look bleak, many firms and companies have legal assets that they aren’t looking at. Savvy GCs know to identify assets and find ways to maximize their value. Legal finance is one way to heighten liquidity while reducing the risk associated with taking on new cases in uncertain times. A recent legal finance report shows that more than half of in-house counsel affirms that their companies have ignored meritorious claims for financial reasons. Some GCs even support this. But offloading both costs and risks onto a third-party funder can transform a struggling legal department into a profit generator. Monetizing pending claims to generate liquidity is a smart move for businesses and law firms alike. As many as ¾ of in-house counsel cite liquidity as one of the main benefits of using legal funding. Other benefits include: --Non-recourse nature of the funds. This eliminates risk and adds certainty to budgets. --Accelerate incoming cashflow. Rather than waiting years for a case to be resolved, legal funding brings cash in without delay. --Experienced legal funders can help assess risk and pinpoint the most profitable cases and highest potential returns. --Maintaining control of cases can be a worry to those who are new to Litigation Finance. But third-party funders do not supersede the client or attorneys when it comes to making decisions about the case at hand. --Options. Funding allows clients to choose from a wider pool of attorneys without worrying about who is willing to work on contingency—or about cost in general.
Announcements Consumer

CONSUMER LITIGATION FUNDING: THE BASICS, CURRENT REGULATORY, ETHICAL, AND CONFIDENTIALITY ISSUES.

On November 16, 2020 at 1 PM Eastern, the American Bar Association’s Center for Professional Responsibility will present a 60-minute CLE webinar on consumer litigation funding. The presenters are Anthony Sebok, Professor of Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law; Ronnie Mabra, the Mabra Firm; and Eric Schuller, President, Alliance For Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC). They will discuss the history and structure of the market and the ethical rules at issue with moderator Lucian T. Pera, a partner in Adams and Reese LLP. The conversation will also explore ABA Resolution 111A addressing best practices for third-party litigation funding.  ARC has separately adopted their own best practices some of which mirror the ABA’s Resolution 111A. To find out more and how to register click here
Read More
Commercial Covid-19

COVID Litigation in Europe

Even before the pandemic gained a foothold, European courts felt the impact of COVID. Litigation over insurance, safety precautions, employment, and business interruption was rampant. Such litigation is only expected to grow—even after COVID is under control. Law.com International explains that disputes in France, Netherlands, and Germany all bear close examination. In France, for example, businesses were besieged by lawsuits almost immediately. Amazon, Airbus, and multiple companies that stayed open during lockdown were accused of not properly protecting employees’ safety. In France, employers are under more pressure to treat employees fairly. Parisian employment partner Emmanuelle Rivez-Domont explains that at the end of the day, it’s simply not feasible to keep everyone happy. But employers should still be held to the highest standards. Shockingly, many parties in France decided to remove COVID-related effects from the legal definition of force majeure. This is a heavy blow to those impacted, who were counting on their insurers to make good. In the Netherlands, everyone from insurers to event organizers are taking steps to test the waters. One hospitality industry group sought to vacate or relax social distancing in restaurants and bars. A judge denied the request, affirming that the government is allowed to make even drastic choices in the public’s best interests. Insurance had been a straight-forward matter in the Netherlands until COVID. Now cases are plentiful, leading to four insurers losing a claim over cancellation payouts due to COVID. As in the rest of the world, insurers may need to brace for impact as claimants use legal means to seek what they’re owed. In Germany, a “klagewelle” or ‘litigation wave’ is on the horizon. Germany’s lockdowns included bars and restaurants, hotels, clubs, and theaters—all of which led to industry-wide losses in the tens of billions. It’s only now that these businesses are learning that their insurance doesn’t cover loss of business due to a pandemic.
Commercial

Eni Attacks Third Party Funders in Nigerian Oil Claim

Italian energy giant Eni has requested documents relating to a $1 billion case involving the government of Nigeria and investment firm Drumcliffe—the principles of which are still involved in a corruption trial. Bloomberg News details that this is just the latest facet of an ongoing dispute which puts two prominent energy companies against Africa’s largest producer of crude oil. In this most recent claim, Eni holds that the Nigerian government is influenced by interests that they have not publicly disclosed. To support this claim, Eni is seeking documents from Drumcliffe Partners LLC. Eni now claims that the Nigerian government is in league with third parties who are attempting to reap “illicit” profits. This is a common complaint against third-party litigation funders and is often brought up by parties who have much to lose if the opposition is well-funded. Jim Little of Drumcliffe was unimpressed by the accusations, saying that Drumcliffe looks forward to discrediting the accusations, which he called ‘wild innuendo.’ Nigerian media published the funding agreement with Drumcliffe, which revealed Drumcliffe taking a potential share of 35%. Not uncommon in non-recourse funding agreements. Nigeria has joined the case as a civil party. They are also asserting that both Eni and Shell owe a penalty of $1.1 billion. Still, both companies have denied the charges, affirming that their agreements with the government of Nigeria are legitimate. Also denying wrongdoing are Eni CEOs Claudio Descalzi and Paolo Scaroni. The court is expected to rule later this year.
Commercial

Third-Party Funding Disclosures in Court—What’s at Stake?

