Trending Now

John Freund's Posts

3123 Articles
Announcements Commercial

Tribeca Capital moves into the commercial litigation funding arena

NEW YORK, April 22, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Tribeca Capital Group, LLC, a leading voice in the field of consumer pre-settlement funding, is pleased to announce its new initiative designed to expand its lawsuit client base to include high dollar commercial plaintiffs and the law firms who represent them. "While we began as a firm working primarily with individuals in personal injury cases, we've known for some time that as a company we wanted to head in the direction of funding bigger and more complicated cases," said Rory Donadio, Tribeca founder. "We've got the know-how and the financial resources to make that happen." Over the last ten years, the litigation funding industry has grown exponentially from its roots in consumer litigation over car accidents and medical malpractice. After those initial successes, lawsuit funding companies began financing more complex commercial litigation involving contract and compliance issues, class actions and multi-jurisdictional cases. Tribeca is poised to leverage its growth and experience as a successful investor in personal injury litigation to become a leading funder of plaintiff complex commercial lawsuits. "Litigation is expensive," says Donadio. "Those with worthy cases often find themselves literally priced out of a case because of the resources needed to finance the litigation or to keep the plaintiff solvent during a case that can last months or years." As Donadio explains, other plaintiffs settle for less than their cases are worth because they can no longer afford the time or money to continue the fight. "We help level the playing field. And, just like consumer cases, if a commercial litigant doesn't receive a monetary award, we don't get paid either." Lawsuit funding can also directly benefit the law firms, who often don't get paid until the case settles or the plaintiff wins at trial. Complex litigation can have a strong negative impact on the firm's cash flow. Litigation funding can help alleviate that pressure so that the law firm can focus on the litigation and not on whether it can make payroll. "We've put a lot of work into our platform and have been able to help a lot of people," says Donadio. "I'm proud of the work we've done, and I look forward to these new challenges and taking our experience to the next level."
Since 2016, Tribeca has invested $150M in litigation and helped hundreds of plaintiffs. If you need help funding your case, or if you are a law firm prosecuting a case of any size, consumer to complex commercial litigation, contact Rory Donadio, Tribeca Capital Group, LLC, rdonadio@tribecacapllc.com SOURCE Tribeca Capital Group, LLC
Announcements Commercial

AxiaFunder Returns 94% to Investors Through Second Commercial Litigation Case Win

LONDON, April 24, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- AxiaFunder, the UK's first for-profit litigation funding platform, today announces its second case win, returning 93.75% to investors in just 15 months.

The breach of contract case, which was funded in February 2019, raised £12,000 to enforce an adjudication award against a property developer. The case was favourably settled following a three-party mediation.

It comes after AxiaFunder's first case win produced a 43.00% return in only eight months with no losses to date.

Cormac Leech, CEO and Founder of AxiaFunder, said: "We are pleased to announce our second case win, which has produced solid returns to our investors through an Innovative Finance ISA eligible bond which was 83% principal protected via insurance. Despite market volatility in the wake of COVID-19, litigation funding offers retail and institutional investors an opportunity to diversify their investment portfolio. Unlike equities, litigation funding is uncorrelated to financial markets and the economy, continuing to generate healthy returns to investors while many other assets classes are underperforming in the current economic climate."

AxiaFunder has a strong pipeline of vetted cases that will be launched over the coming weeks. The first of which is the relaunch of a pre-vetted case backing a 'Francovich' claim – an action seeking damages against a Member State for breaching EU law. The VAT dispute claim is being relaunched to reflect a recent unexpected strike-out application during the funding process. AxiaFunder expects a net 5.5x multiple on investor capital if the case wins at trial, which is expected in around 18 months. Risk Warning: Capital at risk and returns not guaranteed.

Despite COVID-19 and the resulting economic headwinds, AxiaFunder's latest investment opportunity – a portfolio of three commercial litigation cases – was fully funded less than 24 hours after the launch of its marketing campaign.

Leech added: "The litigation funding market is expected to grow as COVID-19 increases insolvency litigation. As the UK's first for-profit litigation funding platform, AxiaFunder is well placed to provide access to capital for many of Britain's SMEs, who would otherwise struggle to afford the cost of litigation.

"AxiaFunder takes a stringent approach to vetting cases and only invests in those that have an estimated probability of a favourable outcome for investors of at least 70%. The vast majority of cases settle before trial with AxiaFunder's investors typically getting paid before the claimant which improves returns."

