John Freund's Posts

3200 Articles

Helene Roins joins Litigation Capital Management (LCM) in Sydney

Litigation Capital Management Limited, a global provider of disputes funding, publicly listed on the London Stock Exchange’s AIM market, is pleased to announce the hire of Helene Roins as an Investment Manager based in Sydney. With extensive experience in insolvency and restructuring, commercial litigation, insurance disputes and class actions, Helene joins LCM after more than two years with a Sydney-based litigation funder where she was responsible for the assessment and management of a number of high-profile insolvency projects and class actions. Prior to her transition into litigation finance, Helene spent 15 years in private practice, most recently as a Senior Associate at TressCox Lawyers (now HWL Ebsworth Lawyers) where she acted for corporations, shareholders, directors and insolvency practitioners in a variety of litigation involving insolvency and restructuring, bankruptcies, insurance, intellectual property and other commercial disputes across State and Federal jurisdictions. Among Helene’s notable achievements, she has conducted various liquidator’s examinations in the Supreme and Federal Court under the Corporations Act, led a team of lawyers in defending an A$30 million claim under a D&O policy on behalf of an insurer and acted for a shareholder in Federal Court proceedings commenced against the company and its directors for the unlawful reduction in share capital, unlawful re-organisation of the company and breach of officer’s duties. Commenting on Helene’s hire, LCM’s Chief Executive Officer Patrick Moloney said: “We are very pleased to welcome Helene to the LCM team. Helene is a highly experienced practitioner with a specialisation in insolvency claims which is an area where we anticipate there will be significant growth for LCM in the next 12 to 18 months. Helene will be a great addition to our high-performing team of investment managers, and she joins at an exciting period of growth for LCM globally.” Helene Roins added: “I am delighted to be joining such a reputable organisation that has experienced strong growth over the past few years. LCM’s history and strong track record, particularly in insolvency and commercial litigation claims funding, is strongly aligned with my own experience in both private practice and more recently in the litigation finance industry.” Helene is a member of the Law Society of NSW, the Women’s Insolvency Network Australia, and Women in Insolvency and Restructuring Victoria. In April 2020, Investment Manager James Foster and Chief Financial Officer Mary Gangemi both joined LCM in London. Their hires followed the March closing of a new US$150m third-party fund backed by significant global blue-chip investors. The fund marked LCM’s return to managing third-party funds, following its building of a permanent source of balance sheet capital through the equity markets. 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.

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Quarterly Industry Roundup on Commercial Litigation Funding

This past Thursday, July 30th, Litigation Finance Journal held a special digital conference covering the key issues facing the commercial funding industry. Moderator Ed Truant (ET) of Slingshot Capital helmed a roundtable discussion which included panelists William Farrell (WF), co-founder of Longford Capital, Robert Hanna (RH), co-founder of Augusta Ventures, and Molly Pease (MP), Managing Director of Curiam Capital. Mick Smith, co-founder of Calunius Capital, whose new venture Almatura is now being launched, was slated to join, but unfortunately a power outage at his home left him unable to attend the virtual event. Below are highlights from the event which covered a range of topics currently facing the sector: ET: Does the level of activity, at least in the US Federal Court System, surprise the panelists? Would you have expected to see the same number of cases? WF: This data that you’re describing is not surprising at all. We’re in a tremendous time of economic uncertainty and volatility following the COVID-19 pandemic. And that environment is expected to create controversies and stimulate litigation. At Longford Capital, we have also seen the results of that with an increase in interest among law firms and among corporate litigants for litigation financing in some of the same areas your data suggests have seen an uptick in litigation—namely corporate litigation, corporate contract disputes, and insurance, namely insurance recovery for business interruption or property damage. RH: I think there was an increase in the number of inquiries we were seeing anyway. Slowly, lawyers are generally accepting litigation funding more than they have in the past. As a result of our friends at Burford, they’ve always been a very high-profile poster child for the industry which has made the corporate world, certainly in the UK, aware of litigation funding. Come the virus, all of a sudden, we decided that we thought maybe the cases were going to take longer to reach a resolution. So we, like a lot of other funders did, added six months to the life cycle of the case when valuing our portfolio. Interestingly, I was speaking to a high court judge the other day and she was saying we’ve seen more resolutions year-to-date than we saw in the high court the whole year 2019. Thanks to the virus, you’re getting resolutions in many cases quicker than you might otherwise have seen. There is definitely a positive influence on litigation. There is going to be more and more litigation, more insolvency that will create opportunity. Immediately what we’re seeing is a search for liquidity. MP: I definitely agree with what Bill and Robert have said. I think looking at the Lex Machina numbers, I think it’s probably even an underestimate. I’m sure there are plenty of cases that were filed that may have been initiated for COVID-related reasons but the complaint itself might not actually mention COVID. I think with any downturn people tend to be more litigious and may take on suits that they may not otherwise have decided were worth it in an environment where things were moving up and looking positive. We’ve definitely seen a lot of activity at Curiam, and I think there are people who are considering filing litigation if they can get the right financing in place and have the economics make sense, who may not have considered it. It’s just something that seems more worthwhile to them in the context of the economy right now. ET: To what extent do you think Litigation Finance will get involved on the insurance litigation side? Is that deemed a good case type to pursue? Is there some concern about going up against well-capitalized insurance companies, or is litigation finance particularly well-suited to those pieces of litigation? RH: I think we’re a little bit different in the UK. The FCA (financial conduct authority) has actually taken some test cases in this space. Everyone is waiting, rather nervously on the insurance side of things, to see the result of those. Certainly from our point of view, we haven’t taken on business interruption cases just yet. We’ll see what the result of the FCA cases, then there will be plenty of time to react accordingly. ET: Is that the Hiscocks case everyone is looking at? The class action? RH: That’s the one everyone is talking about, absolutely. So it’ll be interesting to see what happens there. WF: There have been thousands of insurance claims filed and lawsuits are following once the insurance companies have been denying claims. And I think that number of insurance recovery lawsuits will increase into the hundreds of thousands in the United States. Many companies are looking at their business interruption provisions of their insurance policies and their property damage provisions and asking lawyers to apply the circumstances to their particular policies. Some that we’ve seen are asserting claims based directly on the COVID-19 pandemic. What we find is a lot of policies have exclusions or disclaimers against coverage for pandemics or other types of health issues. So as a result, I see other claims being filed that are basing the damage on something else—either properly damage, or interestingly, government authority intervention. It’s going to be difficult for the insurance industry to deal with this massive influx of claims. And I’m sitting back evaluating policies on a case by case basis. Our conclusion is that many cases do not rise to the level of confidence that we need to pursue a case. I’m also interested to see if the US Government will in some way intervene—as a stimulus or some sort of economic package to help the insurance industry. You asked if these would these insurance recovery cases be interesting to funders because the defendants—these big insurance companies are very well funded. In our experience at Longford Capital, the defendants in the cases in which we’re involved are typically well-funded. And we like that attribute because it eliminates other concerns like credit worthiness or collectability risk. So that’s not a detriment to our involvement. It’s a positive when the corporate defendant or other type of defendant is able to hire the very best lawyers and come to reasonable commercially-minded outcomes. And then if they’re unsuccessful in their defense, that they’ll be able to pay a judgement. ET: We’re at a point in time over the next coming months we’re probably going to see a significant increase in insolvencies unfortunately. Do you view this as attractive part of the marketplace and is it something where your firm is focused? WF: We at Longford Capital have identified the bankruptcy arena as a very fertile ground for us to be able to help law firms and companies that are in distress of one sort or another. The example that I see every week is a company that moves into bankruptcy has shuttered its doors perhaps and is suffering tremendously on top line revenue and perhaps its greatest remaining asset is a meritorious legal claim. And when companies are in a distressed situation it has seemed to be that they end up being the victims of fraud and breach of contract even more often than usual. So I suspect that our industry will be able to assist in those situations. RH: When we started Augusta, we were convinced that we were going to see an awful lot of insolvency claims coming to us. I think the problem is that what you’ve got in the UK, is you’ve got a very closed group of IP agents who are very familiar with valuing risk. Hence, as a funder, if you’re shown a claim by an IP agent, then you’ve got to be very careful and understand why they’re showing this to you and not funding it themselves. We were surprised at how unsuccessful we were at getting access to good insolvency cases, and so we’ve funded a number but not the number we thought we were going to do. ET: Survey results that were published by Above the Law, taking a look at Litigation Finance Perspectives in the legal community. There we saw some very positive trends that came out of the survey as it compares to 2019. The survey response references 70% usage versus 41% last year, with probably a disproportionate amount of that usage coming from smaller sole practitioners and smaller law firms. I’m curious as to the panel’s perspective on how the survey results impact how you originate and create relationships within the legal community? RH: Surprisingly, we still get the vast majority of our cases from lawyers and law firms that we’ve built relationships with. I’d say it’s 70-75% we get from lawyers. We are seeing more and more claimants aware of litigation funding. Some of them do come to us direct. But typically they will go to their trusted lawyer and say ‘I want to know about Litigation Finance, tell me what it’s all about, tell me what you think I should do.’ The lawyers and funders have always had a sort of love-hate relationship. They’ve always been very wary of funders. They always think that we’re going to interfere with the relationship between them and their client. But now they’re being forced to really work with us funders because their clients are asking them to do that. I think that’s the big trend. MP: For the most part we still get the majority of our opportunities, or at least the good opportunities, from law firms. So I agree on that. I think that there has been a trend for quite a few years now for in-house counsel and clients being under pressure to control the costs of outside law firms. And I think that being concerned about how the billable hour is going up and budgets are increasing significantly and GCs are being asked to do more with less and have to work with their law firms to try to come up with alternative fee arrangements or some way to keep the costs of outside counsel under control. That push supports interest and a move toward litigation funding. I think for a while now clients have been saying to firms, ‘what can we do to try to keep this under control, to make sure that the budget doesn’t exceed what we’re expecting.’ ET: Do you think the industry has a bit of a PR problem? And the US still remains one of the few countries that does not have an industry trade association at least on the commercial side, they do on the consumer side. What are your thoughts about trade association in the context of the US?   WF: I like the idea of an industry trade association. I particularly like the idea of a multinational trade association so that we can continue to share ideas and best practices across jurisdictions. I like speaking to Robert, for example, to learn from his experiences in the UK. I think we would benefit as an industry from that. When I was in private practice we spent significant time representing trade associations and see great benefit to those. I suspect that in short order that we as an industry will take steps to put that in place. ET: I heard Burford make some comments about a global trade organization coming in, so we’re just waiting on that official announcement. Robert, from your perspective, you have an industry association in the UK, and I believe you’re active in it. How has that been working out? And do you suffer any of the same PR issues in the UK as compared to the US? RH: I think ALF has a very good role in the industry. It’s there to self-regulate the industry. It’s done that well, I believe. What it isn’t, necessarily, is a mouth piece. It’s not a PR machine. So I totally agree with Bill. I think there is room for an international trade association to get both sides of the story out there. I think there is a need for a more vocal PR mouthpiece for the industry. Litigation funding is not rocket science, but it is there to level playing fields if necessary. Sure it’s there for large corporates to take liabilities off balance sheets and use other people’s cash. But it’s a very transparent process and a very valuable one. At the lower end of the scale it provides access to justice which is really important. And that message should get through.