As Litigation Finance permeates the mainstream and regulation catches up, the issue of disclosure remains contentious. At the time that a funding deal is created, there’s no real way to know whether or not courts will require disclosure of the agreement. Bloomberg Law explains that typically, this type of disclosure is not required by the courts. Funding, most judges rule, is not materially relevant. That said, determinations regarding disclosure are decided on a case-by-case basis. A recent survey on Litigation Finance shows that while legal professionals are feeling unsure—there’s nothing to suggest that disclosure will not be compelled in most instances. Recently, there have been several cases requiring disclosure of funding terms, but so far they’re few and far between.
Commercial

The Rush to Secure Funding by Year’s End

As 2020 nears its end, firms are straining to reduce the impact of Coronavirus on earnings—which for some means cutting staff even as they ensure that their best players won’t be recruited by other firms. Given that, it makes sense that firms holding strong litigation portfolios would want to consider dispute financing. Omni Bridgeway details that those who want to monetize their portfolio should not wait to get started. Portfolio funding arrangements are often large, detailed, and complex. Doing them well takes time. Waiting until December is risky, and can result in deals not being finalized by year’s end. However, beginning the process a few weeks earlier allows time to conduct due diligence, allowing funders to examine the cases in the portfolio while assessing risks against potential rewards. For many firms, portfolio funding carries less risk than funding individual cases. Overall, it allows firms to take more risks in terms of contingency casework—because the firm shares risk with funders. Non-recourse capital is provided and used to cover costs and fees, and can even be used to cover operational expenses in some circumstances. Awards are shared among plaintiffs, firms, and funders. The non-recourse nature of funding means that even if the entire portfolio is resolved unsuccessfully, the firm is not obligated to repay the funding. Dispute funding has many benefits to firms and partners—such as providing firms the ability to pay partner draws despite COVID-related losses. Funding can offer immediate cash flow when it’s needed most. Funding also gives firms more leeway in client selection and agreements. Contingency cases in particular become more viable with the inclusion of litigation funding. This means a larger pool of potential clients and cases. The advantages brought by funding provide an edge that could be used to expand staff and even recruit a rainmaker or two.
Commercial

Nanoco Shows Major Losses, Extends Cash Runway

A recent announcement from Nanoco reveals a sharp tumble in revenue. The Manchester-based tech business reported that revenue fell from GBP 7.132 million to GBP 3.856 million in the period ending July of this year. The Business Desk reports that despite these setbacks, Nanoco has managed to extend its cash runway to December of 2022. It’s hoped that this extension will allow the company to rebuild value. In July of this year, GBP 3.4 million was raised in a patent lawsuit against tech giant Samsung—thanks to support from a third-party litigation funder. A company-wide restructure is underway, which ultimately reduced monthly outlays by roughly 50%. Nanoco’s chairman, Dr. Christopher Richards, affirms that this year has been one of substantial change.
Commercial

Litigation Finance Pro Gian Kull Hired by SYZ Capital

Gian Kull has been appointed head of special situations at SYZ Capital. His investment experience spans more than a decade, making him an excellent choice to manage portfolios and handle private marketing investments. Wealth Adviser details that Kull’s past experience includes structured litigation investments at Multiplicity Partners AG, director of sourcing at Valtegra LLP, as well as opening a European office in Zurich for Brigade Capital Management. He began his career at Merrill Lynch as a research analyst. CEO of SYZ Capital, Marc Syz, explains that Kull’s contribution to the team will center on his expertise in private market investments, sourcing niche investments, and in portfolio construction. His experience with structuring litigation investments will be a boon to the team. As an investment, litigation funding is uncorrelated to the rest of the market. Kull’s expertise will be used to identify opportunities to find ways to generate capital within structural imbalances, specific niche access, or utilizing obscure information effectively.
Commercial Covid-19

Litigation Finance Evolves Through COVID and Beyond

It could be argued that Burford Capital is handling the pandemic better than most. The company transitioned to a remote working platform early on, and have adapted to what’s being called “the new normal” with aplomb. In the months that followed, courts, businesses, and even schools shifted to remote operations—meaning court cases could finally continue. Burford Capital explains that the importance of legal finance has only grown in the era of COVID. Litigation funding can make it possible for class actions, or any meritorious action, to proceed with help from investors. As the legal world forges ahead, there are three specific developments in the industry that all lawyers should be aware of. Solutions in legal finance. The idea of solutions, as opposed to mere transactions, is essential to understanding Litigation Finance. The process offers choices—far more than a simple loan/repayment structure. Litigation funding offers opportunity, peace of mind, and expertise to all parties involved. What’s more, experienced funders will provide an array of options that address specific client needs and concerns. The best funders offer more than funds, they offer years of industry knowledge and tech-fueled insights. The International Legal Finance Association. This organization recently launched as a way to protect the industry from overzealous regulation. It also informs the public about the benefits of litigation funding and does so with transparency and clarity. Welcoming the ILFA as a valuable resource is the right move for businesses, financial institutions, and legal professionals. Corporate partnerships. These are a vital part of what Burford does, especially now that interest in Litigation Finance has exploded. Because Burford is a publicly-traded company (currently on AIM, soon NYSE) functioning with obvious transparency, they’re a strong choice for in-house legal teams or finance departments that demand predictable capital and unparalleled compliance. Now that settlement activity is on the rise, and courts are slowly getting back up to speed—a relationship with an experienced funder is more vital than ever.
Commercial Covid-19