AxiaFunder itself recently closed an equity round raising over £250,000 of working capital, some of which was raised through Seedrs, the equity crowdfunding platform.

To date AxiaFunder has in total raised £775,000 of litigation funding for 6 commercial cases.

About AxiaFunder

Launched in November 2018, AxiaFunder (an appointed representative Share In Ltd) which is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FRN 603332) enables both retail and institutional investors to provide funding to claimants who cannot afford to pay for their legal disputes. Investors receive a return on their capital if the case wins, however should note that Capital is at risk and returns are not guaranteed.

Commercial Investor's Corner Slingshot Capital Special Features

2020 Co-Investment Survey Results

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 SUMARY
  • Survey suggests the litigation finance industry has demand for co-investment capital
  • Speed to commitment and having a fully funded commitment ranked highest in terms of co-investor characteristics
  • Most funders expect a co-investment commitment within less than 4 weeks
INVESTOR INSIGHTS
  • While investors might be attracted to co-investment opportunities, diversification is a strong component to successful long-term investing in commercial litigation finance
  • Co-investing should only be considered in the context of creating a portfolio, or to add specific exposures to an existing portfolio, but should never be viewed as a single investment
Slingshot Capital and Litigation Finance Journal recently undertook a survey of commercial litigation finance participants to obtain a deeper understanding of the extent to which there is demand for third-party co-investment capital. The survey was distributed globally, with the majority of responses coming from constituents in the USA (50%) and UK (18%) markets, or from funders that invested globally (18%).  Of the responses, 22% were from advisors/intermediaries and 78% were from funders (with the vast majority of funders having dedicated litigation finance funds). Co-Investment in Litigation Finance  Co-investment opportunities are an attractive sub-set of opportunities for many investors in a variety of asset classes, with particular appeal for private equity (buy-out, growth equity, real estate and venture capital) asset classes.  However, in the context of litigation finance, an investor needs to take a different perspective when considering co-investment opportunities. Whereas it may be perfectly acceptable for a family office, endowment or pension plan to co-invest in a specific private equity opportunity as part of their larger portfolio, the quasi-binary nature of litigation finance should make investors think twice about how they approach investing in litigation finance.  The key difference lies in the probability weighted set of outcomes accorded to each asset class. In a private equity buy-out transaction, a high number produce positive results, and the results vary across a spectrum of potential return outcomes (from 1+ X original investment, to a 5+ X original investment). In litigation finance, even though many cases settle before going to court, there tends to be two outcomes – a win or a loss.  The wins are allocated across a tighter spectrum than private equity, and the losses tend to be absolute (with exceptions).  Accordingly, due to the quasi-binary nature of the outcomes of litigation finance, co-investing should only be considered where the investors are committed to assembling a portfolio of such co-investment opportunities, and have the ability to assess the fundamental aspects of litigation finance.  Alternatively, to the extent an investor has existing investments in litigation finance, but is looking to round out his or her portfolio with specific case exposures to achieve a particular portfolio objective, co-investment opportunities may play a role in that investor’s portfolio construction approach. 2020 Co-Investment Survey results are summarized below: Demand Of the 23 respondents, 70% stated they had a need for co-investment capital, whereas 30% did not.  However, 13% indicated that the need for co-investment was occasional, and that sometimes their LPs had pre-emptive rights with respect to investing in those opportunities. Frequency In terms of frequency of co-investment opportunities, almost 50% of respondents indicated they have from 1 to 5 opportunities in a given year, with just over 20% in the 6-10 range, and a few managers indicating they had 20 such opportunities in a given year.  The number of opportunities directly correlated with the size of the funder and the size of the cases they typically finance. Co-Investor Characteristics Regarding the characteristics that are most important in a co-investment partner, speed to commitment and having a funded capital source ranked the highest, with responsiveness and understanding complex litigation also ranking highly.  However, there was not a huge disparity in terms of the importance of the six criteria listed, suggesting that all criteria were factored into their decision-making process. Keep in mind that the compilation of rankings on the chart below is an average of the six criteria, so a high number on the chart should be viewed as being more important (even though that answer drew more 1's and 2's), whereas a low number on the chart should be viewed as less important. For example, 'Speed to Commitment' and 'Having a Funding Capital Source' both received the most 1's and 2's, but their average ranking is the highest and therefore most important.  'Flexible Capital' received the most 6's, but has the lowest average score, and is therefore the least important metric. When we dive further into the ‘speed to commitment’ characteristic, we find the vast majority of respondents expect a commitment within 3-4 weeks.  It remains to be seen if expectations and reality are in alignment, a good question to include in the next survey. Expected Duration With respect to the underwritten expected duration, most fall within the 12-36 month range, which is consistent with duration expectations for the industry as a whole.  However, 30% of respondents did indicate that duration was a function of the type of case being underwritten, with certain case types (patent, international arbitration, etc.) having longer durations and appeal cases having shorter durations. Co-Investment Structuring In terms of insight into how these co-investment transactions are typically structured, the responses varied.  In the ‘other’ category, some respondents indicated they have used a variety of the choices offered, whereas one respondent stated that they received a specified interest in the profits produced by the investment. Current Co-Investors As it relates to where the current co-investment opportunities are being offered, the majority were offered to other funders, suggesting there is a fair amount of cooperation in the litigation finance marketplace.  However, within the ‘other’ category, most respondents suggested it was a combination of all of the choices listed. This brings to a close the results of our first commercial litigation finance co-investment survey.  Slingshot Capital and Litigation Finance Journal would like to thank those that participated in the survey for their time and feedback. Our next survey will cover fundraising initiatives by fund managers in the commercial litigation finance sector. We anticipate making the fundraising survey an annual survey so we can track fundraising activities over time. If you would like to participate in future surveys, please contact Ed Truant here to register your interest. Edward Truant is the founder of Slingshot Capital Inc. and an investor in the consumer and commercial litigation finance industry.
Commercial