Burford Hosts Roundtable on Restructuring and Liquidity

COVID continues to impact the business world in ways few were ready for. The already evident spike in insolvency and bankruptcy litigation is expected to grow in the coming months and beyond. Burford Capital spoke with industry experts to get their thoughts on these developments. They include Margot MacInnis of Grant Thornton, Jason Yardly of Jenner & Block, Derek Lai of Deloitte China, and Thomas Janover of Kramer Levin. When asked what types of cases would be most prevalent in the near future, Lai predicted that fraud cases may increase. He suggested that when businesses are scrambling to make up for losses, fraud may follow. Margot MacInnis brings up insurance claims, which are already contentious, as insurers look for ways to hold back payouts related to COVID closures. Jason Yardley explained that the issues that caused the 2008 financial crisis were never fully resolved. This means that insolvency cases, including disputes over the value of assets, will be huge. Thomas Janover echoed that sentiment, saying that he expects more litigation involving breach of contract suits and endless valuation testimony. When asked how to best address the needs of clients in financial distress, MacInnis states that insolvency lawyers must have detailed discussions with clients about their options. Only through informed decision making can businesses make good choices on how to proceed during a pandemic. Lai suggests reaching out to clients to develop relationships and assuage their fears while streamlining risk management. Being able to help clients in crisis with swift, decisive action can make all the difference.  As with most things, the keys to financial survival in the time of COVID include strong communication, solid information, and flexibility.

Litigation Finance—High Risk, High Reward

After gaining considerable steam during the economic crisis of 2008, the Litigation Finance industry has only increased in popularity since. Predictions suggest that by 2027, the litigation funding sector will be worth more than double what it is now. The Edge Markets explains that lit fin is an attractive option for investors for a few key reasons. First, litigation funding doesn’t correlate with the rest of the market. Individual claims may vary in value—particularly when a defendant’s net worth drops drastically. Litigation funding also has a slower investment cycle, since cases can take years to resolve. At the same time, when funders become involved with cases after specific milestones are met, the time between investment and payout becomes much shorter. Jay Greenberg of LexShares details that unlike other alternative asset classes, Litigation Finance has a clear resolution and ending. Cases eventually reach a resolution that typically comes down to a clear win or loss. Litigation funding is generally considered a risky venture—especially if the funding is for a single case or class action. Investing in a litigation portfolio may mitigate this risk, but also limits potential rewards. Funders, by law and ethical standards, do not have a say in decision making in the cases they fund. That means a client may decide to accept a lowball settlement, leaving funders eligible to receive less than they put in. A trend toward funding for smaller and mid-size cases can also lead to less risk for investors. If this continues, investors may find opportunities to make less risky lit fin investments that still increase access to justice for those who need it most.
Litigation Finance News

Litigation Finance Journal’s Quarterly Industry Roundup

It’s clear by now that 2020 has been a year like no other. Industry growth and the impact of COVID make this an ideal time to catch up on all of the relevant issues impacting the commercial Litigation Finance industry. With that in mind, LFJ is hosting a panel discussion that will cover a wide range of topics, including the Burford/Muddy Waters saga, the IMF/Omni merger, the rise in IP litigation, hedge fund interest in the funding sector, and much more.  The panel will be moderated by Slingshot Capital founder Ed Truant. Truant is an investor with a unique perspective on commercial litigation finance, backed up by years of experience in the field. The panel will feature a collection of industry experts:  Molly Pease is the managing director of Curiam Capital, and a former litigator whose expertise includes insurance, antitrust, and securities. She has also been an Executive Director and has worked as General Counsel—providing her a varied and nuanced perspective on a vast array of legal subjects. Mick Smith is the founder of Almatura, and co-founded Calunius Capital in 2006. He has studied Mathematics and Law at Cambridge, and is pursuing a Masters in Data Science. Robert Hannah, co-founder of Augusta Ventures, spent 20 years managing hedge funds before becoming acting Chief Investment Officer for Mako Investment Managers—an organization he co-founded. Hannah has an LLB and an MBA from Cranfield School of Management. He is currently the Managing Director of the London office. William Farrell Jr. is the managing director and co-founder of private investment company Longford Capital. His current duties include underwriting, sourcing, and monitoring investments. He has decades of litigation experience and as a government prosecutor. Farrell has also served as a partner in the commercial litigation departments of two different firms. The panel is audio-only and will be held Thursday, July 30th at 1 pm EST. It will feature a 45-minute panel discussion that will be followed by a question and answer period with attendees.  For more information and to purchase tickets, please visit this link.

Closing the Gender Gap in Law

Burford Capital recently joined forces with InterLaw Diversity Forum for a study on ways to improve diversity in large firms. To that end, a panel of experts gathered to discuss the issue. Included were: Burford’s Elizabeth Fisher, Rothschild’s Sarah Blomfield, Patti Kachidza at M&G Prudential, and David Jackson from Barclays. Burford Capital reports that the major focal points should include corporate culture within firms, recognizing family responsibilities that impact women more than men, work-life balance, origination credits, implicit and unconscious biases, and factoring in why women are less likely to self-promote in the workplace. Because most large law firms are run by men, the tendency is to train, develop, and promote men to the partnership track. The intricacies of billing and compensation for lawyers means it’s more difficult to discern whether all staffers are being treated equitably. More transparency would lead to more fairness—if only because others would be watching. Gender biases can punish women with the same qualities that are praised in men. Ambitious women are called “pushy,” a woman expressing dissatisfaction may be called “overly emotional” or “moody.” Accepting this as a factor is one thing—finding strategies to combat it may be far more difficult and complicated. Origination credit is at once a solid marker for success at a firm, and also a foundation for a long-lasting equity gap in compensation. Surely those doing the actual work for a client are more deserving of compensation than those who aren’t. It was suggested by several experts that clients could have an impact on this, simply by asking the firm about origination credit. It’s disappointing to realize that 80% of those surveyed state that their firms have no official policies in place to improve diversity. Diversity isn’t just about numbers—it’s about having a team that can better represent clients both demographically, and in terms of bringing a varied skill set to the table.