Litigation Funders Find Fewer Sure Bets Due to COVID

One of the most attractive aspects of Litigation Finance as an investment is that it’s uncorrelated with the rest of the market. Even as the Coronavirus pandemic became increasingly impactful, funders assured investors that returns would remain high. Bloomberg Law explains that while investment opportunities in Litigation Finance are plentiful, it hasn’t become the big money generator that legal professionals anticipated. Insurance disputes make up a large percentage of new litigation since the pandemic began. While these cases are plentiful, they don’t offer investors the kind of certainty they’re looking for. Rather than seeing nuclear verdicts in favor of plaintiffs, a number of significant rulings have come down in favor of insurers. This has led to even more caution among investors. Burford Capital, one of the largest funders, endured a sharp decline in business in the first part of this year. At the same time, Burford had a smaller cash outlay this year due to fewer new cases and ongoing court delays. Burford’s Christopher Bogart has stated that it’s impossible to know with certainty what’s coming. Speculation changes every week. In contrast, Ralph Sutton of Validity Finance, is encouraged by the 40% increase in investment opportunity his firm has shown this year.
Commercial

Claim Dismissed Against Russian Oligarch Over Superyacht

A claim of over $115 million in damages, filed by Russian oligarch Farkhad Akhmedov (along with owner Straight Establishment) has been dismissed by the high court of Dubai. The claim revolved around a 115-meter superyacht, the MV Luna, which had been held as part of a divorce settlement. The National details that Mr. Akhmedov sought to recover lost earnings he would have made had he been able to charter the superyacht. However, this contradicted Akhmedov’s earlier assertion that the boat was not a commercial vessel and was not being used as a means to profit. The dismissal is considered a final decision by the courts and is not subject to appeal. The former Mrs. Akhmedova’s case was funded by Burford Capital. Akhmedov’s claim for damages was brought specifically to prevent Akhmedova and Burford representatives from taking possession of the MV Luna. However, the court prevented Akhmedova from taking the yacht—which means that this recent dismissal is a hollow victory. The ongoing injunctions mean that the superyacht is still in Port Rashid while proceedings continue to determine its rightful owner. To date, it has been in dry dock for two years—since London’s high court ruled that Akhmedov must pay 40% of his fortune to his ex-wife.
Commercial

Polish Government Sought for Arbitration in Coal Mine Action

Australian coal giant Prairie Mining has begun international arbitration proceedings that assert a breach of bilateral treaties. The action centers around Poland’s decision to block investment in the Jan Karski and Debiensko mines. The Economic Times reports that Prairie Mining secured roughly $12 million from a litigation funder in July of this year. Still, the company stated it is willing to engage in good faith discussions to resolve the dispute. As yet, the Polish government has opted not to engage. Exact amounts sought in the action have not been released. It’s unclear whether purported losses will include lost profits, damages, costs spent developing the mines, and costs associated with arbitration.
Commercial

ABA Best Practices for Litigation Finance Have Mixed Reception

When Litigation Finance was still making a name for itself, the American Bar Association was among the first organizations to write researched commentary on it. The white paper published by the ACA Commission on Ethics remains influential today. Above the Law details that simply publishing a best practices guide legitimizes Litigation Finance and affirms its widespread importance and acceptance. According to the introduction, the best practices guide is just that—guidance. It details what it considers to be the most pressing issues to consider before utilizing litigation funding for any of its most common purposes. Much of what can be found in ABA’s best practices guide is already standard operating procedure in many firms. For example, funders staying out of material decisions regarding the cases they fund is typical. Being aware of responsibilities regarding privilege, safe document handling, and the construction of litigation funding agreements are all commonplace. Some have suggested that the recommendations in the guide are too conservative and do not factor in current trends or commercial realities. For example, the guide cautions against lawyers and funders discussing the viability of a case. It’s outlandish to think such a thing wouldn’t be discussed, or that it would be in any way inappropriate to do so. Investors require information in order to make sound investment decisions, and the merits of a case are certainly relevant to that. One thing the ABA guide does well is differentiate the different types of Litigation Finance currently in use—client funding versus lawyer funding, for example. As the industry adapts to changing circumstances, these distinctions will grow in relevance. It also advises that lawyers presume that litigation funding agreements will be made public. This is not always true, but specific types of arbitration require it. Overall, the guideline recommendations are expected to lend legitimacy to an already entrenched part of the legal world.
Commercial

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Q3 Roundup on the State of the Commercial Litigation Funding Industry