Africa: An Untapped Growth Market for Litigation Funding?

It’s no secret that Litigation Finance is a profitable and growing industry around the world. With Australia, Asia, Europe and North America all enjoying the fruits of lit fin's labor, is it time for Africa to get in on the act? ICIG explains that there are numerous countries in Africa that have very little in the way of affordable legal aid. But since 2010, lit fin has become an attractive option for banks, insurers, equity funds, and others. Many in the Finance world recall that after the 2008 financial crisis, Litigation Finance proved to be a profitable investment. Some assert that lit fin is an excellent option for investors since it isn’t tied to the rest of the market. How should Africa respond to the expansion of Litigation Finance within its legal system? Consistency will be key in assuring that clients, funders, and legal professionals are all treated fairly and with transparency. African courts are known to be inconsistent in their application of the law, something that must be reigned in if Litigation Finance is to be taken seriously as a viable legal option for businesses, class actions, and individuals. Matters of contingency fee arrangements, and even basic contracts will need to be standardized in their coverage and enforcement to ensure that everyone is playing by the same rules. Trust and clarity between parties is an essential component of successful litigation funding. The rise of third-party funding creates opportunity for any number of businesses, investors, and law firms. Africa has an opportunity to allow Litigation Finance to increase access to justice all over the continent.
Commercial

Litigation Funding is Fueling a Contingency Fee Boom

In a typical scenario, contingency cases involve Davids v. Goliaths. That is to say, usually smaller law firms are the ones who take cases on contingency. Established firms are less likely to take cases on a contingency basis, but that may be changing—thanks in part to litigation funding. Legal Executive Institute reports that some larger firms are having success in contingent fee cases. Michigan firm Varnum specialized in defense, but has branched out into plaintiff work successfully. Now, such cases make up a significant percentage of Varnum’s litigation practice. Kirkland & Ellis, meanwhile, has the largest revenue in the legal world. The firm has announced the launch of a plaintiff-side trial group. This move certainly seems to solidify the emergence of contingent fee cases as a viable plan for large firms.  Contingency fee work is less risky for firms when they utilize third-party funding. The popularity of litigation finance is a key reason that contingency fee litigation is becoming more widely used by established firms. Freeing up capital that’s no longer needed for litigation is an attractive prospect for any firm—especially during financially unstable times.  Contingency cases can be difficult to plan for in the long-term, but long-term planning is necessary. If a firm typically focuses on billable hours, switching gears may be a disruptive change. When a firm is adept at planning and choosing contingency fee cases effectively, it can be a huge advantage both fiscally and in terms of differentiating oneself from the competition.
Announcements Commercial