Litigation funder Validity Finance secures $100M in new capital, adds first time corp. counsel from Fried Frank

NEW YORK (July 28, 2020) – Looking to meet growing demand among businesses and law firms to finance commercial disputes, litigation funder Validity Finance has raised $100 million in additional capital. The firm also announced the arrival of experienced transactional attorney Jason Listhaus to fill the new role of in-house corporate counsel as its portfolio continues to grow. Validity’s additional capital comes from a mix of institutional and private investors, including the firm’s founding private equity sponsor TowerBrook Capital Partners.  Validity CEO Ralph Sutton commented: “We’ve seen a pronounced increase in demand this year fueled, in part, by the pandemic. Businesses and law firms are experiencing unprecedented cost constraints and welcome our backing to pursue or monetize claims. Our latest capital raise will help us continue to meet our clients’ needs for funding their most important litigation matters in the current challenging economic environment.” Since launch, Validity has committed more than $125 million in dozens of deals across a range of litigation and arbitration matters and jurisdictions. Mr. Sutton noted that large law firms have increasingly been drawn to third-party funding during the slowdown, as brand-name practices with large litigation platforms see the value in having individual clients receive funding and also of having the direct backing for a basket of cases while they stabilize finances and preserve cash. “Funding had already become mainstream in the last several years but the pandemic has hyper-charged the acceptance and use of contingent, non-recourse funding by major law firms and well-capitalized clients,” he said. Validity has funded a broad spectrum of litigations and arbitrations: including breach of contract, patent infringement, breach of fiduciary duty, theft of trade secrets, domestic and international arbitration, judgment/asset enforcements, insurance coverage cases and others. A growing allocation is going towards portfolios of cases handled by law firms. Validity also announced that experienced finance and transactional attorney Jason Listhaus has joined as its first corporate counsel. The New York-based Mr. Listhaus will help manage deal-side aspects of Validity’s investments, including helping structure and negotiate funding arrangements. He joins the firm’s bench of former trial lawyers who work on underwriting, risk and case review. His arrival helps the firm transition from using outside counsel to handle its expanding book of transactions. “Jason is a great addition as we grow our capital base and pace of investments, not only in the U.S. but internationally,” said Validity’s Chief Risk Officer Dave Kerstein, noting the firm recently launched an Israeli office in Tel Aviv. “As our first in-house corporate counsel, Jason will help streamline the investment process and also lower transaction costs. As a corporate lawyer with a background in Big Law, he has a strong grasp of deal advisory details and investment strategy.” Mr. Listhaus was previously a member of the Corporate department at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, as well as an associate in the Financial Services group of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft. He earned his joint J.D./M.B.A degree from New York University in 2013. Mr. Listhaus earned his B.A. degree in Economics, magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from NYU in 2009. Validity Finance has been steadily expanding in 2020. In June, Validity opened its first international office in Israel, the company’s fourth, alongside its U.S. offices in New York, Chicago, and Houston. The Israel office is headed by international-disputes lawyer Eli Schulman in Tel Aviv. Earlier this year, in March, attorney Joshua Libling joined Validity as a portfolio counsel in New York. About Validity: Validity is a commercial litigation finance company that provides non-recourse investments for a wide variety of commercial disputes. Validity’s mission is to make a meaningful difference in our clients’ experience of the legal system We focus on fairness, innovation, and clarity. For more, visit www.validity-finance.com.

Omni Bridgeway resolves to fund claims on behalf of Wirecard AG shareholders against Ernst & Young GmbH

LONDON, 28 July 2020: Omni Bridgeway Limited announces that it has resolved to fund proposed litigation to be brought by shareholders of Wirecard AG against its auditor, Ernst & Young GmbH. Such litigation will be brought in Germany by leading international law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP. BACKGROUND German company Wirecard AG was compelled to initiate insolvency proceedings in Germany on 25 June 2020. The catalyst for this inevitability was that its auditor, Ernst & Young GmbH, informed Wirecard AG on 18 June 2020 that no sufficient audit evidence could be obtained in relation to cash balances in trust accounts that were to be consolidated in the consolidated financial statements in the amount of EUR 1.9bn. A matter of days afterwards, Wirecard AG was then forced to acknowledge that the EUR 1.9bn in cash included in those financial statements probably never existed in the first place. The consequence of the recent actions of Wirecard AG is that the share price of Wirecard AG has dropped by over 95%. In these circumstances, shareholders have rightly turned their attentions to the auditor who has been in post since 2008. All of the audits of Wirecard AG have been unqualified. This is despite the fact that, over the last years, Wirecard AG has been the subject of intense scrutiny by shareholders, short sellers, journalists and regulators. Wirecard AG has also been the subject of two key external reviews – one by Rajah & Tann, a respected Singapore law firm, and the other by KPMG. PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR WIRECARD AG SHAREHOLDERS Jeremy Marshall, Senior Investment Manager of Omni Bridgeway, said “Shareholders have understandably relied increasingly heavily on the audited financials of Wirecard. The nature of the Wirecard insolvency is such that it was inevitable that serious claims would be levelled against the auditor, and it is only right that we provide shareholders with the opportunity for redress, particularly where their prospects of a modest recovery against Wirecard itself are so limited.” WHAT AFFECTED SHAREHOLDERS CAN DO Shareholders who purchased shares in Wirecard AG since 1 April 2012 are encouraged to contact:
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 proud 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.
ABOUT QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
Quinn Emanuel is the largest law firm in the world dedicated solely to the resolution of business disputes. Quinn have 800+ attorneys working in 23 offices in ten countries around the world, including 4 offices in Germany. Quinn Emanuel sees litigation as an independent practice that calls for a high degree of specialization. As an integral part of the firm’s international network of offices, Quinn Emanuel’s German legal team is dedicated to providing the highest standards of service, professional excellence, industry knowledge and experience that firm clients expect. Quinn Emanuel has taken a leading role in some of the largest security cases that are currently pending before the German courts, including the representation of the largest group of investors (by damages) participating in model case proceedings against Volkswagen AG in the Higher District Court of Brunswick centering on the so-called “Dieselgate” scandal. Quinn also represented a group of Tier-1 bondholders in litigation against Hamburg Commercial Bank.

Delta Capital Partners Management Welcomes a New Board of Advisors

CHICAGO, Illinois, July 27, 2020 -- Delta Capital Partners Management LLC, a global private equity firm specializing in litigation and legal finance, has announced its new Board of Advisors.

Delta has developed an outstanding Board of Advisors that consists of eight members who are experts in government relations and geopolitical affairs, public relations and marketing, investigations and intelligence gathering, and capital markets. The members include:

  • Ian Casewell – London Office Managing Partner of the Mintz Group, a top-tier business intelligence and investigation firm, and a former Europol intelligence analyst;
  • 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, and former CEO of a highly technology company and one of the fastest growing Internet companies;
  • Brian Maddox – Senior Managing Director at FTI Strategic Communications with over 30 years of experience in public relations and marketing;
  • 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 Counsel; and
  • Geoffrey Verhoff – Senior Advisor at Akin Gump, and former Vice Chairman of the Republican National Committee’s Finance Committee.

Christopher DeLise, Delta's Founder, CEO and CO-CIO, stated, “We are honored to have such accomplished and highly respected professionals on Delta’s Board of Advisors. Their backgrounds, innumerable achievements within their respective fields, and vast and deep experiences will help Delta execute various strategic objectives and further enhance and distinguish Delta’s strong position within the litigation finance industry. These eight outstanding individuals join Delta’s team as the firm continues its U.S. and global expansion to meet the evolving needs of end-users.” 

About Delta

Delta Capital Partners Management LLC is a US-based, global private equity firm specializing in litigation and legal finance, judgment and award enforcement, and asset recovery. Delta creates bespoke financing solutions for professional service firms, businesses, governments, financial institutions, investment firms, and individual claimants.

