Trending Now

John Freund's Posts

3077 Articles
Announcements Commercial

Delta Capital Management Appoints Robert Brown, CEO of the Americas of Lincoln International, to its Board of Advisors

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.
Read More
Commercial

Is a Mysterious Litigation Funder Part of a Vendetta?

Does a litigation funder have a vendetta against Queenstown mayor Jim Boult? That’s the contention after a reveal that Chris Meehan is connected to the funding of a case against Boult. The case alleges that Boult’s companies, Stonewood Homes and Holmfirth Group, traded while insolvent. Millions of dollars were lost, and investors want their money back. Meehan himself is involved in a few nearby developments, one of which is in Queenstown. Stuff New Zealand details that Boult is claiming that Meehan has ulterior political motives for funding the case against him, including an attempt to derail the next mayoral election.  Boult applied for, and was granted, a short stay in the liquidation. For his part, Meehan claims that his only motive for funding the case was profit.   The Judge, Owen Paulsen, was not convinced that Meehan had ulterior motive. Journalist Ann Wilson was reportedly paid by Meehan to gather intel on Boult and had signed a restrictive NDA. This led Wilson to believe that Meehan did, in fact, have a vendetta against Boult that became evident as he announced his plan to run for mayor in 2016 Ultimately, Judge Paulsen ruled that the liquidators were doing their jobs properly and that there’s nothing inherently illegal about Meehan wanting to make a profit.
Commercial

Relief for Litigation Funders Courtesy of ASIC

As new regulations for funders in Australia take effect, the Litigation Finance landscape enters a new era. In addition to the requirement that litigation funders hold a license and the new classification of funds as ‘managed funding schemes’, ASIC has issued some relief for funders. Lexology explains that the new regulations, passed in May, took effect as of August 22. The Instrument 2020/787 was implemented to soften the transition for funders, and help them adjust to this new framework. Regulations are scaling back a bit regarding passive members of class actions. This is particularly important because class actions are such a major focus of the new regulations. Some argue that they were implemented specifically to curb the number of large class-action suits. The Instrument requires that funders take all appropriate measures to notify class members, but no longer has to provide updates on the case or provide disclosure statements on the funder’s website. The new rules also remove the requirement of application forms for passive members of a class action. Withdrawal procedures are also changing. Funders are excused from their obligation to routinely assess the value of scheme property. This includes PDS, fees and costs, and annual fees among others. The new requirements mandate that funders register as managed investment schemes. These MISs must have a compliance plan, a constitution, and an auditor held accountable for said compliance. They must also adhere to anti-hawking rules, which govern how and when claimants can be contacted. PDS is required for general members—defined as any member of an MIS who is not the funder or attorney. Most lawyers and funders agree that these changes are a step in the right direction for class action cases. They appear to meet the goals of governments and businesses in terms of improved transparency and enhanced accountability for funders.
Consumer

Industry Opponents Continue to Push for Regulation of Consumer Legal Funding

Much has been made about the interest charged by consumer legal funders in mass tort cases. One study suggests that interest rates are as high as 60%. Some are using such figures as the basis for clamping down on the practice of Litigation Finance, even if that comes to the detriment of those who rely on such funding in the pursuit of justice. Legal Newsline presents the need for reform as a foregone conclusion. But is it? The main sticking point seems to be complaints that what funders charge is too high. Funders respond by explaining that the non-recourse nature of the funds necessitates high interest. After all, there’s a very real chance that funders will see nothing if the case they’re funding does not end in settlement or award.   One might wonder—is the backlash against consumer legal funding really about the fees? Or is the problem that insurers, big businesses, and even governments are on edge about the newfound ability of citizens to rise up and seek legal remedy? Mass torts and class actions in particular are a vital part of what litigation funders do. Large, complex cases with multiple plaintiffs can take years to reach completion—not to mention costing thousands of dollars that most ordinary citizens simply cannot afford. If regulation puts a stranglehold on third-party funding, the number of new mass torts and class actions being filed would likely decrease dramatically.
Commercial

Omni Bridgeway Seeks to Protect Litigation Funding in Australia

It’s no secret that not everyone is a proponent of Litigation Finance. In Australia, new regulations threaten to permanently alter how class action suits are managed, and how litigation funding can be used to assist them. Andrew Saker of Omni Bridgeway, a major funder, is speaking out. Global Legal Post explains that in Australia, a coalition of “pro-business” advocates is pressing for change. Their reaction to litigation funding for class actions isn’t unexpected or surprising. Third-party funding of class actions makes it more likely that such businesses, and even the government, will be held accountable for their misdeeds. Earlier this year, a parliamentary inquiry led to an expensive and time-consuming requirement that funders must have an AFSL license and comply with provisions of the managed investment scheme protocols. Omni Bridgeway, a leading funder in Australia, has stated that they welcome improvements to the existing system, and will comply with licensing and disclosure requirements. The funder is also consulting with ASIC in the hopes of making adjustments to existing rules. The problem funders are having with the new rules isn’t so much the extra paperwork—but whether or not the changes are achieving the stated goals. After all, class actions are often expensive, take years to bring to a close, involve a lot of people, and tend to be highly complex. Moreover, the defendants are often large entities with an arsenal of lawyers and monies with which to fight back. With that in mind, Litigation Finance may well be the only viable option when a group is wronged by a large business or government entity.
Commercial