Delta Capital Partners Management Announces New Senior Executive

April 20, 2020, Chicago IL--Delta Capital Partners Management LLC, a global private equity firm specializing in litigation and legal finance, today announced the hiring of a new senior executive. Martin Lueck has been hired as a Senior Managing Director to work closely with Delta’s CEO and other senior executives on deal origination, due diligence, and strategic development matters. Prior to joining Delta, Mr. Lueck was a litigator for over 35 years, spending the last 20+ years at Robins Kaplan LLP. While at Robins Kaplan representing plaintiffs, he amassed numerous eight- and nine-figure trial victories as lead counsel against Fortune 500 defendants. Mr. Lueck was also a dominant force on the Management Committee while at Robins Kaplan, where he evaluated, modified, approved, or rejected the firm’s contingent, incentive and alternative fee arrangements. Mr. Lueck was Chairman of the Executive Board from 2008 to 2019. His experience lends immeasurable insight into the factors that best predict successful outcomes, as well as pragmatic strategies that lead to consistent returns. As a result of his notable trial success, Mr. Lueck was named one of the Nation’s Top-10 trial lawyers by the National Law Journal in 2004 and is a fellow in the International Academy of Trial Lawyers, which is limited to 500 US trial attorneys, and the American College of Trial Lawyers. Christopher DeLise, Delta’s Founder, CEO and CO-CIO, stated, “We are honored to have someone with Marty’s talent and experience joining Delta’s senior management team as he will enable Delta take the next step in its evolution. His experience as a top-tier litigator and his management of his former firm’s contingency fee engagements are extremely complementary to Delta’s litigation finance business and enhance our ongoing commitment to provide unparalleled service to claimants, law firms, professional service providers, and other end-users of litigation and legal finance around the world.” Mr. Lueck joins Delta as the firm continues to expand to meet the growing liquidity and other financing needs of law firms, businesses, private investment funds, and individual claimants affected by recent macroeconomic developments, including those resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Demand for Delta’s proprietary liquidity solutions (DLS), including those involving litigation-collateralized loans (LCLs), term loans and draw-down facilities, has skyrocketed over the past month. 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.
Commercial

New Funding Applications Soar at Omni Bridgeway

Third-party litigation funding is becoming a natural response to the economic turmoil caused by COVID-19. Firms beset by financial anxiety are looking to keep balance sheets balanced, and funding is an excellent route. According to Law Times, Omni Bridgeway is well on its way to doubling the number of funding applications when compared to this time last year.  One sector in particular is seeing increased difficulty: Cannabis. The cannabis sector is beset by uncertainty, which is being amplified by the current economic downturn. Bankruptcy and contract law continue to be busy litigation areas as well, with such claims expecting to spike as economic pressures increase. Funders are seeking individual claims, as well as fully or partially funding full portfolios of smaller claims, some of which may already be in progress.  In Canada, courthouses are largely closed or restricted. But legal teams and funders are working hard to keep the wheels of law spinning. Ontario courts are particularly adept at keeping delays short and obstacles to a minimum. Much work takes place at odd hours, from home, and over the phone or via virtual meetings. 
Announcements Commercial

BioCardia Announces Litigation Financing in the Case Captioned Boston Scientific Corp., et al., v. BioCardia Inc.

SAN CARLOS, Calif., April 14, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- BioCardia, Inc. (Nasdaq: BCDA), a leader in the development of comprehensive solutions for cardiovascular regenerative therapies, today reported it has entered into an agreement for litigation financing which has been filed today with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 8-K.

BioCardia, Inc. entered into a Litigation Funding Agreement with BSLF, L.L.C., an entity owned and controlled by Andrew Blank, a member of BioCardia’s board of directors, for the purpose of funding the Company’s currently pending legal proceedings and any and all claims, actions and/or proceedings relating to, or arising from, the case captioned Boston Scientific Corp., et al., v. BioCardia Inc., Case No. 3:19-05645-VC, U.S.D.C., N. D. Cal (the “Litigation”). The Litigation relates to matters the Company raised in a letter to Ms. Surbhi Sarna, nVision Medical and Boston Scientific based on BioCardia’s discovery in January 2019 that Ms. Sarna had assigned to a company she founded, nVision Medical, a patent and patent applications she had filed while a BioCardia employee. nVision subsequently was acquired by Boston Scientific.