BRYANT PARK CAPITAL & MULTI FUNDING, INC SECURE A $30 MILLION DOLLAR SENIOR DEBT FACILITY

NEW YORK, NY, July 27, 2020 - Bryant Park Capital (“BPC”), a leading middle market investment bank, announced today that Multi Funding, Inc (“Multi Funding” or the “Company”) recently closed on a $30 million senior debt transaction with a leading international bank. This capital injection will allow the company to accelerate top line revenue, expand its physical footprint, and operate as a significant player in the pre-settlement space.
BPC served as the exclusive financial advisor to Multi Funding in connection with this transaction.
“Bryant Park Capital is a true partner and worked alongside our leadership team every step of the way. Their in-depth industry knowledge, funding source relationships and sound business acumen are key ingredients to a successful capital raise. We enjoyed working with people of quality and anticipate a long and prosperous future together,” said Kevin Flood, COO of Multi Funding.
About Multi Funding
Multi Funding, established in 2008, is a successful pre-settlement litigation finance company with offices in Woodstock and Lynbrook, New York. They provide pre and post settlement funds as a non-recourse advance to clients. The Company is affiliated with sister-company Segue Cloud Services, which offers best-in-class proprietary litigation finance software that is tailor made to manage a pre-settlement business from intake to resolution. Multi Funding has established consistent growth and robust performance and is well positioned for scale, driven by improved data management/analytics, an experienced leadership team with over 20 years of blue-chip corporate experience, and continued access to efficient senior and junior capital.
For more information about Multi Funding, please visit www.multifundingusa.com.
For more information about Segue Cloud Services, please visit www.seguecloudservices.com.
About Bryant Park Capital
Bryant Park Capital is an investment bank providing M&A and corporate finance advisory services to emerging growth and middle market public and private companies. BPC has deep expertise and a diversified, well-founded breadth of experience in a number of sectors, including specialty finance & financial services and healthcare services. BPC has arranged lines of credit, raised growth equity, and assisted in mergers and acquisitions for its clients. Our professionals have completed nearly 300 assignments representing an aggregate transaction value of over $35 billion.
For more information about Bryant Park Capital, please visit www.bryantparkcapital.com.

“Edge” for Litigation Finance Managers

The following article is part of an ongoing column titled ‘Investor Insights.’  Brought to you by Ed Truant, founder and content manager of Slingshot Capital, ‘Investor Insights’ will provide thoughtful and engaging perspectives on all aspects of investing in litigation finance.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
  • As the litigation finance industry matures, there will be more competition, more fragmentation and more specialization
  • Competitive advantages will be necessary for managers to differentiate themselves in the marketplace and produce strong risk-adjusted returns
  • Managers should institutionalize their “edge” to create equity value for themselves, and separate the value of their organizations from the principals running it
INVESTOR INSIGHTS
  • Investors should be looking for managers that have some advantage, or “edge” vis-à-vis their competition; an informational advantage is one approach
  • Funders should be open-minded about their diligence process, and experiment with non-conventional approaches to add value to the case
  • Informational advantages may be particularly beneficial in collections and enforcements
In the capital markets industry, there is a concept referred to as “edge”, which can be defined as any legal form of information, insight or proprietary process or knowledge which an investor possesses that allows him or her to outperform peers and generate alpha.  Investors look for managers with “edge” as a point of differentiation, and as a means to lower risk and enhance returns in a given investment strategy. In thinking about how a litigation funder can develop ‘edge’, one option is to acquire an informational advantage that enables the funder to invest where others do not dare to tread, or avoid investing where the path is well worn.  One way to obtain an informational advantage is to look where others are not looking.  Today, we have at our disposal the world’s largest accessible database free for anyone to access – the worldwide web.  We also have the so-called “dark web”, where fewer dare to participate, but which may possess insights nonetheless. In order to get a better perspective on the nuggets of gold that lie within the web, I decided to reach out to Cameron Colquhoun of NEONCentury, a UK-based intelligence firm, to better understand how the litigation finance community may be able to generate edge. The Web…. In some ways, little has changed about our use of the internet in 30 years: we all still use screens, keyboards and mice to open windows and browser pages. What has changed, without exception, is the size of the world behind our screens – which is far bigger than our brains and imaginations can appreciate. As of 2016, Google revealed it knew of 130 trillion web pages, and the real number today is likely to exceed 200 or 300 trillion. To put it another way; as the Head of Security at Twitter pointed out back in 2011, one-in-a-million events happen on the internet every second, and one in a billion events happen almost as frequently. It is a mathematical near-certainty that within all of this data, game-changing intelligence is sitting there, waiting to be found - vital to the success of any litigation. The truth is, very few law firms or investors understand this reality, and therefore rarely ever engage or commission the type of intensive, detailed online investigations that are required to push the confidence intervals of success up by 1, 2, 5, 10 or even 20%. In the biggest cases, this can mean tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars of difference in settlement. …and the Dark Web The dark and unindexed web is another part of the web that is as yet untouched by both law firms and litigation finance. In particular, leaked data and data 'dump' sites hold huge amounts of pivotal intelligence. The most prominent case of leaked data to date is of course the Panama Papers, where millions of files belonging to a single Panamanian law firm were leaked online and led to over $1.2bn in recoveries (the real figure is likely to be far higher, as most countries do not make settlement data public). Dozens of prominent individuals had their assets exposed, and with millions of documents available to research – many more hidden assets and frauds are likely to be revealed amongst the 11.5 million files. Every time a new major leak is released online, (more recently BlueLeaks and 29Leaks), law firms or litigation financiers should be feverishly combing through its contents looking for angles. Case Study At NEONCentury, we are often tasked with conducting investigations prior to a potential litigation. In one case, a hedge fund asked for our help as they believed a group of CEOs were meeting in secret, and were considering a litigation. This global company, they suspected, was going to be sold for several billion below market value in some kind of backroom boys club deal. Using our data capabilities, we tracked the private jets owned by those who attended these meetings, but the planes were delisted from public view (this is known as a BARR / LADD request and often used by CEOs and Ultra High Net Worth investors for anonymity). BARR-listed jets do not appear on sites like FlightRadar and FlightAware. However, these aircraft, by law, must emit radio signals (ADS-B) data, and using the right online databases and sources, the aircraft can be tracked and historical manifests can be discovered. We were able to conclusively prove that the private jets belonging to three members of the secret meetings were all on the same runways at multiple times and locations, giving our client a route to a potentially multi-billion dollar litigation. It is difficult to imagine a single law firm on the planet that would have these capabilities in-house, or even understand the ‘art of the possible’ when it comes to open data. Today, litigation financiers allow law firms to manage the research and investigation sides of a case, hoping that either the law firms' in-house research teams or external corporate intel firms might yield further intelligence to tip the outcome in their favour. Law firms are not known for their technological prowess or understanding of the internet, generally, and therefore the litigation finance world may be missing real value in allowing law firms to manage the technical and cyber side of a case on their behalf. …the “Edge” If investors can accept that game-changing intelligence for any litigation is out there in the public domain, they may be better-prepared to commission this research directly with corporate investigations firms *before* any litigation is even considered. Investors would then be forearmed with a much stronger hand when they engage both law firms and claimants. This approach would greatly improve the ROI of litigation finance, and is analogous with the world of hedge funds and short-sellers. Many of these firms spend months or years investigating a company, searching for hidden value or opportunity. In the case of Wirecard, hedge funds discovered evidence of fraud just by conducting deep online investigations of Wirecard’s clients. Some walked away with billions in returns on this research. There is no reason why the same approach cannot be applied to the world of litigation finance: forward-thinking investors, who understand the power of corporate intelligence and the scale of the internet, can partner with world class investigators, and take these results to the right law firms to alter the course of multimillion and multibillion-dollar litigations. Investor Insights As the litigation finance industry matures, there will be a significant increase in managers who are attracted by the returns inherent in the industry, and the intellectual challenge of applying their litigation craft in another application.  The industry will scale, fragment and specialize.  This will make it more difficult for fund managers to differentiate their approach and value.  Forward-thinking managers should be looking at ways to create “edge” for themselves to attract institutional capital and generate superior risk-adjusted returns.  An informational advantage is one such way to create “edge”. As always, I am open to criticism and other points of view, so feel free to contact me to exchange ideas.  Edward Truant is the founder of Slingshot Capital Inc., an investor in the litigation finance industry (consumer and commercial) and a former partner in a private equity.  Ed is currently designing a new fund focused on institutional investors who are seeking to make allocations to the commercial litigation finance asset class.  Cameron Colquhoun is the founder of Neon Century, a former UK intelligence officer and winner of the Fulbright Award for Cyber Security. Neon Century is an elite corporate intelligence firm based in London, providing clients in the hedge fund, equity and litigation sectors with decisive advantage.