On Wednesday October 7th, Litigation Finance Journal hosted a quarterly roundup on the major issues impacting the commercial litigation funding industry. The 45-minute panel discussion was moderated by Ed Truant, founder of Slingshot Capital. Panelists included Jim Batson, Senior Investment Manager of Omni Bridgeway, Nick Pontt, Managing Director of Affiniti Finance, Mick Smith, founder of Almatura, and Paul Haskel, partner at Richards, Kibbe & Orbe, LLP. Below are some key takeaways from the event: Ed Truant: On the issue of Burford's dual listing, is this about providing the US market with an option to invest in litigation finance, with the benefit of improving Burford’s stock price, post-Muddy Waters? And given the Muddy Waters issue, is a dual listing in the more litigious US market a good move? Paul Haskel: I should say first that I don’t represent Burford and I have not spoken to anyone at Burford about this. I think my view is that in some sense this is a response to the Muddy Waters short selling incident that occurred to them. I guess in the fall or the spring, that as a retort to Muddy Waters, they’re saying we’re going to be transparent, we’re going to be much more transparent than we’ve been historically. No more sort of black boxes which is what Muddy Waters has complained about. And we’re going to be very open, we’re going to have quarterly SEC filings, far beyond what was required by them for their AIM listing. Part of it may also be a marketing ploy, so it may be that customers looking for funding, many of which, may feel more comfortable coming from a public company that’s subject to public disclosure. Obviously, it provides liquidity to their investors, but I do point out that it also provides liquidity to short sellers as well, which is interesting. Mick Smith: Like Paul, I haven’t had the inside scoop from anyone at Burford about what was driving the listing, but in my experience you’ve got to go to the US market because it’s probably the deepest capital market around. So you have to assume that Chris is seeking a US listing because it gives them access to more capital and they’ve always been interested in raising money from different pools of capital, so this seems like a logical extension to the biggest capital market of all.  Ed Truant: IMF Bentham at the time, made a big acquisition of Omni Bridgeway, and so probably no one better suited to this question than Jim. Jim, maybe you can give us some insights in terms of the strategic compulsion to do the acquisition. How has the acquisition benefitted formerly IMF, now Omni more broadly, and have there been benefits both ways to this merger?  Jim Batson: We really do view it as a merger whether or not it’s technically considered an acquisition. Yes, the first obvious benefit was the geographic scope that the company now has, so with the merger we have 18 offices in 10 different countries. And if you think about how litigation has gotten so global, and the litigation finance industry really needs to adapt to that. We want to be able to serve corporations that are international in scope and also law firms in the same respect, but also when we’re working with corporations that have offices in multiple jurisdictions, the lay of the land in each particular region is different. And being sensitive to that, we’re doing more than just providing a single product and providing it globally, but rather we're able to provide litigation finance solutions in all these different regions that have very unique attributes. The class action regime in Australia is very different from that in the US, and yet we support it very heavily in Australia and through law firm portfolios here in the US. By the same token, we’ve got offices now in Singapore and Hong Kong, where international arbitration is becoming more and more popular and readily accepted, and litigation finance is becoming readily accepted in the international arbitration sphere.  The second sort of big picture benefit that it provided was giving us a comprehensive beginning-to-end support for litigants and lawyers and corporations in the litigation finance sphere. Ed Truant: What about the surging demand for portfolio funding? Paul, is that something you’ve noticed in the marketplace as COVID struck? Paul Haskel: Will there be litigation specifically related to COVID? I’m not sure we’ve seen a flood of business interruption insurance or business interruption litigation yet. But I do think that law firms have become increasingly accepting of litigation finance as being a source of not just financing but actually their ability to get more work, because it’s just generally becoming more accepted. And I think the fear of COVID and the slowdown has driven many firms to seek that type of financing, and where previously they had contingency work, were comfortable just simply waiting to get paid, they’re seeing an advantage of accelerating that capitalization from that work. So I do think there’s been increased demand from law firms that we’re seeing. I also am seeing a trend where some of the big New York corporate firms, which traditionally might have stayed away from this type of arrangement, have started doing a little more contingency work to boost profits, so that does lend itself to litigation financing. So yes, it’s definitely a trend we’re seeing in the market. Ed Truant: From the panelists perspective, what do you think should be the first course of action for the ILFA? Jim Baston: It’s really not so much that litigation funders have been objecting to regulation as a concept. The problem has been more, ‘Who’s supporting it?’ and ‘What type of regulation are we talking about?’ and so forth. I’ve always thought it was ironic that the Chamber of Commerce purports to want to increase regulation and to minimize the use of litigation finance, when at the end of the day, some of their members are the biggest users of litigation finance—and it really is to the detriment of the smaller companies. Paul: I think it’s a great idea, the ILFA. It is an industry that is unregulated, trying to prevent regulation. It has a “bad reputation” among some, and I think the need to have an organization that can lobby for the asset class, be an advocate for the asset class, perhaps come up with best practices and codes of conduct to prevent outside regulation and to work with regulators which I think is a great step.
Announcements Commercial

Apex Litigation Finance brings Artificial Intelligence development in-house to drive funding activity and further promote access to justice

Apex Litigation Finance (Apex) has today announced that it has cemented its position in the legal technology space by bringing its Artificial Intelligence (AI) capacity inhouse, building on an already innovative approach to case outcome predictive analytics. The deployment of AI is enabling the company to speed up the delivery of litigation funding to its client base of solicitors, liquidators, individuals and corporates. Apex now have the means to fully control the development of AI technology to meet evolving requirements. The company believe this will greatly enhance the predictive analysis of risks and outcomes and increase its success in selecting which cases to fund. The move to in-house technology follows a successful relationship with legal AI specialist CourtQuant, which saw Apex fully test and scope the capacity of AI tools in the litigation funding space. The inhouse solution will build on this experience and expertise, whilst creating value for Apex by building a best in class database The AI development will be supervised by project manager Lukas Ruttkay, who brings extensive experience of tech project leadership and AI development to the company, having brought three successful online ventures to market. Commenting on the move, Maurice Power, Apex CEO, said: “We are excited to bring the AI inhouse. Our development of AI will further inform our decision making, offer greater value funding solutions to clients, and provide comfort for investors. I am confident this capability will ensure that Apex maintains its position as a market leader in the sector.” Apex specialises in providing funding for small to medium-sized matters where litigants may not have the means to pursue meritorious claims. Legal and other costs associated with a claim are funded, in return for an agreed share of any successful outcome. If there is no recovery, or if the claim is lost, there is nothing to repay as Apex offers non-recourse funding, taking on all the risk to protect claimants. About Apex Litigation Funding Apex Litigation Finance Limited brings together experts from the legal, technology and finance sectors to provide third party litigation funding to litigants (corporates, liquidators and individuals) who are unable to pursue a claim due to the prohibitive cost of litigation. As a professional litigation funder, Apex makes available funds to pay legal and other costs associated with a claim in return for an agreed share of any successful return. If the claim is lost, there is nothing to repay. The process is augmented by artificial intelligence systems to assess risk. Apex’s service addresses the issue of claims, that may have merits, not proceeding due to uncertainty over costs and the potential risk of being ordered to pay the defendant’s cost, should the claim be unsuccessful. Apex promotes its service as enabling access to justice for all, not just those with deep pockets.
Read More
Commercial