BioCardia made various claims, including that the patent and patent application rightfully belonged to BioCardia pursuant to Ms. Sarna’s invention assignment agreement, that the proceeds from the sale of nVision to Boston Scientific rightfully belonged to BioCardia because they were the direct result of Ms. Sarna’s breach of her obligation to assign to BioCardia the patent and patent applications and the use of misappropriated BioCardia trade secrets.  On September 6, 2019, Boston Scientific Corporation, Boston Scientific Scimed Inc., and Fortis Advisors LLC (the “Boston Scientific Parties”) filed a complaint against BioCardia in the United States District Court Northern District of California, Case no. 3:19-05645-VC, seeking declarations that the claims made in BioCardia’s correspondence were without basis. On October 31, 2019, BioCardia filed a counterclaim against the Boston Scientific Parties and Ms. Sarna for breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets and correction of inventorship on the patents naming Ms. Sarna as an inventor. BioCardia seeks imposition of constructive trusts both on the patents naming Ms. Sarna as an inventor and the proceeds received from the sale of nVision to Boston Scientific, as well as damages, including unjust enrichment damages measured by the proceeds received from the sale of nVision to Boston Scientific.

Under the terms of the Funding Agreement, the Funder agreed to fund the legal fees and costs incurred by the Company in connection with the Litigation on and after March 1, 2020 on a non-recourse basis in return for a share of the litigation proceeds.  Details of the Funding Agreement are available in the Form 8-K filed today.

BioCardia CEO Peter Altman, PhD, said, “This litigation financing gives BioCardia the wherewithal to pursue its claims in court. This preserves our investment focus on advancing our important cell therapy product pipeline to treat cardiovascular diseases, and the commercialization of our FDA-approved enabling device products.”

About BioCardia® BioCardia, Inc., headquartered in San Carlos, California, is developing regenerative biologic therapies to treat cardiovascular disease. CardiAMP™ and CardiALLO™ cell therapies are the Company’s biotherapeutic product candidates in clinical development. The Company's current products include the Helix™ transendocardial delivery system, the Morph® steerable guide and sheath catheter portfolio and the AVANCE™ steerable introducer family. BioCardia also partners with other biotherapeutic companies to provide its Helix systems and clinical support to their programs studying therapies for the treatment of heart failure, chronic myocardial ischemia and acute myocardial infarction. Forward Looking Statements  This press release contains forward-looking statements that are subject to many risks and uncertainties. In particular, the outcome and timing of litigation are uncertain.  These forward-looking statements are made as of the date of this press release, and BioCardia assumes no obligation to update the forward-looking statements.
Announcements Commercial

Financial Poise™ Announces “Commercial Litigation Funding-101” a New Webinar Series Premiering May 12th at 1:00 PM CST through West LegalEdcenter™

The first episode in this series is titled "An Introduction to a New Yet Old Funding Alternative" and is co-produced by West LegalEdCenter™. It will feature Jeremy Waitzman (Sugar Felsenthal Grais & Helsinger LLP); Dave Kerstein (Validity Finance LLC); Christopher Freeman (Burford Capital); and Joel Cohen (Stout). About the Series: Once a fledgling industry predominantly used in the Commonwealth nations, litigation funding has over the past ten years becomes a well-accepted and prevalent practice in the United States. As the industry has evolved, so too have the menu of available products, strategic decisions made by funders and practitioners, and types of investors. This three-part series is geared towards educating attorneys and clients on legal/ethical, strategic, and business decisions when considering litigation funding, and investors seeking to learn about an increasingly mainstream asset class. Panelists include preeminent experts in the field of litigation funding, including academics who have written on the topic, investment managers at preeminent litigation funders, litigators who have used funding products, and independent litigation funding advisors. About the Episode: Litigation funding is an increasingly-popular tool for attorneys and clients to share the risk and reward of litigation with third-party investors, and for investors to capitalize on the uncorrelated returns generated by legal-driven revenue. This webinar is intended to provide an overview of the topic generally, touching on the "who," "what," "where," "when," "why" and "how's" behind litigation funding. To learn more and register, click here. The webinar will be available on-demand after its premiere. As with every Financial Poise Webinar, it will be an engaging and plain English conversation designed to entertain as it teaches. About Financial Poise – Financial Poise has one mission: to provide reliable plain English business, financial and legal education to investors, private business owners and executives, and their respective trusted advisors. Financial Poise content is created by seasoned, respected experts who are invited to join our Faculty only after being recommended by current Faculty Members. Our editorial staff then works to make sure all content is easily digestible. Financial Poise is a meritocracy; nobody can "buy" their way into the Financial Poise Faculty. Start learning today at https://www.financialpoise.com/
Announcements Consumer