Assisting Clients with Relationship Management During COVID

Contract disputes are expected to rise dramatically during and after COVID, causing disruptions across entire industries. How should commercial attorneys manage this in a way that helps clients, without overburdening a shrinking resource pool? Bloomberg Law suggests three main ways lawyers can strategize with clients to stay ahead of issues that might lead to litigation. The first pertains to contract inventory. Reviewing contract inventory—particularly those contracts that seem fine at present—is a proactive way to stay ahead of the curve. A review allows lawyers and clients to identify impending risks and manage them before they turn into problems. This might include preparing for global supply issues, mitigating potential contract breaches before they occur, or looking at underwriting as a way to protect against future litigation. Next is the use of litigation as a tool for better business, as opposed to simply solving existing disputes. As litigation partner Jonathan Polak told Legalist, litigation can be a tool to force a business transaction. Seeing litigation as necessary to business rather than a sign of dispute or animus can help keep relationships from disintegrating in the face of legal action. Finally, there’s the issue of cost management in the long-term. It’s essential that clients make informed decisions about their cases, including understanding the long-term financial implications of pursuing litigation. When lawyers and clients work together to manage costs, solutions are more lasting and effective. Accomplishing this might include assessing financial pitfalls or finding solutions like alternative financing options, contingency contracts, or the use of Litigation Finance to make up for financial shortfalls. Ultimately, when attorneys work with clients to stave off problems before they occur, it improves lawyer-client relations, not to mention business relationships across the board.

How GCs Can Mitigate Economic Pressure

In today's pressing economic environment, it's worth asking how GCs are dealing with the financial uncertainties of COVID-19? Fortunately, Burford Capital held a roundtable discussion on just this very topic.  Burford Senior VPs asked industry leaders how they reassure clients in moving forward with affirmative litigation, and what factors impact those choices. What lessons should we take away from the last economic slide, and how has Litigation Finance impacted the industry? Reed Oslan of Kirkland & Ellis explains that Litigation Finance is really just the contingency fee model extended. He expects, like most in the industry, that funders will see a huge upswing in requests for funding. They’ll also be able to have their pick of cases and clients to choose from. Oslan treats plaintiff-side cases just like any other company asset. Maja Zerjal of Proskauer Rose, touts the benefits of using litigation funders to objectively assess the value of a claim as part of the underwriting process. For a financially strapped firm, getting a funder on board can mean the difference between pursuing a case or taking a pass. Using a methodical approach to vetting cases, then coming up with creative solutions to pursue litigation, drives value. Burford also asked lawyers how they led clients to enter into a funding agreement with a third-party. Cindy Sobel of Bartlit Beck details how, as a trusted advisor, she helps clients understand that third-party funding is key to allowing cases to move forward, while alleviating the associated economic burdens. She goes on to say that clients deserve to be well-informed of all options. Scott Gant of Boies Schiller Flexner sees a clear line between educating clients about funding, and advising them one way or another. He asserts that it may not be in the litigator’s purview to advise clients on third-party contracts. Charlie Lightfoot of Jenner & Block stresses the importance of planning. Early strategy sessions on how judgments will be executed or collections made, is far better than trying to squeeze an award from an intransigent stone.

How Litigation Finance Can Benefit Cases Mid-Litigation

Most lawyers know the feeling of a meritorious case moving along well, until it slows, and the funding to keep it going starts to run short. What is the next step when a client lacks the financial capability to continue? Is dropping the case to save funds a viable alternative, even if it means forgoing a potential award? Westfleet Advisors explains that if we take dropping cases off the table, there are two ways to address a lack of finances mid-litigation: altering the existing fee agreement with counsel or contracting with a litigation funder. Lawyers are not required to modify payment terms or to accept a contingency agreement mid-case. But it may be in their best interests to do so, if it means keeping a client with a viable case. If the client and lawyer agree that hourly rates are the best way to go, litigation financing via a third-party funder is a viable option. Outside funding can help clients meet financial obligations and relieve financial pressure on all sides. Funders are taking a risk when they enter into an agreement to provide financial relief to a plaintiff, as funding arrangements are contingency-based. Funders generally want to work with lawyers who are also assuming some risk. To that end, entering a case mid-litigation can be a positive for litigation funders. Working on a contingency basis means that case selection is vitally important, as is assessing the risk involved. Funders who enter cases in their later stages have access to more information which they can leverage to make optimal decisions. Ultimately, restructuring payments mid-case can be a benefit to all parties involved.

Bryant Park Capital Advises ProMed Capital Ventures in Sale to Experity Ventures

NEW YORKJuly 20, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Bryant Park Capital ("BPC"), a leading middle-market investment bank, announced today that ProMed Capital Ventures, LLC ("ProMed" or the "Company"), a leading provider of financing to medical practices and facilities in the United States, has been sold to Experity Ventures, LLC, the parent company for several specialty finance and legal funding related services businesses in the United States, including Nexify Holdings, Medsolve Financial Group, and Thrivest Legal Funding, LLC dba Thrivest Link. The financial terms of the transaction were not disclosed.

BPC served as exclusive financial advisor to ProMed.

"Bryant Park Capital was instrumental in advising ProMed throughout the entire process, from comparing liquidity options for shareholders to managing a lengthy negotiation and closing process. The team at BPC provided thoughtful advice to ProMed throughout the process and helped us to achieve a successful outcome," said David Shulman, co-founder and CEO of ProMed. "We ended up finding the perfect partner for ProMed and its employees and clients, and we appreciate BPC's guidance and efforts in making this possible."

About ProMed

Founded in 2013, ProMed is a leading provider of medical receivable funding solutions. ProMed partners with healthcare providers, surgery centers and diagnostic and related facilities throughout the U.S. that provide patient care in exchange for medial liens (MLs) or medical letters of protection (MLOPs). The company predominately funds medical services for patients who have been injured as a result of a personal injury accident or event. Based in Las Vegas, Nevada, ProMed provides immediate reimbursement to doctors, surgeons, medical facilities and other professionals on behalf of patients while obtaining the healthcare provider's ML/MLOP against contingent future legal proceeds. Victims of personal injury can get access to the healthcare they need whether they have health insurance or not and medical providers can enhance their practices and serve this patient population while immediately improving cash flow and financial liquidity.

For more information on ProMed, please visit www.promedcapital.com.

About Experity Ventures

Experity Ventures, founded in 2019, is the parent company for Nexify Capital and Nexify Solutions, MedSolve Financial Group and Thrivest Legal Funding, LLC/dba Thrivest Link. Nexify Capital has entered into several strategic financing and operational partnerships with legal funding companies in the United States. Nexify Solutions develops and markets best-in-class enterprise and workflow software for the legal funding market place, which is designed to automate pre-settlement funding from intake to decision analytics, to servicing and payoff, while offering full accounting and reporting capabilities. Thrivest is a direct-to-market pre-settlement legal funding company that has successfully provided thousands of non-recourse advances to individuals with pending litigation, predominately in personal injury cases. Experity has offices in Philadelphia, New YorkNevada and Florida.

For more information on Experity, please visit www.experityventures.com.

About Bryant Park Capital

Bryant Park Capital is an investment bank providing M&A and corporate finance advisory services to emerging growth and middle-market public and private companies. BPC has deep expertise and a diversified, well-founded breadth of experience in a number of sectors, including business services. BPC has arranged lines of credit, raised growth equity and assisted in mergers and acquisitions for its clients in various industries. Our professionals have completed nearly 300 assignments representing an aggregate transaction value of over $35 billion.

For more information about Bryant Park Capital, please visit www.bryantparkcapital.com.

Bangladeshi Economy Attracts Litigation Funders

In recent years, Litigation Finance has taken the world by storm. In many cases, third-party funding has helped ordinary citizens seek justice against much larger entities—even governments. Now there’s talk of Bangladesh adopting the practice. What could that mean for the country itself, and the wider region?  Dhaka Tribune reports that while much of the developed world has established regulations or norms that guide the principles of litigation funding, Bangladesh has not. In England and Wales, for example, courts have allowed litigation funders to self-regulate. The same applies in Australia, though some are pushing for stronger rules. Both Singapore and Hong Kong have recently adopted laws to regulate and facilitate the use of third-party funding. As the Bangladeshi economy grows alongside an increase in foreign investment, it’s expected that third-party litigation funders will turn their attention to commercial arbitration there.  Various advancements in Bangladeshi law have paved the way for the country to take a more active role in international arbitration. These include being a member of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitration Awards, and the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Dispute. In 2001, they enacted the Arbitration Act, based on the UNCITRAL Model Law. These changes were needed to place Bangladesh in-step with competing countries. A lack of litigation funding may hold the country back from becoming a leader in arbitration. But if investment continues at its present rate, and laws continue to be favorable to the practice of Litigation Finance, Bangladesh could achieve its goal of becoming a leader in arbitration in Asia.