Professionals Speak Out on the State of Patent Law

IP law is a vital part of the Litigation Finance landscape. Patent and intellectual property litigation are industry mainstays, and represent the most-funded legal sector. As such, changes in the IP ecosystem impact the Litigation Finance world as well. Investors Digest assembled a panel of experts to discuss where the markets are headed. The first step in evaluating trends on the state of patent eligibility is to maintain a focus on system-wide changes, rather than on individual cases. Of course, every case is different and may not be indicative of sweeping industry trends. The panel had much to say on the matter. Russell Binns, CEO of Allied Security Trust, thinks there’s a great year ahead. He stated that 2020 will likely provide more clarity, especially in regard to Section 101, which determines which patents are eligible. He also expressed the importance of not treating patent litigation like a commodity—which may be a subtle swipe at Litigation Finance. Annsely Merell Ward, attorney at WilmerHale, is expecting an active market for patent litigation, along with more collaborations including sharing platforms and pools. Similarly, Jamie Underwood, a global IP strategist, predicts a bullish market on a global scale. Patents are being granted in higher numbers, and not just in the US. Currently, Japan, South Korea, Germany, Switzerland, and China have all adopted strong patent systems. Kent Richardson, a partner at Richardson Oliver Law Group, is using internal surveys and data to determine how to proceed. He is confident that patent prices are leveling out and becoming increasingly predictable—which is good for the industry on the whole. Daniel Papst of Papst Licensing agrees with predictions of a bull market. He also points out that an upcoming German Supreme Court ruling may improve efficiency in patent cases. Michael Gulliford of Soryn IP Group states that the totality of the IP world is heading in the right direction.
Announcements Commercial

Omni Bridgeway welcomes Tim DeSieno as Global Director of Distressed Debt and Senior Investment Manager

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!”
ABOUT OMNI BRIDGEWAY
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.
Read More
Announcements Commercial

Forbes Ventures Plc – Update on Litigation Funding Securitisation

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.
Read More
Announcements Commercial

Litigation Funder Affiniti Finance Raises £250m for Litigation and Dispute Funding

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” 
Read More
Consumer Covid-19

COVID and Medical Malpractice—Is Change Coming?

Since the impact of COVID, clinics and hospitals are besieged by new patients they can scarcely accommodate. Beds are full, basic supplies like PPE have run short, and even the best minds in medicine cannot agree on how to stop the spread of the virus. The only thing worse than being sick or injured may be to have that illness or injury exacerbated by an error by a medical professional. The Post offers a warning about potential changes to the way medical malpractice is adjudicated. Medical malpractice claims are increasingly funded by third-party litigation funders. Funders and plaintiffs can enter an agreement for non-recourse funding for legal and other expenses relating to a malpractice claim. If the case is successful, the funder gets an agreed-upon percentage of the award. Outside of the US, some countries are making big changes in how medical malpractice cases are addressed. In Denmark, it is free to file a medical malpractice claim. The medical caregivers are not being personally sued, leading to a speedier and less adversarial system where everyone is more inclined to participate and share information. Perhaps most importantly, The Danes focus on two things: If the treatment itself was lacking, and if a “severe or rare medical event occurred.” The claim is then evaluated by medical reviewers and the information therein is made publicly available. COVID is already spurring calls for fairness when it comes to access to the internet for the impoverished. Could we see similar calls emerge for those in need of malpractice lawsuits? Any emerging trend is worth keeping an eye on, since any mimicking of policies in Demark would likely to reduce opportunities for litigation funders.
Commercial

Insurers’ Balance Sheets Improve as ACA Risk Corridor Payments are Finally Underway

The Judgement Fund is used by the Bureau of Fiscal Services to provide remuneration to plaintiffs who successfully sue the federal government of the US. This arm of the US Treasury Department has been given leave by the Supreme Court to use the fund to pay insurers. Think Advisor explains that the payments are being sent out, as promised by the ACA. The payments had been delayed for years, leading to hardships and even closures for the businesses involved, though their purpose was to help struggling insurers. Why weren’t the payments made when originally scheduled? The government claimed that Congress refused to allot money for the program in the budget—ostensibly as part of a plan to keep the ACA from working properly. This left the fund roughly $12 billion short of where it needed to be. In April, SCOTUS ruled that Congress' failing to provide funds in no way relieves the government from its responsibility to make payments. Risk corridor program payments are estimated to average $800 for each individual with major medical coverage. One estimate puts the number of Americans with individual major medical insurance at roughly 15 million.
Commercial

HESTA Backs 21 Class Actions on Behalf of Shareholders

Litigation Finance is deepening its presence in the shareholder class action scene—challenging businesses when those who invest in them lose money. HESTA, a health-industry-specific fund, is now funding 21 class-action suits representing shareholders. The New Daily reports that HESTA isn’t just seeking big payouts, though they have earned about $32 million from various successful cases. The funding group has stated clearly that in addition to recovering losses, they hope to encourage improved accountability and more oversight into corporate governance. As of December of last year, changes in funding laws necessitate input from big investors in order to see a class action to its conclusion. Doing away with common fund orders means litigation funders need to ensure that enough claimants have signed on to a given case. The skirmish involving common fund orders was brought about by Westpac, ostensibly in the hopes of getting rid of one class action in particular. A recent claim was triggered after Westpac was accused of millions of illegal fund transfers that appear to violate counterterrorism and money-laundering laws. In addition to abolishing common fund orders, regulations for litigation funders also changed—requiring their own licenses due to their new designation as managed investment schemes. Industry professionals are averse to these new changes, according to Allsopp. He explains that the federal government went ahead with a flurry of changes that came against counsel from ASIC and prior to the completion of a Parliamentary inquiry.
Commercial