Legal Finance as a Path to Corporate Trust Recovery

The rise in bankruptcies and business insolvencies due to COVID cannot be denied. One side effect of this involves the exploration of how best to facilitate recovery and refinancing. Ultimately, legal funding may provide the best risk/reward ratio. Burford Capital’s recent roundtable discussion parses out how these developments are affecting the industry. With regard to bankruptcy litigation, it’s clear that all parties are growing more assertive in protecting their interests. This means assets are being locked down sooner, and assets that should go to creditors are being siphoned. The increase in bankruptcy litigation also means an increase in the use of Litigation Finance. In the context of bankruptcy, legal finance is straightforward. A funder pays the legal fees and expenses associated with the case. If the case ends favorably, the funder would be refunded along with an agreed-upon percentage of the recovery. If the case isn’t successful, the non-recourse nature of funding means they lose their investment. Can legal finance be used as a business development tool? Legal funding for bankruptcy offers a viable alternative to contingency arrangements. This gives trustees more freedom in selecting bankruptcy lawyers without having to dip into estate funds. Some would say that trustees now have an obligation to investigate legal finance options in their cases. Part of acting in the best interest of creditors is to make the savviest financial decisions. In many cases, legal finance is more cost-effective than hiring counsel on a contingency basis, and can offer a tactical advantage, as it displays to the opposition that the claimants are financially capable of seeing a case to completion.
Commercial

IAG Class Action Settlement Tops $138 Million

A settlement in the IAG class action is currently under review after preliminary hearings. The proposed $138 million settlement comes after the company was ordered by ASIC to refund customers for add-on products that were essentially without value. Insurance News explains that the class action was brought regarding six add-on products impacting 673,000 unique transactions by hundreds of thousands of policyholders. Last year, IAG asserted that the case could involve sums of up to a billion dollars during a hearing on the litigation funding arrangements. Balance Legal Capital funded the action, which ultimately allowed litigants to recoup much of their financial losses.
Commercial

Litigation Funding Opportunities are Here to Stay

It’s no secret that when the economy is tough, litigation increases. As the CEO of LexShares, Jay Greenberg, explains--even those who don’t normally use litigation funding are reaching out. Businesses are more anxious than ever to collateralize existing lawsuits and take steps to ensure that any impending claims can be litigated effectively. Alpha Week details that both investor interest in litigation funding and inquiries by potential plaintiffs are on the rise. Earlier this year, the market saw drops in both bonds and equities, yet investments in litigation funding were unaffected, as they only correlate to cases. At the same time, the ROI of lit fin is dependent on making savvy choices backed up by solid underwriting and extensive legal expertise. Former litigators often make the most effective underwriters, as they have the most intricate understanding of the legal process and are best able to parse the risks inherent to a given case. Ideally, an investment in litigation finance requires vetting the merits of each individual case, and/or taking on a diverse array of cases that ultimately diversify risk. Jay Greenberg details that while litigation funding has gained traction during COVID, the opportunities it presents aren’t going anywhere any time soon. While public data isn’t made available on funding overall, the filing of new commercial cases was down from last year. This may mean that litigation funding has barely made a dent thus far—and that opportunities for funding are only expected to rise.
Announcements Consumer

Multi Funding Is Named Preferred Litigation Finance Provider for Total Trial Solutions

Woodstock, NY—October 6, 2020 —Multi Funding, a leading provider of pre-settlement funding serving law firms and attorneys, has been selected as the preferred litigation funding partner for Total Trial Solutions. A provider of comprehensive litigation support services, Total Trial Solutions will offer Multi Funding’s cloud-based litigation finance services to its extensive client base of law firms and attorneys across the United States. Headquartered in Woodstock, New York, and with an office in Lynbrook, New York, Multi Funding offers the legal community proven, fast, and reliable pre-settlement and other litigation financing solutions. Established in 2007, Multi Funding is recognized by its clients for maintaining a high standard of excellence, and is one of the few providers in the industry to earn coveted NMLS (Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System) certification. Through its advanced technology, attorneys can easily apply for litigation financing on Multi Funding’s secure website. Within minutes, attorneys can leverage the company’s full capabilities, such as automated workflows, instant notifications, document management, reporting, and funding updates. Multi Funding eliminates the manual tasks associated with funding, and provides litigants with much needed financial resources during the pre-settlement phase of their trials. In many instances, Multi Funding’s resources can change the trajectory of a case by giving plaintiffs the leverage to weather the longer negotiation periods that are often required to maximize results. “We are very pleased to partner with Total Trial Solutions and bring Multi Funding’s proven services to its network of law firms and practitioners. These attorneys recognize that access to pre-settlement funding can make the difference between accepting a quick, diminished settlement or pursuing a case to full value,” explained Michelle Fuoco, Multi Funding’s chief financial officer. “We are confident that the organizations that access our services through Total Trial Solutions will be very pleased with their results.” Based in Kingston, New York, Total Trial Solutions has provided resources for 8,000 cases, and has helped attorneys recover hundreds of millions of dollars for their clients. The company provides a wide range of litigation support services to attorneys pursuing judgements in civil cases. These services include focus groups, jury analysis, forensic animations, medical illustrations, video production, forensic biographies, and expert matching and vetting. “Giving our attorney partners access to fast litigation expense funding in a reliable and secure environment will be extremely well received. Savvy attorneys will realize that financial support during the often-lengthy pre-trial process can change the entire complexion of a case and allow them to significantly drive up the value for their clients while conserving their own out of pocket case flow,” said Michael Earner, Esq., president and chief  executive officer of Total Trial Solutions. “We’re proud to work with Multi Funding, which has a proven track record, as well as the resources and technology to fund a broad array of cases. Our partnership with Multi Funding will absolutely enable attorneys to produce better outcomes for their clients.” About Multi Funding Headquartered in Woodstock, New York, and with an office in Lynbrook, New York, Multi Funding is a major provider of specialized legal funding, attorney funding, and law firm funding services. With decades of lawsuit funding, business, and legal experience, the company’s founders have made it their focus to provide simple and fast services while maintaining a high standard of excellence. Multi Funding has provided millions of dollars of legal funding to plaintiffs and attorneys across the United States. www.multifundingusa.com
Read More
Announcements Commercial