Omni Bridgeway invests in Japanese legal business to provide access to justice for Japanese claimaints

SYDNEY, 16 July 2020: Omni Bridgeway Limited (ASX:OBL), announces a new legal finance facility and an equity investment in an exciting new Japanese business providing Japanese clients with access to justice, without the associated costs and risks of pursuing their claims. These developments extend Omni Bridgeway’s global footprint and allows Japanese citizens to experience a service others have come to know and trust around the world. They also draw on Omni Bridgeway's expertise in providing innovative LegalTech solutions and enhance the company's portfolio of LegalTech investments. Established in April 2015 by two highly-experienced lawyers, Japan Legal Network Co., Ltd (Japan Legal Network) offers finance service similar to After The Event (ATE) insurance for clients pursuing legal actions in the corporate and other sectors (such as employees seeking reimbursement of un-paid wages). The ATE finance covers claimants’ legal expenses and is novel for Japan. Mr Yasufumi Minamitani, Representative Director and one of the founders of Japan Legal Network (previously an Attorney at leading Japanese law firm Nishimura Asahi and a business consultant at Boston Consulting Group), said: “Japanese claimants have traditionally not had an avenue to progress their legal rights while outsourcing the costs and risks to a finance institution at the same time. Japan Legal Network is the first service of this kind in Japan and provides clients with the capital and expertise to pursue their rights.” Co-founder of Japan Legal Network, Mr Nobuhisa Hayano (previously an Attorney at leading Japanese Law firm Oh-ebashi Partners) added: “Thanks to Omni Bridgeway’s investment, we are assisting thousands of claimants in recovering their damages and advocating for a fairer society in Japan.“ Mr. Seiichiro Wada, Representative Director of Monex Ventures, Inc. who is a co-investor with Omni Bridgeway, said: “Although consultation services to lawyers and other experts have become widespread and access to justice has become easier in Japan, there are many cases in which victims have to give up filing a lawsuit due to the financial burden. We also believe that there are many people and corporations who have a legal problem, but are unable to take action due to their customs or beliefs. We hope that the finance service provided by Japan Legal Network will become widespread and facilitate the use of legal professional services and that it will help people and corporations struggling with legal issues to resolve them.“ Tom Glasgow, Chief Investment Officer - Asia at Omni Bridgeway, said: “Omni Bridgeway has the largest team of its kind in Asia and the world and we are delighted to support Japan Legal Network and be at the forefront yet again of introducing new finance services to another part of Asia”. 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 proud 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 LimitedBentham IMF and ROLAND ProzessFinanz. It also includes a joint venture with IFC (part of the World Bank Group).

NERA Consulting Economist joins Augusta as Lead Economist

Augusta, the UK’s largest funder of litigation by case volume today announces the appointment of Clara Segurola as Lead Economist.

Clara is a financial economist with more than 15 years of professional experience and joins from NERA Economic Consulting, where she was an Associate Director specialising in the assessment and quantification of damages in international disputes.

Recognised as one of the Most Highly Regarded Expert Witness Future Leaders in Who’s Who Legal Arbitration, Clara has a strong track record of valuations and economic quantum assessments in investment and commercial disputes across various industry sectors.

Louis Young, Managing Director of Augusta, said “Clara and her skill set are a key addition to our recently incepted Investment Valuation and Structuring team, which is headed up by Matt Pitchers, who joined us from Deloitte late last year. The IVS team is our response to demands from our law firm clients who are looking for deeper expertise and support from their funder. The services of this team are available at no cost to our law firm partners, and it makes the task of structuring finance solutions for their claims a much more collaborative process.”

Clara Segurola, Lead Economist at Augusta, said “I am very pleased to be joining Augusta Ventures. I’ve been impressed with Augusta’s reputation in the market and their forward-thinking approach to innovation. I look forward to making a significant impact and to helping law firms and their clients gain access to funding in the most efficient way”.

About Augusta

– Established in 2013, Augusta is the largest litigation and dispute funding institution in the UK by # cases.

– Augusta has offices in London, Sydney, Melbourne and Toronto.

Ontario Makes Sweeping Changes to Class Proceedings Act

Last week, it was determined that Bill 161 would be signed into law. This bill includes several amendments to the Class Proceedings Act of 2002, which details specific guidelines for class action lawsuits. Mondaq explains that the changes were proposed to make the courts move more swiftly while ensuring that justice is served. The most prominent changes include a centralized database of class action cases in Ontario—which had never been required before. Other new rules include prohibiting overlapping cases, limiting time periods for indemnity claims, and new requirements regarding appeals, certifications, notifications of class action members, and dismissal of dormant actions. The amendments also stipulate that when a party seeks settlement, the court must be given detailed information before approving. Litigation Finance did not escape notice in the amendments. Ontario now requires that funding agreements be subjected to court approval. Courts will require that agreements be reasonable and fair and that agreements with funders will not supersede the rights of plaintiffs to make decisions regarding their case. Funders must also be willing and able to cover adverse costs—which is to say that if a case loses and the winner’s court costs must be paid—the funder will be liable to cover it. After a funding arrangement is approved by the courts, defendants can obtain their costs from funders in accordance with the indemnity clause in the funding agreement. Defendants may also get security from the funder for costs in some circumstances. These include defendants who live and work outside of Ontario, those who may not have the ability to pay, or instances when a funder owes money to a defendant or plaintiff that remains outstanding. Courts will also require reports from those who distribute funds. These reports must be filed within 60 days of funds being disbursed. This is to ensure that plaintiffs, attorneys, and funders are all appropriately compensated.

Law Firms Utilize Lit Fin to Meet Obligations During COVID

The financial stressors caused by the global pandemic have touched nearly every industry. Legal firms are finding it difficult to cope with remote working conditions, court stoppages, and declines in billable hours—all while trying to address a huge influx in proposed litigation. One expert is confident that Litigation Funding is the ideal way to address shortfalls and keep budgets in balance. Digi Herald spoke to funding expert Rene Perras about how non-recourse third-party funding can help. Perras points out that litigation funding has become increasingly popular, and that COVID-19 is going to propel the practice into the mainstream.  When a firm is low on operating capital, Litigation Finance can come to its rescue. Funding can allow firms to take on new cases, or help individual plaintiffs pursue legal action when needed. Funding can also improve how cases are managed, as it can cover costs for research, expert witnesses, document analysis, and more.  Class action cases in particular are dramatically supported by funders, since they allow lawyers and plaintiffs to put the issue of costs aside as they focus on pursuing the case. This is also true when portfolios of cases are funded. Risks are reduced without impacting potential awards and recovery. Ultimately, Litigation Finance is a way to ensure that justice is available to everyone, regardless of income level.

Longford Capital Continues to Add to its Team of Experienced Litigators and Trial Lawyers with the Addition of Marc Cavan as Director

CHICAGO – July 13, 2020 - Longford Capital today announced that Marc A. Cavan has joined the firm asDirector. Mr. Cavan will assist with investment sourcing, due diligence, and monitoring of portfolio investments, supporting Longford’s Chicago and Dallas offices. Mr. Cavan is an experienced patent litigator. He has served as lead counsel for clients in the life sciences, healthcare, and technology industries and has successfully handled patent cases in federal courts throughout the United States. Mr. Cavan’s experience includes jury trials, ANDA Hatch-Waxman litigation, arbitrations, and proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). He is registered as a patent attorney with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, and his clients have ranged from start-ups to leading multinationals. Mr. Cavan is also experienced with trade secrets, commercial litigation, and licensing, and he has advised on intellectual property issues for significant mergers and private equity investments. Mr. Cavan’s litigation and counseling expertise has included a range of technologies, including medical devices, pharmaceuticals, health care technology, electronic health records, nanotechnology, software, wireless and internet technology, automotive components, energy, and consumer products. Prior to joining Longford Capital, Mr. Cavan was a partner in some of the most prestigious law firms in the country. Mr. Cavan started his career at Sidley Austin LLP (associate 1998-2006; partner 2006-2011) and was also a partner in the Chicago offices of Ropes & Gray LLP (2011-2015) and Baker McKenzie LLP (2015-2018). Most recently, Mr. Cavan served as the chair of the intellectual property practice at Harrison Law LLC, a Chicago litigation boutique. During his career in private practice, Mr. Cavan earned recognition as a leading lawyer in Chambers USA, International Asset Management, and SuperLawyers. For several years, Mr. Cavan served as a co-chair the Patent Law Institute’s Patent Boot Camp, presenting on strategic patenting issues. Mr. Cavan graduated with honors from Harvard Law School, where he taught legal writing as a member of the Board of Student Advisers and served on the editorial board of the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology. Mr. Cavan graduated magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from DukeUniversity with a B.S. in Biology. After graduating from Duke, Mr. Cavan taught as an Annenberg Fellow and master at Eton College in Windsor, England. Mr. Cavan has been admitted to practice before the United States Patent & Trademark Office, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Illinois, and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Mr. Cavan has also been a member of the Trial Bar for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. “The current economic climate of uncertainty and volatility has resulted in a jump in demand for our capital and we are expanding our team in response. Before joining Longford, Marc assisted us in the investment selection process evaluating the strength of patent claims; we know his talent as a patent litigator, and we are fortunate to have Marc join our team,” stated Michael A. Nicolas, Managing Director of Longford Capital. About Longford Capital Longford Capital is a leading private investment company with more than $1 billion in assets under management that provides capital to leading law firms, public and private companies, universities, government agencies, and other entities involved in large-scale, commercial legal disputes. The firm manages a diversified portfolio, and considers investments in subject matter areas where it has developed considerable expertise, including, business-to-business contract claims, antitrust and trade regulation claims, intellectual property claims (including patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret), fiduciary duty claims, fraud claims, claims in bankruptcy and liquidation, domestic and international arbitrations, and a variety of others. For additional information about Longford Capital, please visit www.longfordcapital.com.