International Arbitration Opportunities Through Litigation Finance

Multinational companies are choosing international arbitration to settle disputes in greater numbers than ever. For those who make this choice, Litigation Finance can take the financial stress out of the ordeal. Third-party legal funding can be used commercially and internationally. Omni Bridgeway details that in 2019, there were 869 new arbitration cases, according to stats from the International Chamber of Commerce. Over 1/3 of new cases were valued at more than $10 million. Moreover, of the 10 most-commonly chosen venues for international arbitration—half were located outside Europe or North America. Firms and companies involved in international arbitration can certainly benefit from litigation funding. When arbitration is the chosen path for an international dispute in cases like treaties, or a business bringing a claim against a government—funding can lighten the financial load significantly. Funding may also mitigate the longer case lengths and lower settlements that can occur. Now more than ever, international entities are looking for funding for a broad portfolio of cases. This presents opportunities for businesses to better manage finances while reducing the overall risk for funders. If one plans to make use of Litigation Finance, it’s important to understand the criteria by which funders select cases. Criteria include the probability of success as the main factor, followed by the potential expenditure versus the amount of a potential award. Experienced funders will have their own metrics or algorithms to determine this. Also considered are the success rate of the legal team involved, the jurisdiction, the potential time-frame of the case, and the probability of collecting an award or settlement. If there’s a tribunal, its efficacy will factor in as well. Enforceability is an ongoing concern for international cases—so funders with global enforcement experience are particularly desirable. All of these factors can impact the funder’s bottom line—which is particularly important given the non-recourse nature of litigation funding.
Commercial

Innovation and Litigation Finance—A Winning Combination

Current economic conditions are making it more challenging to run a business regardless of industry. In the legal world, budgets are shrinking and GCs, already stretched to the brink, are taking on even more costs. An ability to adapt to circumstances while finding ways to save money is of the essence. Burford Capital explains that when money is tight, the last thing firms want to do is take risks. At the same time, the need for innovation is greater than ever. The solution? Legal Finance. Innovation in the legal world is nothing new. But now, increased efficiency and time-saving techniques aren’t just desirable—they’re mandatory. Clients and customers require digital signatures, electronic billing and payments, secure virtual meeting spaces, and protected file transfers that maintain the privacy of clients and firms. A 2019 Legal Finance Report shows that more than 70% of in-house counsel chose not to pursue meritorious cases because they didn’t want to take the financial risk. Not only that, over 60% of in-house lawyers are failing to collect judgments or awards to the tune of tens of millions. In these instances, Litigation Finance can make all the difference.
Announcements Consumer

Law Finance Group Offers Answer to Challenging Question Law Firms Now Face: “When Will We Get Paid?”

August 27, 2020—It’s a question many are now confronting, and it has nothing to do with the law: “When will we get paid?”

As the pandemic and other macro factors continue to impact the economy, law firms’ efforts to collect from their clients present a real challenge. On one hand, firms need steady revenue to meet their operating expenses and other obligations; on the other, they need to put client interests first. With clients facing their own financial stresses, lawyers must show extreme sensitivity to their clients’ challenges, arguably before their own. Law Finance Group, a leading litigation financier and provider of capital to law firms for more than 25 years, has recognized this dilemma and stepped in with a solution—AR Now: Accounts Receivable Financing.

A first-of-its-kind product, AR Now will:

  • Immediately advance 50% of a client’s outstanding bill.
  • Allow law firms to maintain the billing relationship with the client, while Law Finance Group stays in the background.
  • Offer facilities up to $20 million or more, giving law firms peace of mind to focus on their work.
  • Avoid personal guarantees that law firm lenders typically require.

When clients pay their invoices within six months, law firms keep 93% of the amount billed. When invoices are paid within a year, law firms keep 88%. The full program terms allow law firms to give clients up to 18 months to pay outstanding bills.

“You don’t need to read about furloughs and cost-cutting to know that firms and their clients are under great stress right now,” said Dan Bush, Law Finance Group’s chief investment officer. “We’re happy to offer a product that relieves a lot of that stress on law firms, while also benefitting their clients.”

AR Now also holds the promise of relieving any tension that may exist between law firm partners and management and provides a strategy to navigating this reality together. Often, compensation plans incentivize partners to offer overly generous discounts that get funds in the door, but work against the broader firm goal of maximizing revenue. AR Now aligns the interests of partners and management, while offering attractive advantages to both groups.

Partner benefits: Partners can offer clients extended payment terms, further establishing themselves as valuable problem solvers in a time of crisis. For them, AR Now also allows the firm to book revenue that could contribute to partner distributions.

Management benefits: AR Now gives chief financial officers, chief operating officers, pricing professionals, and client services managers immediate capital without having to offer clients substantial new discounts or tapping their lines of credit.

“Our AR Now product has other applications for law firms and their clients—for instance, facilitating new alternative fee arrangements,” Bush said. “Ultimately, we’re here to help both firms and their clients get through this challenging moment, and, as always, are willing to get creative to get that done.”

For detailed terms and more information about AR Now, click here.

About Law Finance Group

For more than 25 years, Law Finance Group has been a leader in the litigation and law firm finance industry. We have provided over half a billion dollars in financing for individual lawsuits and litigation portfolios to parties and their law firms. Our innovative financing solutions are based on our deep understanding of the civil justice system and the realities of the modern law firm business model. Law Finance Group maintains offices in San Francisco, New York, and Austin.

Read More
Commercial

Qui Tam Relators Compelled to Disclose Litigation Funding

The FCA or ‘False Claims Act’ has secured more than $3 billion in settlements or judgments in civil cases in the 2019 fiscal year alone. Much of that relates to healthcare claims, and nearly two-thirds involve relators—which is another term for whistleblowers. This is not surprising, given the widespread application of Qui Tam provisions that offer a portion of an award to whistleblowers who assist the prosecution with cases under the FCA. JD Supra explains that rampant fraud in government programs combined with the money to be made under a writ of qui tam means this type of litigation is increasingly popular. Litigation Finance is now entering the fray of FCA cases, though there are no definitive numbers on how much litigation funders have invested in FCA suits. While increased regulation has not yet been called for, the DOJ does appear to have concerns over third-party funding in qui tam cases. With that in mind, the DOJ now requires all qui tam relators to reveal any agreements they may have with third-party funders. Many think this move toward transparency might signal the end of funding in qui tam FCA cases—and that in turn, this will decrease the number of whistleblowers coming forward. The DOJ initially expressed concern regarding FCA cases when the relator is involved in litigating on behalf of their government. At a January 2020 speech, former Deputy Associate AG Stephen Cox explained that the DOJ was looking into whether or not disclosure in such cases was appropriate. Now, a series of questions will be asked of all FCA relators: --Is there an agreement with a third-party funder? --Who is the funder? --What information has been shared with the funder? --What is the nature of the written agreement with the funder? --Does the agreement give the funder control over decision making (this is generally prohibited in all cases)?
Commercial

Does Litigation Funding Turn David into Goliath?