Tetragon Financial Group Limited To Pursue Litigation Finance Venture with Brandon Baer

Tetragon and its diversified alternative asset management business, TFG Asset Management, have entered into an agreement with Brandon Baer to invest in his newly-created company, Contingency Capital, a multi-product global asset management business that will sponsor and manage litigation finance related investment funds.  Contingency Capital will have its formal launch on 1 November 2020. Mr. Baer formerly worked at Fortress Investment Group where he was a Partner and Managing Director in the Credit Funds business.  He was also the Co-Founder and Co-Head of its Legal Assets group. TFG Asset Management will receive a significant minority equity interest in Contingency Capital and Tetragon will provide Contingency Capital with, among other things, working capital and a $50 million commitment to Contingency Capital's first commingled investment fund, with Tetragon retaining the option to invest further amounts.  TFG Asset Management, which owns majority and minority private equity stakes in asset management companies, will also provide Contingency Capital with operating infrastructure – encompassing critical business management functions such as risk management, investor relations, financial control, technology and compliance/legal matters. Fortress and Contingency Capital have entered into co-investment arrangements pursuant to which Fortress may invest up to $500 million in Contingency Capital's opportunities.  Contingency Capital has also entered into arrangements with a large fixed income asset manager relating to up to $900 million of additional co-investment opportunities. Reade Griffith, a Founder of Tetragon's investment manager and the Chief Investment Officer of TFG Asset Management, commented: "We think there are significant opportunities in litigation finance related investing, and gaining exposure to this asset class is very appealing.  We are also particularly excited to partner with Brandon, who is a leader in the space with extensive experience."  Stephen Prince, the Head of TFG Asset Management, noted: "We believe Brandon continues our efforts of partnering with exceptional asset managers." "I am excited to partner with Tetragon and its asset management platform," said Mr. Baer.  "The Contingency Capital business seeks to provide access to high-quality litigation finance assets in an increasingly expanding market.  Our focus will be on investments whose primary outcomes are driven by legal, tax or regulatory processes and are intended to be generally uncorrelated to the markets.  I am also pleased to be able to continue collaborating with Fortress, where I spent almost a decade focused on credit and legal assets." "As a significant shareholder in Tetragon and one of the largest investors in legal assets globally, Fortress is very excited to work with Tetragon and Brandon on this new opportunity," said Jack Neumark, Head of Legal Assets at Fortress.  "We have a long history of providing capital in a variety of forms to litigation finance platforms and we believe the co-investment arrangements with Contingency Capital will be another good partnership for us in this asset class."
 About Tetragon: Tetragon is a closed-ended investment company that invests in a broad range of assets, including public and private equities and credit (including distressed securities and structured credit), convertible bonds, real estate, venture capital, infrastructure, bank loans and TFG Asset Management, a diversified alternative asset management business. Where appropriate, through TFG Asset Management, Tetragon seeks to own all, or a portion, of asset management companies with which it invests in order to enhance the returns achieved on its capital. Tetragon's investment objective is to generate distributable income and capital appreciation.  It aims to provide stable returns to investors across various credit, equity, interest rate, inflation and real estate cycles.  The company is traded on Euronext in Amsterdam N.V. and on the Specialist Fund Segment of the main market of the London Stock Exchange.  For more information please visit the company's website at www.tetragoninv.com.
Read More
Announcements Commercial

Hausfeld invests in its product liability practice with a lateral partner hire

Today disputes-only law firm, Hausfeld, is pleased to announce that Sarah Moore has joined its London office as partner from Leigh Day. She joins Hausfeld to further strengthen its human rights and environmental disputes practice and lead and grow its product liability practice. Her expertise also complements its group actions and consumer claims work.

During her 15-year career, Sarah has focused on high profile group litigation against corporations both in the UK and overseas and developed extensive experience in product liability and environmental cases. Leading legal directories Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners recognize her expertise and talent on the product liability, claimant-side.

Throughout the pandemic Hausfeld has continued to recruit with 12 lawyers joining since January 2020 from leading UK and US law firms. With 15 partners and 36 qualified lawyers as part of its London disputes resolution team, it is similar in size to other big city firms’ litigation practices.

Commenting on the announcement, London Managing Partner Anthony Maton says: “Sarah’s practice perfectly matches a number of growth areas for Hausfeld in London: one is our undisputed expertise in managing collective redress mechanisms and another relates to our ground-breaking work in climate change litigation. Our growing product liability practice will be further strengthened by the fantastic experience Sarah brings to the table.”