UK Legal Industry Drops to Four Year Low

The UK's Legal industry generated revenues of £2.35bn in May 2020, 12% down on May last year. May 2020 was the lowest-earning month in four years, according to Office of National Statistics data released on 14th July.

May is traditionally the weakest month of the year for the Legal profession, with April being one of the most lucrative. Industry revenues fell 29% between April 2020 and May 2020, with April having remained relatively robust as the impact of lockdown had likely not yet fully washed through.

In comparison, the overall Services sector (including Legal) which had been harder hit and was at its lowest level in a decade, grew by 2% in May, similarly to the UK’s overall economy which increased by 1.8% month on month.

Louis Young, MD at Augusta said: “May’s revenue data demonstrates the significant negative impact the pandemic has had on the UK’s Legal industry. But as such data reflects work that would have commenced before the crisis, which is in line with how law firms operate, the true final impact is likely to be greater. As the wider economy begins to show signs of recovery, many law firms continue to look for options to control costs and strengthen their balance sheets with the expectation that they are not yet out of the woods”.

---

About the ONS Data

  • ONS Monthly Business Survey data shows Legal Activities revenue as £2.35bn in May 2020 compared to £3.32bn in April 2020 and £2.67bn in May 2019.
  • The legal industry had been on course for a strong year before the crisis with March 2020 being the third highest month in history for the UK legal industry and April 2020 showing only a 5% decline on March 2020.

Can Litigation Funding Mitigate the ‘Death of the Billable Hour?’

The legal field has not escaped the financial uncertainty plaguing the rest of the world. Even before COVID-19 changed nearly everything, firms were already lamenting the ‘death of the billable hour.’ Some might say that billable hours, while low risk to firms, are not a good model for clients—especially those of average or modest means. Bloomberg Law details how the current financial conditions have encouraged firms to return to the billable hour. But is that tenable? Big business clients will probably expect better as the global spike in litigation continues to increase. Alternative fee agreements can be more attractive to clients, but carry higher risks for firms—leaving them to weigh the risks of sticking to billable hours versus losing big clients. Surely there’s a way to mitigate risk while keeping clients happy? Joining forces with a litigation funder can propel firms into better litigation outcomes while improving relationships with clients large and small. It’s a proactive move that reduces financial risk while allowing practices to grow despite the current economy. Unlike traditional lit fin where plaintiffs are provided capital to pursue a case, law firm funding works a bit differently. These funds can offer non-recourse capital to attorneys and firms, collateralized against a portfolio of cases. This is generally more affordable and timely for law firms that need money in a hurry. According to one survey, more than 60% of law firms broadened their use of alternative funding arrangements. Over 90% of these firms reveal that they are changing their billing structure in order to gain new clients or to better accommodate existing ones. Of course, Litigation Finance is typically reserved for those whose cases can survive careful vetting. Funders, lawyers, and plaintiffs all have a stake in the ruling—and thus a strong incentive to work together to seek a fair outcome.

Nanoco Signs Funding Deal in Case Against Samsung

Some continue to debate the need for Litigation Finance. Yet every day we see more examples of the practice working as it should, increasing access to justice for those who might not otherwise have it. One such case involves Nanoco, a business associated with Manchester University. The small business recently filed a patent infringement case against tech giant Samsung. The Business Desk reports that the case against Samsung was filed against multiple entities within the company. Nanoco designs and manufactures TV screens and computer monitors. They signed an agreement with a prominent US litigation finance firm. While the firm has not been named, reps from Nanoco have said that the funders have extensive experience in IP matters as related to tech. . The legal firm handling the case is Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky, & Popeo, a Boston-based law firm. Local counsel includes a Longview, Texas firm. While the exact terms of the funding agreement are not known, it is presumed that Nanoco will retain the bulk of any award judgment or settlement amount.

Takeaways from the 2020 Litigation Finance Survey Report

Across the board, Litigation Finance has become a powerhouse industry—one that has shown remarkable growth since its inception just over a decade ago. Since 2017, the industry has seen at least a 10% annualized increase in requests for funding. This year, a 30% increase accompanies a greater acceptance of the practice in the legal world. Lake Whillans reports that in the last year at least 10% of lawyers surveyed had first-hand experience with lit fin. Of those who have worked with third-party funders, over 99% of them said they would do so again. That’s a stunning endorsement. How often do 99% of lawyers agree on anything? The efficacy of Litigation Funding is hardly news—last year more than 80% of respondents who had used litigation funding in a case said they would do so again. The survey, co-authored with Above the Law, featured 418 respondents in 53 cities. About ¾ of those surveyed said that Litigation Finance is now more relevant to their work than it was at this time last year. About 2/3 of respondents had first-hand experience working with a lit fin firm—way up from 41% last year. Survey results show that larger firms tend to have fewer staffers working directly with funders. Firms with between 50-100 staffers appeared to use funding with the greatest frequency. The industries that use third-party funding the most include telecommunications, technology, the automotive industry, energy, defense, healthcare, and entertainment. When asked, more than 88% of in-house counsel without lit fin experience claimed that budgetary shortfalls are a key reason they would seek funding. Meanwhile, nearly 75% of respondents say that litigation funding has become a bigger part of their practice since this time last year. Ultimately, the future of Litigation Finance looks bright. It’s a respected, well-funded industry that remains attractive to the legal community.

Legal-Bay Pre-Settlement Funding Announces Updates to Essure Lawsuits

PHILADELPHIAJuly 8, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Legal-Bay LLC, The Pre-Settlement Funding Company, announced their renewed commitment to assisting the many victims who've filed Essure Birth Control lawsuits, and are hoping for presettlement payouts despite court delays. The Essure brand birth control device is put out by Bayer, who is accused of knowingly distributing a faulty product. More than 32,000 plaintiffs have claimed serious pain and suffering from broken devices including device migration and perforated organs. In some instances, clients have resorted to surgical removal. After numerous delays, the first Bellwether jury trial was set to see the inside of an Alameda County, California courtroom earlier this month, but due to COVID-19, has been postponed yet again. Bayer continues to deny liability on their part for the popular birth control product, and intends to fight the cases in front of juries in California and Pennsylvania where most cases are filed.  Bayer has consistently denied any wrongdoing and stands by their safety standards in respect to Essure, even though they pulled their product from the shelves over two years ago. Chris Janish, CEO of Legal-Bay, commented, "Legal-Bay is discouraged to see further delays with Essure litigation, which is sure to drag out any resolution hopes.  While there are no imminent settlement amounts or potential Essure settlement values on the near horizon, we nevertheless remain committed to assisting plaintiffs with their cash advance needs." If you are involved in an Essure birth control lawsuit and are looking for a pre-settlement cash advance now, fill out an application HERE or call 877.571.0405 for more information. Legal-Bay assists plaintiffs in all types of product liability lawsuits, including medical malpractice, wrongful death, 3M, Hernia Mesh, IVC Filters, Roundup weed killer, personal injury, premise liability, car and truck accidents, and more. All of Legal-Bay funding programs are risk-free as you only repay the advance if your case is successful. The non-recourse advance is not a lawsuit loan, lawsuit loans, pre settlement loan, or presettlement loans. You can be approved for a cash advance in as little as 24-48 hours.

Litigation Finance is Cheaper Than You Might Think!