At what point might a David become a Goliath? Some would say that Litigation Finance is the catalyst for such a transformation. Take the case of Akiane Kramarik and the famed portrait of Jesus she painted at age nine. Over the years, she’s been the subject of television appearances, media events, and even a big-budget film. But as she grew up, missing royalty payments and other shady dealings began to emerge. Bloomberg Law explains that the artist recently acquired funding from Legalist, a third-party funder, in order to sue former business partner Carol Corneliuson and her business, Art & SoulWorks. For most people of modest means, Litigation Finance provides a way for those who can’t afford legal representation to have their day in court. Kramarik and her family claim that they need help from funders to finance their case. But Corneliuson claims that the Kramarik’s can now use the funds to make outrageous demands—though there’s no evidence that they have done so. In January 2019, the Kramarik family terminated their relationship with Corneliuson. After a short disagreement about selling existing merchandise, Kramarik’s father decided to look deeper. That’s when he learned that Art & SoulWorks had not paid full royalty payments, and allegedly sold low-quality reprints to counterfeit markets. Referencing items she had already purchased for sale that were now ostensibly worthless—Corneliuson filed a countersuit. Eva Shang of Legalist has stated that Ms. Kramarik is exactly the kind of client who can benefit from litigation funding. The case itself does not appear to be near a settlement. Indeed, Corneliuson’s attorney has said that her client would be unable to afford the proposed settlement of $2 million. A partner at the firm representing the Kramarik’s has said that the firm isn’t pursuing the case any differently than he would have, had no funding been secured.
Announcements Commercial

Significant Legal Win for “David” Canadian Corp in London Court

Global Energy Horizons Corp (GEHC) an alternative energy corporation headquartered in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada has won a significant Judgment against The Winros Partnership (formerly Rosenblatt Solicitors) a City of London based law firm. GEHC’s claims are related to the legality and enforceability of three Conditional Fee Agreements (CFAs) alongside several misconduct allegations against Rosenblatt. A CFA  is a contingency agreement between a law firm and its client whereby the law firm assumes the costs of pursuing a litigation for a reward that could amount to 100% of its customary fee. The case considered GEHC’s claim that all three CFAs entered into with Rosenblatt were unenforceable, and in any event wrongly terminated, and as such Rosenblatt wrongly claimed costs, despite the existence of an unenforceable ‘no-win, no-fee’ CFA. The case also considered numerous allegations of impropriety, including Rosenblatt misrepresenting to its client that monies were owed. The Judgment, handed down on Thursday August 20, 2020, found for GEHC in all its claims. Master James, the presiding justice, noted that Rosenblatt “left GEHC’s best interests in their rear-view mirror” and “favoured its own interests over its client’s.” The Judgment found that Rosenblatt had misrepresented the following to GEHC and/or the court:
    • that one of the CFAs had come to an end, before wrongly and unclearly invoicing the claimant for monies allegedly owed
    • a win had been achieved under a later CFA resulting in additional fee requirements of £7 million
    • GEHC had agreed to gift Rosenblatt in excess of £2 million, including £460,000 in irrecoverable success fees which Rosenblatt maintained they had explained to GEHC that there was no contractual entitlement
    • further, Rosenblatt failed to keep records of the alleged advice or the alleged agreement
The conduct of the matter was punctuated by poor or non-existent written communications, on which Master James remarked: “This is one of a number of occasions upon which a very important event, involving a large sum of money, has allegedly happened but in respect of which there is no paper trail to verify it, in spite of the fact that Rosenblatt is a commercial law firm and well-versed in the importance of reducing important agreements to writing.” GEHC was represented by a London-based team of the firm Eversheds Sutherland and Ben Williams QC of 4 New Square, London. The Eversheds Sutherland team was led by Partners David Flack and Mark Cooper, and Head of Costs Glenn Newberry. The Winros Partnership were represented by Rosenblatt Solicitors and Andrew Post QC of Hailsham Chambers, and Adam Zellick QC of Fountain Court, all of London, UK. Glenn Newberry, Head of Costs and Litigation Funding at Eversheds Sutherland commented: “We’re delighted the Judgment found for GEHC on all counts. This is a significant case, being one of the first to find a post 2005 CFA to be unenforceable following the abolition of the 2000 CFA Regulations in 2005, as well as tackling what became an ever-growing number of incidences of misconduct. The team faced numerous challenges during proceedings, including a lack of documentary evidence, nor correspondence nor file notes of conversations of the advice which Rosenblatt purported to have provided to GEHC in respect of the unusual and complex fee agreements.” Brian de Clare, President of GEHC commented: “GEHC engaged Eversheds in 2016 to investigate our rights following the unauthorized removal of funds from our Client account at Rosenblatt. That was a shocking situation for us to have been put in, especially where we had placed great trust in Rosenblatt from the very beginning. For Eversheds to have uncovered even further grave irregularities in our fundamental contractual relationship with Rosenblatt (the CFAs) made us realise the trust we placed in Rosenblatt actually exposed us to being taken advantage of by them. We are extremely grateful to the Eversheds Sutherland team and Ben Williams QC for their expertise, hard work and perseverance on this difficult to comprehend matter which unearthed a catalogue of misconduct incidents stretching back a number of years.” The case was heard in the Senior Courts Cost Office in London. The hearing lasted 10 days in 2018, including eight days of live evidence. The defendant has sought permission to appeal. Rosenblatt Solicitors were hired in 2009 to litigate GEHC’s case against Robert Gresham Gray in London for breach of fiduciary duty in 2006 by removing GEHC’s opportunity to participate in an innovative and patented technology/process, tested and utilized in the U.S. and around the world, for increasing oil & gas recovery, and the associated benefits derived therefrom. Eversheds Sutherland also represent Global Energy Horizons in the ongoing litigation against Gray, who was found guilty by Lord Justice Vos in 2012 for breach of fiduciary responsibility.
Read More
Announcements Consumer