Legal-Bay Lawsuit Funding Announces “Feed or Fund” Donation / Promotion to Feed Families in April

CALDWELL, N.J., April 13, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Legal-Bay, the nation's leading lawsuit settlement funding company, announced today that they have committed to providing coronavirus relief with their new "feed or fund" program. Plaintiffs who may be seeking legal funding are now being given even more incentive to apply for a settlement loan with this latest unprecedented offer.

Families affected by the coronavirus may be unemployed right now, and Legal-Bay is determined to help them obtain their lawsuit settlement loans as soon as possible. The company is running a promotion for plaintiffs who have a pending lawsuit, but need cash now. The promotion will run from today until April 30, 2020, and works like this: Any clients that apply for a lawsuit loan or cash advance and are denied will be eligible to receive a $60 gift card to feed their family in this time of need. If your case is approved for funding, then Legal-Bay will proceed to fund you and you will not be eligible for the gift card.

To apply right now, please go to: http://lawsuitssettlementfunding.com or call 877.571.0405 where live agents are available 24 hours a day to assist you.

Chris Janish, CEO of Legal-Bay commented, "Unfortunately, people with pending lawsuits are already at a low point in their life, and having to deal with unemployment or illness due to Covid-19 is unimaginably difficult. Our 'feed or fund' promotion is geared toward letting plaintiffs know that we are open for business and able to fund them in this dire time.  And more importantly, if your case is denied you will not be left out in the cold, as we will be donating a $60 food card to any applicants who are denied legal funding over this period as well."

Legal-Bay has chosen Grubhub and Uber Eats along with other national vendors to assist them during this promotion because they can offer bulk gift cards quickly via email delivery to families in need. Legal-Bay expects to have all gift cards delivered electronically between May 1 and May 15.

The program is designed to add extra incentive to people who are at a particularly difficult time in life, or have been denied funding in the past because they have a prior contract. Legal-Bay is one of the best lawsuit funding companies because they accept applications on almost all lawsuits.  They are also the best legal funding company when it comes to large buyouts of prior lawsuit loans, whereas the original funding company has stopped funding.  Legal-Bay has a Best Price Guarantee for all their clients, so most times buyout cases can be refinanced at cheaper rates than the existing loan.  What this means is that it's possible to get an additional cash payment and yet still maintain the same payback terms. It costs nothing to inquire about refinancing options; the evaluation is free.

Here are just some of the cases that Legal-Bay will consider: Car and truck accidents, discrimination or wrongful termination, medical malpractice, sexual harassment and abuse, nursing home abuse, wrongful imprisonment, police brutality, labor law or construction accidents, Jones Act or maritime law, Fela or train accidents, personal injury, verdict on appeal cases, commercial litigation funding, civil cases involving general negligence, wrongful death, Hernia Mesh, IVC Filters, Round Up, Essure, attorney case cost funding, breach of contract, slip, trip, and falls, premise liability and more.

The legal process can be slow-moving, and many plaintiffs have not yet considered the financial strain they will incur as they wait for their cases to settle.  With courts closed down for many months due to Covid-19, it is anticipated that most civil lawsuits will be delayed for even longer than normally expected.  If you're wondering how you will get through this period of economic and employment uncertainty, it may be time to consider pre-settlement funding as a viable cash option.

The application process couldn't be easier, and if your case is approved, you can expect to receive your presettlement money within 24 hours. Plaintiffs are often pressured into settling lawsuits at a much lower sum than what they may actually receive at the trial, but the right funding company can keep this from happening by buying plaintiffs time to obtain a fair settlement. Procuring cash funding in advance of a final ruling can be a valuable tool if used properly.  There are no credit checks or out of pocket expenses, and even if you are out of work or unemployed we can help you based on the strength of your case.  Many businesses like a Baker operation or people on Street need funding, and can apply regardless of their employment status.