The following was contributed by Matthew Pitchers, Head of Investment Valuation at Augusta Ventures I was in conversation the other day with a prospective user of our finance - a law firm who will remain nameless. The conversation was going well, very well in fact, until those seven words came up: “what is it going to cost me?”. I replied that our fee would be based on the higher of a multiple on the funds deployed or a set percentage of damages awarded. After a few seconds of silence which felt like an eternity, the response I got back was “that is very expensive, and I don’t think my client will go for it”. This left me bemused because whilst there is a general misconception that litigation funding is expensive, when compared to other sources of secured and unsecured funding available on the market, it is in fact very competitive and sometimes even cheap. This left me thinking about how best to explain this to the enquirer at the other end of the phone who would be left explaining all available options to his client. What is litigation funding? What I wanted to say was: Sir, in considering how expensive litigation funding is, one needs to first analyse what litigation funding is. This is easier to think about when considering what litigation isn’t. It isn’t a traditional debt product. There are no guaranteed cash flows. There is no obligation on the user of the debt to repay it. Any returns that the funder makes are payable from what the defendant pays if the claim is successful, not from the finance user. Furthermore, the entire financial risk of the case is transferred to the funder, and if a case loses, the risk of adverse costs falls to the funder and not the claimant. Therefore, an amount invested upfront in a legal case in order to share in the same risks and rewards as the claimant, feels more akin to a purchase of an equity participation in a start-up than a one-step-removed loan. To put it another way: If you were going on Dragon’s Den and your great idea was to ask the Dragons for an upfront investment in a legal case for a future share of any available returns which may or may not occur, how much of the case do you think the Dragons would want? What the market says In haggling over the value of your idea, the Dragons would probably consider the availability of unsecured loans, and the returns expected from venture capital start-up funding. If you, as an individual, were to go into the market today and look for an unsecured loan you might find APR’s that range from 10.3% per annum, for those people with excellent credit scores, up to 32.0% per annum for those with poor credit scores, and that is only on amounts up to £25,000. A good benchmark for the percentage of cases a litigation fund might win, despite all the due diligence that is performed, is around 70%. Loaning out money with only a 70% chance of getting any of it back is not similar to loaning money to a person with an excellent credit score, so litigation funders are firmly in poor credit score territory, where an APR could typically be between 28.5% and 32.0%. And remember, that is only on amounts up to £25,000, an investment in a legal case more-often-than-not, is many multiples of this size. A such, the IRR that the funder aims for is more akin to those expected by venture capitalists, who might typically look for 30-40% annual returns on a start-up investment. The tenor of investments A classical case tenor for litigation funding is usually two to four years. In the interim period the funder will have not received any payments. Their risk exposure goes up over time as more money is deployed as the legal case progresses, and there is limited availability to claw back any investment if the case looks like it isn’t going to win. It is, to all intents and purposes, an investment with a binary outcome and once invested there is no going back. An investment with an annualised return of 40% over three years would expect to achieve a 2.74X money multiple for the investor at the end of the life of the investment. Over four years the money multiple would be expected to be 3.84X. This would be at the upper end of what a litigation funder might achieve. A normal equity investment in a company has fewer downsides regarding the capital locked up, as covenants would be in place to claw back any investments if the company were mismanaged in the interim period. Summary In short, litigation funders are able to make worthwhile returns through rigorous diligence, investing in  cases that they expect to win and which meet their internal criteria, whilst building up a large enough portfolio that the effect of the unsystematic binary risk of losing an individual case is diluted. In return, a competent litigation funder should expect to achieve on their portfolio a rate of return that is better than a correlated investment, but lower than that achieved in the start-up markets. A claimant, in using litigation finance, should expect all their costs to be covered, and any risk of adverse costs to be transferred to the funder. In effect it becomes a risk-free investment for the claimant, whilst they still take the larger share of any return. This would be the dream scenario for any owner of a start-up company, selling a small stake in the company and removing all future down-side risk to themselves, whilst removing the burden of future costs. In summary Sir, this is a great opportunity for your client and it is highly competitive. Instead, I said to the man on the other end of the phone: ‘I’m sorry yes, it does sound expensive, let me see what we can do’.

Legalist Founder Explains Unique Funding Model

When we think of Litigation Finance, our impulse might be to envision well-capitalized funders assisting large companies. The founder and CEO of Legalist, Eva Shang, sees the business differently. Her model is one of David v. Goliaths—helping the little guys that other funders may overlook. Above the Law recently interviewed Shang about how she has achieved such incredible success. The Harvard dropout was one of Forbes Magazine’s 30 under 30 back in 2018. Inaugural funding for Legalist was just over $10 million. Two years later, Legalist boasted a fund of $100 million. Interestingly, Legalist began with no lawyers on staff managing funds. When they first started, Shang had never even drafted a Litigation Finance agreement. What’s more—they had no real connections in the legal world. The firm was literally built from the ground up. Shang credits other litigation funders who offered guidance when her company was just beginning. Legalist uses machine learning and AI to find cases and underwrite them. This tech gives Legalist an edge in finding small and medium-sized claims—the sort that larger funders tend to pass on. What many firms find too labor-intensive, Legalist seizes on to brilliant effect. These cases may only see awards of a few million dollars and require a few hundred thousand in investment. This model requires a lot more work, but is filling a much-needed niche in the industry while providing tidy profits. More importantly, Legalist does what Litigation Finance was always designed to do—increase access to justice for those who could not otherwise afford it.

Advice from a Litigator Turned Litigation Finance Executive

The most successful Litigation Finance firms are those that act as partners, not merely funders. Funders can join a team at any point in the case and still make a positive impact. John Garda has recently made the move from full-time litigator to assessing funding opportunities for Longford Capital. Above the Law conducted a three-part interview with Garda. Part two discusses how clients can best avail themselves of the opportunities that litigation funding has to offer—particularly in the time of COVID and beyond. Corporate clients may find themselves in need of relief during these financially trying times. Traditional litigation funding can cover attorney fees and existing expenses for a claim. Lump-sum payments may also be available to cover expenses incurred previously. It’s not unusual to find even the most successful businesses in need of working capital on occasion. Third-party funding can provide financial wiggle room so that legal claims can still be pursued effectively, without impacting other areas of the business. Intellectual Property is another area in which litigation funding can pose a benefit. Before approaching funders, an IP lawyer is expected to prepare a whitepaper detailing key facts of the case, and a proposed budget for pursuing the claim. The likelihood is that it will be up to the IP lawyer handling the case to explain it fully to any potential funders. This includes a full analysis of damages caused by the infringement—something many cases fail to outline clearly. Litigation funders will often take a ‘damages first’ approach to evaluating a case for potential funding. Obviously, the merits of the case are important, but if the object is to pursue financial damages, those damages must be verifiable and clearly defined. Ultimately, Garda confirmed that litigation funding is a solid option for corporate clients and IP cases. The increase in requests for litigation funding, however, means attorneys may find themselves competing for attention.

Delta Capital Partners Management Expands its Global Marketing Team

CHICAGO, Illinois, July 1, 2020 -- Delta Capital Partners Management LLC, a global private equity firm specializing in litigation and legal finance, today announced the hiring of a Chief Marketing Officer and a Marketing Associate.

Kim Fine has been hired as Chief Marketing Officer to closely work with Delta’s Chief Executive Officer and senior management to advance Delta’s strategic marketing and business development objectives and further develop Delta’s brand.

Prior to joining Delta, Ms. Fine was a Managing Director at ALM, formerly American Lawyer Media, where she worked closely with the editors for The American LawyerCorporate Counsel magazine, IP Law & Business, and Law Firm Inc. to create events to grow their brands and materially enhance their editorial content. In addition, Ms. Fine has served as a Project Manager at Marsh FINPRO and was a Senior Vice President of Executive Liability for Beecher Carlson. Prior to her role at Marsh, Ms. Fine co-founded Fulcrum Information Services, which produced over 300 conferences annually.

Christopher DeLise, Delta's Founder, CEO and CO-CIO, stated, “We are excited to have someone with Kim’s experience and enthusiasm joining Delta’s team. Her background in marketing within the legal and financial services industries will enhance Delta’s efforts to market to prospective claimants, law firms, professional service providers, and other end-users of litigation and legal finance.”

Additionally, Megan Bradley has been hired as a Marketing Associate to assist Ms. Fine and other members of Delta’s marketing department. Ms. Bradley is a recent graduate of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, where she was a President’s Award Program Honors Scholar and obtained a bachelor’s degree in Global Studies.

Mses. Fine and Bradley join Delta as the firm continues to its global expansion efforts to meet the evolving needs of law firms, businesses, private investment funds, and individual claimants.

About Delta

Delta Capital Partners Management LLC is a US-based, global private equity firm specializing in litigation and legal finance, judgment or award enforcement, and/or asset or collateral recovery.  Delta works with law firms and other professional service firms, private investment funds, businesses and individual claimants involved in litigation, arbitration or recoveries across the globe.