Legal-Bay Pre-Settlement Funding Announces Expansion of Car Accident and Personal Injury Departments Due to Rising Amount of Cases

WEST CALDWELL, N.J., Aug. 24, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Legal-Bay, the premier Pre Settlement Funding Company, announced today that they have expanded their car accident and personal injury departments due to the influx of new filings during the first half of 2020. Legal-Bay is one of the leading lawsuit loan companies in the industry, and offers a very fast approval process. Even with fewer people leaving home due to the COVID pandemic, Legal-Bay is seeing more car accident and personal injury claims than ever before. Because of this, court rulings are taking longer than usual. An exorbitant amount of time may pass before plaintiffs receive their settlement money. Legal-Bay is once again reaffirming their dedication to arrange loans on settlement claims for their clients, essentially a cash advance against a pending settlement. To apply now, please go to the company's website HERE or call toll-free at: 877.571.0405 where experienced agents are standing by. Chris Janish, CEO, commented on the company's readiness, "Unfortunately, we are seeing a bevy of personal injury lawsuits backlogging the courts as cases come in quicker than they are settling. Insurance companies are using the slowed process to lowball plaintiffs into taking less-than-expected settlement values. Legal-Bay remains committed to our clients that need a loan settlement now, rather than having to wait out the endless days for their case to resolve at trial." If you have an active lawsuit and need a loan on lawsuit, Legal-Bay may be able to assist you immediately. To apply online, please visit us HERE or call the company's toll-free hotline at 877.571.0405.    Plaintiffs in personal injury lawsuits including car, truck, and boat accidents, medical malpractice, and premise liability cases are filing at a rate previously not seen before. Legal-Bay can speak with you about loans for settlements and get you the cash you have coming to you… without having to wait. Legal-Bay's non-recourse pre-settlement funding programs are also known as lawsuit loans, law suit loans, loans for lawsuit, loans for lawsuits, or settlement loans. The cash advance settlement loan is risk-free, as the money does not need to be repaid should the recipient lose their case.
Read More
Announcements

Defrauded Investor Scores Victory in Qatari Court Saga

DOHA, Qatar, Aug. 24, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- The Swifthold Foundation, which was defrauded by Sheikh Fahad bin Ahmad bin Mohamed bin Thani Al Thani, a member of the Qatari Royal Family, and his Qatari company, Fast Trading Group, has been patiently waiting for the Qatari Enforcement Court to enforce Swifthold's $6 billion U.K. High Court Judgment since the Qatari Trial Court issued a Writ of Execution to formally recognize the Judgment in Qatar in the Summer of 2019. In February 2020, the defendants filed an appeal with the Enforcement Court to seek a stay of the enforcement proceedings and to declare the enforcement proceedings invalid.  In addition, he filed an appeal of the underlying recognition of the U.K. High Court Judgment with the Court of Appeal in Qatar. On August 18, 2020, the Enforcement Court dismissed the defendants' appeal and now the enforcement of the U.K. High Court Judgment can continue unabated.  According to Delta Capital Partners, the American litigation finance and support firm that the foundation has retained, this should be one of the last remaining hurdles to overcome before Swifthold can expect to collect significant proceeds from the defendants. Delta's CEO, Christopher DeLise, stated, "It has been a long wait to resolve this appeal due to COVID-19, but we are very pleased by the Enforcement Court's ruling and are anxious to continue enforcement of the judgment against the defendants.  The defendants' appeals were without merit and filed at the last minute solely to try to delay the inevitable and therefore we are now optimistic that the Qatari court will enforce without further delay." As of today, no hearing has been set for the Court of Appeals hearing, but Delta and Swifthold's Qatari counsel believe the outcome will ultimately be the same if the courts follow established Qatari law and procedure and continue to respect international law. Delta's CEO closed by commenting, "We are confident that the Qatari Court of Appeals will dismiss the defendants' appeal and Swifthold will finally have justice and the compensation it so rightly deserves in the very near future. "
Read More
Commercial

Insurers Counter $185MM Case with $9MM Offer

All eyes are on a fee request from Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, & Sullivan. The class action, which revolved around Obamacare and insurers left unpaid after Congress neglected to pay promised subsidies, was completed in April when the US Supreme Court ruled that insurers were owed roughly $12 billion in unpaid subsidies meant to cover Americans without insurance. Bloomberg Law explains that the requested legal fee works out to about $18,000 an hour—though that’s an estimate as no timesheets were provided. Not surprisingly, several insurers thought this was absurdly high, using words like “astronomical” and “unreasonable” to describe the request. They countered the $185 million demand with an offer of $9 million. This brings up the use of the “lodestar method,” which is used to calculate legal fees. Insurers who signed on to the class action agreed to pay a maximum of 5% of any award. Despite this, insurers have said that even $20 million would be too high. Interestingly, it may be litigation funders who win big if these insurers get their way. As several insurers sold their interest in the case in exchange for any award, lower legal fees mean more money for those (as yet unnamed) funders who invested in the case.
Commercial