“Sarah’s appointment reflects our broader ambitions. Two years ago, we predicted a rise in group actions which has materialized. We expect this trend to continue, and with the current movement of the public wanting to hold corporates to account, this is unlikely to go away. Our US colleagues are considered market leaders when it comes to product liability claims and we want to bring that expertise into the European market. As early adopters of flexible fee structures and the use of litigation funding, we are in an excellent position to do so.”

Sarah adds: “Hausfeld has a remarkable reputation in the market as specialist litigators. I am delighted to be joining this excellent team and am looking forward to drawing on my experience in further growing the environment and product liability practices and supporting the firm’s reputation as a leading litigation boutique.” Notes to Editors For further information or to arrange interviews in the US, please contact:

Deborah Schwartz Media Relations (240) 355-8838 deborah@mediarelationsinc.com

About Sarah Moore

Sarah commenced her career at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer where she trained in both their London and Paris offices. Most recently, she practiced as an associate solicitor at Leigh Day in London, where she was involved in high profile litigation against British corporations concerning a range of product liability and environmental issues. Her cases have involved defective medical devices, pharmaceuticals and mass torts – often committed overseas by UK multinationals. The legal directory Chambers UK highlights: “Sarah Moore is a developing force in the market who has been involved in significant litigation involving medical device defects.”

For more information about Sarah, please visit her bio.

About Hausfeld

Hausfeld is a leading global law firm with offices in Amsterdam, Berlin, Boston, Brussels, Düsseldorf, London, New York, Paris, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Stockholm, and Washington, DC. The firm has a broad range of complex litigation expertise, particularly in antitrust/competition, financial services, sports and entertainment, environmental, mass torts, consumer protection, and human rights matters, often with an international dimension. Hausfeld aims to achieve the best possible results for clients through its practical and commercial approach, avoiding litigation where feasible, yet litigating robustly when necessary. Hausfeld’s extensive experience with alternative and innovative fee models offers clients a diverse menu of engagement options and maximum flexibility in terms of managing their cost exposure.

Hausfeld is the only claimants’ firm to be ranked by the Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners as a top tier firm in private enforcement of antitrust/competition law in both the United States and Europe. For more information about the firm, including recent trial victories and landmark settlements, please visit www.hausfeld.com.

Read More
Commercial

Burford Capital Capitalizes on Claims Monetization

Litigation Finance has been slowly growing since it first gained acceptance during the last financial crisis. In addition to a funding model that pairs funders with a single case, litigation funding can also come in the form of claims monetization. Bloomberg Law details that Burford Capital has made a pretty penny in claims monetization. One main draw in this type of funding is lawyers not being required to risk contingency returns. Within this model, investors buy a stake in a claim or judgment directly from clients.   Burford Capital made great use of this model, which brought in spectacular results. During the first half of 2020, portfolio investments of $145 million paid out nearly $425 million. Last week, Burford shares rose over 7%. Dai Wai Chin Feman, director of commercial litigation at Parabellum Capital, explains that claim monetization allows for more capital to be used for claims that have more value. Better still, this type of funding agreement is simple because legal fees and expenses do not have to be calculated or estimated beforehand. Currently, Burford’s value is more than 4x its nearest publicly traded-competitor. That gives it more financial wiggle room, allowing it to better weather the risks associated with larger claims. At the same time, single case litigation is still expected to be part of Burford’s core areas of focus. According to Christopher Bogart, Burford chief executive, what Burford is developing is a multi-product line approach to finance. By diversifying the types of funding provided, they increase their potential client base by offering services that fulfill a variety of needs. While the number of new cases has fallen, cash outlay is also lower due to COVID-related slowdowns in the courts.
Commercial

Canadian Insurers Sound Alarm over Litigation Finance

Litigation funding is growing in popularity all over the world. The practice of third parties funding cases in exchange for a share of the rewards is a lucrative business model. Better still, it increases access to justice for those who couldn’t otherwise afford it. So why are insurers in Canada speaking out against the practice? Canadian Underwriter explains that litigation funding is still in its infancy in Canada. The fear, according to insurer Bernard McNulty, is that social inflation might become a problem. But would it? Some might say that insurers dislike the practice because it empowers class actions with sizable payouts. It is true that some funded cases have come away with high rewards. As McNulty detailed, one traffic accident led to an $18 million verdict, while another auto-related case brought in $17 million. According to McNulty, verdicts of this size are a good reason to limit the use of litigation funding—even though these plaintiffs may have never had their day in court without it. The problem for insurers is that these large payouts have led to them raising their rates to offset costs. High rates mean clients may take their insurance needs elsewhere. One might think that rather than passing expenses down to consumers—that insurers might improve their underwriting and employ the kind of ethical business practices that don’t lead to lawsuits in the first place. Or they could just blame litigation funding...
Commercial

Burford Capital Profits Down—but Not Out

A new report from Burford Capital reveals that profits were down 15% during the first half of this year, as it reported to the London Stock Exchange. Much of this is due to fallout from Coronavirus, which led to group-wide commitments ending down a startling 74% to roughly GBP 152 million. Law Gazette reports that Burford remains confident that the funding landscape has stabilized. Chief executive Christopher Bogart stated the expectation that a spike in litigation claims spurred by the pandemic is coming. Sir Peter Middleton, Burford chair, explains that the current numbers showcase the earning power of the litigation portfolio. Next up for Burford, an impending listing on the NYSE.
Consumer Special Features