Litigation Finance in India; Not So Fast

India appears to be the latest country to embrace the practice of Litigation Finance—at least in theory. The Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, recently spoke about foreign investment opportunities in India. One of the many types of foreign investments being encouraged is third-party litigation funding. This leaves some asking whether or not the Indian judicial system is ready for the practice. Taxscan India details that in India, much like the rest of the world, COVID has hit businesses hard. As the courts scramble to keep up with new cases, virtual hearings are becoming more commonplace. These seem like ideal conditions for litigation funding to flourish—yet India has not caught up with the rest of the developed world in taking full advantage of the opportunities lit fin presents. In addition to funding legal matters that might otherwise go abandoned, firms can use litigation funding to keep expensive cases off the balance sheet and keep funds flowing to take care of general expenses.  Currently, the Indian legal market is worth about $80 billion. Yet ongoing delays in the Indian judicial process is keeping outside investors from getting involved in litigation funding.   Technically, Litigation Finance is permitted in India per the Code of Civil Procedure—but the current state of the legal system seems tailor-made to discourage foreign investment in Indian litigation.
Announcements Commercial

Litigation Capital Management (LCM) announces its third corporate portfolio transaction

Litigation Capital Management Limited, a global provider of disputes funding, publicly listed on the London Stock Exchange’s AIM market, is pleased to announce it has executed an agreement to finance a corporate portfolio transaction to provide a significant finance facility to a subsidiary of a global building and infrastructure contractor to fund a portfolio of its construction claims. The transaction, which originated through LCM’s strategic alliance with Norton Rose Fulbright and involved members of LCM’s team from Sydney, London and a specialist team established in the UAE, includes an agreement by LCM to finance up to 20 separate claims seated in jurisdictions ranging from Dubai to London, subject to the satisfactory completion by LCM of its due diligence. LCM has achieved recent results on two of its existing corporate portfolio facilities – one for a global aviation business and the other with a building and construction company, which both delivered four resolutions each for the respective clients within the last financial year; a relatively short timeframe compared with traditional single-case projects, demonstrating LCM’s capabilities in providing sophisticated and bespoke client-focused solutions that truly meet the needs of corporate clients. Commenting on the new corporate portfolio, Patrick Moloney, Chief Executive Officer of LCM, said: “We are delighted to be announcing a further corporate portfolio transaction which originated through our strategic alliance with Norton Rose Fulbright. LCM has the most experienced team in the market for originating and executing such industry-changing disputes financing solutions.” Nick Rowles-Davies, Executive Vice Chairman of LCM, added: “This corporate portfolio further cements our position as leading the global market in corporate portfolio transactions and comes at a time of considerable growth and increased opportunity for LCM.” Cameron Harvey, Head of Disputes of Norton Rose Fulbright, commented: “LCM’s finance facility will be of great benefit to our client and its ability to manage legal claims across multiple jurisdictions. Norton Rose Fulbright entered into a strategic alliance with LCM because we foresaw a growing need for corporate litigants to be able to engage in necessary dispute resolution without having the experience cripple their balance sheets, something which is even more crucial during the COVID-19 pandemic. We look forward to continuing to work with LCM to offer financing and legal solutions to our international and domestic clients as they adjust to the impact of the pandemic and emerge during the eventual recovery.” This month, LCM welcomed Non-Executive Director Gerhard Seebacher to its Board, while Helene Roins joined as an Investment Manager based in Sydney. In April 2020, Investment Manager James Foster and Chief Financial Officer Mary Gangemi both joined LCM in London. About LCM Litigation Capital Management (LCM) is a leading international provider of litigation financing solutions. This includes single-cases and corporate and law firm portfolios across class actions, commercial claims, claims arising out of insolvency, including assignments, and international arbitration. LCM has an unparalleled track record, driven by effective project selection and robust risk management. Headquartered in Sydney, with offices in London, Singapore, Brisbane and Melbourne, LCM listed on AIM in December 2018, trading under the ticker LIT.
Read More
Commercial

Bill Farrell, Co-Founder of Longford Capital, Speaks to K&L Gates

William Farrell, Jr., Managing Director and Co-Founder of Chicago-based Longford Capital, recently appeared on a podcast hosted by K&L Gates. Farrell shared his personal journey from working as a prosecutor in the Cook County prosecutor's office to founding and managing litigation funding powerhouse Longford Capital. Below are some highlights of the 50-minute long podcast, which can be found here. Q: Are there any thoughts you have about what we need to be thinking about to be appropriate allies to influence or change systemic racism in our legal system? A: One thing that has struck me, in Chicago anyway, is that since the horrific incident that involved Mr. Floyd, we have had dozens of shootings in Chicago in the south and west side neighborhoods, and dozens of African Americans have died as a result of those shootings. And their lives matter, very much. I wish we’d spend time focusing on more of a grass roots community-driven effort to increase educational opportunities for all of our citizens, which I think will lead to progress and success.  Q: What are some things you carry with you from being a prosecutor that might have given you a leg up? Was there something in particular from the Cook County prosecutor’s office that you took with you into the litigation realm? A: One of the things I enjoy most about my job has been interacting with people, and trying to understand people. I learned an awful lot about that as a prosecutor. Taking the skills of being able to listen to people coming from extreme situations and trying to understand them and their motivations, whether they’re telling me the truth, they’re trying to skirt the truth—and how to motivate them to tell me the truth has been really important, and I’ve carried it with me throughout interacting with juries, which is a very personal experience. Trying to understand each and every juror and trying to get them to understand me and my client’s position is a quality that was borne in my time at the state’s attorney’s office. Now, as a commercial litigation funder at Longford Capital, we have a policy that we must meet our clients in person whenever possible. That’s been a little tough as of late, with the stay at home orders. But we think making a personal connection and understanding the intangibles is important. We might understand that a client might have a meritorious breach of contract claim, but at Longford, we want to understand—what’s the motivation for trying to enforce those legal rights? What is the client trying to achieve? Is it to just have a judge rule in their favor so that they have a feeling of justice? Is it to achieve a commercially reasonable financial result? Everybody has a different approach to litigation. I want to understand it from a very personal level. Q: So you and your brother, I assume, talked about forming this company, which—even today, it’s not a road that’s normally traveled. Tell us how you came up with the idea, and some of the bumps in the road that might have occurred? A: It was in 2009 that we first learned of this idea of third party commercial litigation finance—the notion that a third party, not the client or the law firm, would participate in the funding of attorney’s fees and expenses incurred in connection with pursuing a meritorious legal claim. It was a very novel idea; in fact, I had never heard of it before. I don’t think anyone in the US had heard of it before. My initial reaction is that it’s too bad it’s prohibited in the United States, because I thought it was such a smart idea. A solution to the ever-increasing call by corporate clients for alternatives to the billable hour model. I thought it was unfortunate that it was somehow impermissible in the United States. But I took the time to research why, or what rule prohibited this, but I couldn’t find the rule. There was no prohibition against litigation funding in the US, and in fact it blended in quite well with the range of possibilities that corporate clients involved in litigation used as a means of paying for their legal services—the first and most obvious being paying their lawyers. I immediately thought of it as a solution for clients approaching me and my firm seeking alternatives to the billable hour. I thought it would be a great alternative to saying ‘I’m sorry, my firm doesn’t offer contingency agreements.’ And I began to study it, and at some point included my brother Tim in the discussion. At that point, Tim was representing about a thousand US manufacturing companies, ranging from multiple billion dollar publicly-traded companies, down to hundreds of family-owned businesses. His reaction to this also helped form our future pursuit of Longford Capital. His reaction was, ‘almost every one of my 1,000 member companies is involved in litigation, virtually at all times. And you’re now telling me that they have an option, an alternative to paying their lawyers monthly, and that option is to transfer that cost to a third party—a funding organization—specifically designed for that purpose, and that the funding will be in the form of an equity non-recourse agreement that’s only required to be repaid if the company is successful in the litigation. It’s not a loan but rather an investment in the outcome of the case.’ He said, ‘I’ll do the survey but I don’t even need to do it. I’ll tell you what the answer is. Companies will want that alternative, easily more than 50% of the time.’ Q: From there you had to take that to investors and try to get that money out the door. Talk about that process—did you have a hard time convincing people to buy into this concept? What were some of the struggles you had in those early fundraising periods? A: From the time we learned about this idea of litigation finance in 2009, we studied a lot over a two-year period, and we tried to surround ourselves with experts in the field. We tried to find answers to all the questions that might be asked of us by investors, firms, and lawyers and clients. After vigorous investigations over two years, we thought we had the answers to all those questions, and they all suggested that litigation finance would be attractive in the United States. However, there was a leap of faith: We didn’t know whether institutional investors would embrace the idea of a new investment strategy that had never really been tried or tested. There were no benchmarks or track record, and maybe worse yet, being advocated by a group of people that weren’t professional investors who had never worked investing the money of other people.   The reason I think it was successful, is that some of the characteristics of litigation finance from an investor’s perspective are very attractive. Mainly that the outcomes of commercial litigation are not correlated to major investment indices. Meaning that whether the stock market is up or down on the day the jury is coming back really has no impact—and that extends to credit markets, equity markets. The outcomes of commercial litigation are not affected by presidential elections, weather patterns, geopolitical events—as a result, investment in the outcome of legal claims serves to diversify investment portfolios. And that is a very attractive feature for institutional investors. It turned out that that was the key to getting interest from investors.
Commercial

False Claim Act Ruling Stuns Litigation Funders

The False Claims Act has long been a source of contention in modern courts. The law, which dates back to 1863, allows anyone aware of fraud against the federal government to make a claim. The act is often cited by litigation funders, however, a court decision from earlier this week rules that such cases can be easily dismissed. Insurance Journal explains that the ruling means that the Justice Department may dismiss any suit filed under the False Claims Act if the suit is deemed meritless. This ruling, made by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, represents a reversal of an earlier decision stating that the government needed a rational basis to dismiss a case filed under this act. The False Claims Act leads to cases that are long, complicated, and expensive to bring to completion. Even when a case is utterly without merit, defendants face pressure to settle rather than incur the expense of fighting. Nearly every sector of the economy is impacted by the False Claims Act—which also allows cases to proceed without government involvement. Relators are those filing a claim under the False Claims Act, which states that the Justice Department may usurp the prosecution of a relator’s case. They may or may not share an award for damages with the relator, at their discretion. As of 2018, nearly 600 new filings are received yearly. This led to a memo from Michael Granston, then director of the Justice Department’s commercial fraud unit—insisting that US attorneys dismiss claims that were lacking in merit, which in turn presaged the recent ruling. 
Commercial

UK Class Action-Style Suit Proceeds Against Marriott International

A data breach impacting at least 500 million guests is the foundation of a class-action-style suit filed against Marriott International. The alleged breaches took place between July 2014 and September 2018, and involve guests around the world, including about 30 million EU residents. Tech Crunch explains that UK citizen Martin Bryant has filed the legal action on behalf of the millions of guests who made reservations at the hotel brand throughout England and Wales. Beginning in 2014, hackers broke into Starwood Hotels group databases, stealing guest names, email and phone numbers, physical addresses, credit card data, gender, and more. In 2016, Starwood was acquired by Marriott, but the data breach was not discovered until 2018. Global litigation funder Harbour Litigation Funding is fully funding the case, signaling the funding industry’s willingness to fund representative actions in UK cases. Some suggest this is a stepping stone to a larger payout. Hausfeld, an international law firm specializing in class actions, is representing Martin Bryant on behalf of the group. Michael Bywell, a partner at Hausfeld, stated that Marriott International failed to secure data or improve technical mechanisms in order to protect guest information. Their actions represent a clear breach of data protection laws, specifically written to protect the data of private citizens.   This claim is brought under Rule 19.6 of civil procedure rules, and includes any member of the claimant class who has not opted out. Those who wish to register may do so, provided they made reservations at one of the impacted brands. These include (but are not limited to) Sheraton Hotels, Aloft, The Luxury Collection, and any other hotels owned or operated by Marriott International or Starwood during the relevant time period. There are no fees or costs associated with registering interest in the case.
Announcements Commercial