California Bar Issues Formal Opinion on Third-Party Litigation Funding

This article was contributed by Eric Schuller, President of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC). On October 1, 2020 the California Bar Association published Formal Opinion NO. 2020-204 on Third-Party Litigation Funding. The bar’s opinion states that attorney and consumer must be fully informed as to the terms and conditions of the contract. Additionally, the lawyer must ensure competence in advising on any litigation funding agreement, and is obligated to obtain a client’s permission before discussing any confidential information with the funding company. During the comment period of this opinion, the Alliance For Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC) weighed in on the issue by submitting a letter to the review committee. In the letter ARC stated: “The Proposed Formal Opinion properly establishes that a lawyer is under an ethical obligation to decline to represent a client in legal funding negotiations if the lawyer does not have sufficient knowledge and expertise to help the client avoid being exploited in the legal funding relationship.” In addition, it was stated that this opinion will give consumers additional confidence in the industry: ”By requiring adequate representation in the legal funding negotiation, bad actors will be less likely to survive. As those bad actors are driven out, consumer confidence in legal funding services will rise and the resulting increase in demand for legal funding services will draw even more reputable funders into the market. This, in turn, will create stronger incentives for funders to cater to the price and quality preferences of individual plaintiffs.” The California Bar Association and the American Bar Association have each released a recent opinion on Litigation Funding. In both opinions, the bars acknowledge a need for the product, and propose best practices for how consumers and attorneys should work with companies that offer financial assistance to consumers in their time of need. ARC and its member companies continue to ensure that both consumers and their attorneys are fully-informed on the terms and conditions of the contract, and that the only parties that have a say in the prosecution of the case are consumers and their attorneys. These are enforced in the most recent set of Best Practices that ARC and its companies have released. ARC is very pleased the California Bar Association, the largest State Bar Association in the United States with over 242,000 members, has taken this position on the issue and put forward these important guidelines.
Read More
Commercial

Stonewood Case Stay of Proceedings Lifted

Questions about litigation funding led to a stay of proceedings during the liquidation of Stonewood Homes. That stay has been lifted by Associate Judge Owen Paulsen on September 25th. In August, a ruling stated that the liquidators, Rhys Cain and Rees Logan, could submit a request to lift the stay once concerns regarding the funding arrangement could be addressed. Otago Daily Times reports that Queenstown Mayor, Jim Boult, was the director of Stonewood Homes prior to February 2016. At that time, Stonewood was put into receivership as it owed money to unsecured creditors. According to the liquidators, Boult and another defendant allowed for trading while insolvent. Allegedly, this went on for nearly two years, during which time Stonewood lost even more money—to the tune of millions. Boult ostensibly took issue with the funding for the case, which was provided by developer Chris Meehan. Through his company, PLF Services, Meehan agreed to cover court costs, legal fees, investigator fees, and witnesses. Boult asserted that Meehan's funding was part of a vendetta intended to interfere with the coming mayoral election. Ultimately, Judge Paulsen determined that there was no satisfactory evidence of a vendetta. Part of this ruling was based on the fact that Meehan was approached about funding, as opposed to having sought it out.  A hearing for the case has not been announced but is expected soon.
Commercial

Insolvencies Lead to More Disputes—Says Litigation Capital Management

While COVID takes a toll on businesses around the globe, Litigation Finance is experiencing boom times. As the number of insolvencies increases, funders are readying for an influx of new requests. In preparation, Litigation Capital Management has created an asset management division. This is Money explains that LCM is on track to grow its global presence through the use of increased capital. As chief executive Patrick Moloney has stated, LCM has experienced major growth so far in 2020, and that’s expected to continue. Like many litigation funders, LCM is counter-cyclical. When businesses are in turmoil and markets are in flux, opportunities to fund cases abound. As Moloney explains, LCM anticipates ‘a huge volume of opportunity’ in the global marketplace. LCM relies on two basic funding models. Some disputes are funded directly from its balance sheet. Others go through a third-party fund managed by LCM. These funds are used to invest in individual cases, a portfolio of multiple cases, or to purchase claims in cases that have already been adjudicated. The current LCM share price suggests that investors are still cautious about the growth potential of the company. Moloney remains optimistic. He explains that LCM is not just focusing on current markets—but looking ahead to global opportunities for growth. Once the market grasps the full potential of LCMs portfolio funding model, the true value of the company will become readily apparent.
Commercial

Asia-Based Companies Have Their Eye on US IP Litigation

Litigation regarding intellectual property is undergoing a transformation. Judicial and legislative reform has led to changes that have made IP cases more complex and time-consuming, and therefore even more expensive to see to completion. Interestingly, companies based in Asia are looking toward US monetization strategies despite the inherent challenges of doing so. Burford Capital explains that for some, the potential rewards inherent to US patent litigation outweigh the potential risks. Huawei, for example, has been on the affirmative side of IP cases irrespective of the significant expenses involved. Nichia and Sharp are also among those with active IP cases in US courts. Since the beginning of last year, US patent cases led to at least half a dozen litigation awards of more than $200 million. These cases include companies like Cirba Inc, KAIST, and Motorola. There was also the notable Caltech verdict in its case against Broadcom and Apple—where Caltech was awarded more than a billion dollars. Even after a verdict is given, it may still take months before the award money is actually seen. Moreover, large awards can lead to bankruptcy and insolvency, which means recovery can take even longer. That aside, these award amounts suggest that the murky waters of US IP litigation may well be worth wading into. Since early last year, Asia-based tech companies have filed several dozen IP infringement complaints in US courts, including Maxell, LG, Epson, Seiko, and more. While Asia-based plaintiffs in American courts is not new, the size and scope of the cases suggest that innovation in tech is bringing change to Asia’s economy. In fact, Chinese startups currently attract almost 30% of venture capital around the globe, so it's likely this is a trend that will continue well into the future.