CrosstownHelp™: BridgePoint Financial announces Expropriation and Business-Loss Consulting for those affected by delayed LRT project

TORONTO, Aug. 20, 2020 /CNW/ - In response to the more than 3,000 small businesses negatively affected by the Eglinton Crosstown LRT project, BridgePoint Financial has launched CrosstownHelpTM, an expropriation and business-loss consulting and financing program to help recoup losses and restore financial and business stability to those impacted by the delayed infrastructure project. BridgePoint Financial provides businesses with access to legal representation, expert advice, and financing that business owners can use for working capital, relocation costs, or to pay for the costs of litigation allowing them to withstand the negative financial effects of the government's actions. "BridgePoint Financial launched CrosstownHelpTM to educate businesses and provide them with the guidance and financial support they need to pursue expropriation claims and receive the fair compensation they are entitled to," said John Rossos, Co-founder and Principal of BridgePoint Financial Services Inc. "The cost of expropriation is significant, and while the Eglinton LRT is a much-needed infrastructure project, hundreds of businesses have received substantially less than fair value to cover the loss and interruption of business." Unfortunately, the Eglinton Crosstown LRT project, as with many road construction projects, has come at a big cost to business owners who often have to borrow, relocate or close down altogether. The Ontario Expropriation Act provides that businesses will receive fair compensation for business interruption, relocation and ancillary costs, and loss of business and goodwill. To date, $6.6 million has been given to Business Improvement Areas for marketing, parking, and maintenance support, while the Province of Ontario recently announced $3 million to support the areas impacted by the construction. "For small business owners operating along Eglinton Avenue, the transit project is a threat to their livelihood," added Rossos. "In many cases, these business owners feel intimidated and aren't aware of their options or that they have any.  BridgePoint's goal is to give businesses the best opportunity to level the playing field to advance their claims." BridgePoint's consulting services provide access to the best expropriation expertise across Canada and allow business owners to hire top lawyers and experts without being forced to settle for less due to cash flow related issues, assuming full recoverability of costs from the government. BridgePoint will also provide businesses with financing to assist with:
  • Costs associated with loss of revenue including legal and expert fees or business relocation;
  • Costs due to business interruption including working capital to stabilize the business, preserve goodwill and cover damages; and
  • Access to the best legal representation and expert advice including experts in expropriation and funding to pay for those costs.
The Eglinton Crosstown LRT is one of the largest transit projects in Canada and, once completed, will include 25 stops along a 19km corridor across Eglinton Avenue in Toronto. Since construction began in 2011, more than 140 businesses along Eglinton Avenue West have closed. Recently, the City of Toronto announced that construction will continue well into 2022. About BridgePoint Financial
BridgePoint Financial is Canada's leading provider of specialized financing solutions for the Canadian legal services market, addressing the needs of plaintiffs, lawyers, and the experts involved in advancing legal claims. BridgePoint's goal is to level the litigation playing field and to protect its clients' rights to full and fair access to justice. For more information about the expropriation consulting and financing services available from BridgePoint Financial, visit crosstownhelp.com.
Read More
Commercial

Will New Aussie Funding Regulations Impede Class Actions?

As the federal government in Australia sets up new regulations governing the Litigation Finance industry, some fear that class actions will be much more difficult to pursue. One major change requires that all funders be licensed by ASIC—and meet its expectations of competence, honesty, fairness, and efficiency. That may not seem like a tall order, but it’s not yet certain what hurdles must be cleared to obtain the required licenses. ABC Rural (Australia) reports that smaller funders have the most to fear in this new climate. Take, for example, the Australian Farmers' Fighting Fund, which was developed to fund cases with lasting impacts on growers. Hamish Brett lost his income when an import ban went into effect in 2011. Without funding, he'd have nowhere to turn. With funds from the AFFF, his share of the class action award covered his losses. Brett has stated that more than the money, he’s glad the government will no longer be able to destroy the livelihoods of people with the stroke of a pen. Litigation Finance is also the subject of a forthcoming parliamentary inquiry. Citing concerns that the number of class actions has nearly tripled since the popularization of litigation funding, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has called for more oversight and increased regulation. He explained that third-party funding should be treated the same way as other financial services—which are generally licensed by the Australian Financial Services Commission. 
Commercial

Class Action Against Oracle and Salesforce Backed by Innsworth

It may be the largest privacy-related class action in history, as The Privacy Collective gears up for a class action against Oracle and Salesforce. The action, which alleges the unlawful large-scale collection and storage of internet users' data in Denmark. Allegedly, the data was shared with multiple commercial and AdTech companies. Diginomics reports that the action is funded by Innsworth Litigation Funding, a London-based funder known for backing large commercial litigation and arbitration claims. Their portfolio of funded cases includes such names as Mastercard and Volkswagen. ILF’s involvement in this action is of particular interest, because Innsworth is owned and partially funded by Elliott Management Corp. Moreover, Elliott bought over $20 million of Oracle stock earlier this year, though they do not appear to have a financial interest in Salesforce. The case is being called one of the largest examples of unlawful data processing since the internet came to be. The case asserts that the rights to protect one’s privacy—including online data—is fundamental. While Oracle and Salesforce are not the only companies accused of mishandling user data, they are among the largest. Regardless of the individual players, this is the sort of case that was bound to happen at some point—given the inherent vagaries of laws surrounding privacy, consent, and data collection and processing. Privacy protection is also being examined in a similar case in the London High Court. Cadwalader partner Melis Acuner has stated that this type of case allows courts to aggregate the harm caused by data privacy violations. No doubt, these cases will set a lasting precedent no matter what the final outcome is. A statement from Salesforce explains that the company disagrees with the allegations and will demonstrate their lack of merit. Oracle also promises to defend against what the company calls “baseless claims,” though with more feisty language—using terms like “bad faith” and ‘shakedown litigation.’