To qualify for the free gift card the following items are contingent:

  1. You must be a new applicant, existing clients do not qualify
  2. Legal-Bay must receive all required documents from your law firm and have access to speak to your lawyer to adequately evaluate your case
  3. Cases that are approved for funding for any amount are not eligible for a gift card

Again, if your law firm is unable or unwilling to participate in the evaluation process then you will not qualify for the gift card. To learn more, please view CEO Chris Janish's message about the "Feed or Fund" promotion on YouTube by clicking HERE.

Legal-Bay urges anyone that knows a family member in need of coronavirus relief and has a pending lawsuit to forward this information to them immediately. Pre settlement funding will help to lift the burden through this trying time. A simple phone call could change their financial circumstances within a matter of days.

To apply right now, please go to: http://lawsuitssettlementfunding.com or call 877.571.0405 where live agents are available 24 hours a day to assist you. "Legal-Bay is just a call away."

Disclaimer - Legal-Bay's funding programs are non-recourse cash advances, and although many plaintiffs refer to them as loans, they are not a lawsuit loan, lawsuit loans, settlement loan or settlement loans of any kind. The risk-free cash advances are unlike a loan because if you lose your case you do not need to repay the advance.

Commercial Investor's Corner Slingshot Capital Special Features

Covid-19 and Defendant Collectability Risk

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 SUMARY
  • Covid-19 will likely lead to the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression
  • The crisis has affected the solvency and viability of corporations and sovereigns
  • Litigation managers need to re-assess collectability risk, immediately and regularly, of each defendant in their portfolio
INVESTOR INSIGHTS
  • Diligencing litigation managers should involve a deep understanding of how they assess defendant collectability risk
  • Defendant collectability risk is an ongoing risk that changes over time, therefore managers need a continuous risk assessment methodology
  • Investors looking to invest in litigation finance secondaries to take advantage of the current dislocation should avoid single case risk and look to portfolio acquisitions, but must assess collectability risk across the portfolio being acquired
As Covid-19 has taken the planet and the legal community by surprise, I think there are some lessons learned from private equity that can be applied to litigation finance.  In short, focus on cash – its collection, generation, distribution and availability. So, how does this relate to Litigation Finance? This novel Coronavirus-driven healthcare crisis which has spiralled into a broad-based economic crisis, the likes of which the modern global economy hasn’t seen since the Great Depression, has had the effect of taking otherwise viable, profitable and cashflow positive businesses and stopping them in their tracks.  Overnight, certain businesses and industries have performed a complete one-eighty, whereby they went from solvent to being on the precipice of insolvency.  For many litigation finance firms, their immediate reaction has and should be to undertake an immediate and urgent review of the defendants involved in each and every case in which their portfolios have an investment, in order to re-assess collectability risk, one of the key areas of litigation finance underwriting. When an economy, especially a consumer driven economy like the US, effectively shuts down overnight, there are few industries and companies that will be spared from a diminution in their value and blockage from access to capital.  Former “recession-resistant” and “necessity” businesses have just experienced a new reality, which is that necessity is determined by context.  The current context states that the only necessity is feeding, hand washing, shelter and healthcare, and this has had a massive impact on the economy. While this too shall pass, the economic impacts will likely linger for a number of months and years.  The hope for a “V” shaped recovery has been dashed, as the crisis has extended beyond initial duration estimates.  My personal opinion is that it will at best look like a “U” shaped recovery with the possibility of a double “W”, meaning there will likely be some ups and downs along the way, should the dreaded “C-19” rear its ugly head again going into the next flu season, or should it fail to be contained due to premature ‘return to daily activity’ policy.  My hope is that the massive amounts of stimulus that are being pumped into the global economy actually make their way to the most hard-hit regions of the economy, namely ‘Mainstreet’, and thereby mitigate the damage that would otherwise be experienced for many small and medium-sized businesses on which most economies rely. While we tend to focus on home first, litigation funders should also be mindful that the economy is global.  As bad as developed countries think they may have it, fund managers who participate in the international arbitration market, which by definition, involve developing countries and corporations therein, need to be mindful that those defendants in developing countries will likely be even more greatly affected. Yes, even sovereigns. Those managers that are focused on patent litigation involving start-up technology companies should also ensure the plaintiff is solvent through the end of the litigation, not to mention the collectability risk of the defendant, which may have been negatively impacted. All of this is to say, that it is in the best interests of litigation finance managers to undertake a re-assessment of collectability risk of each and every defendant in their portfolio, and to do so on a regular basis for the foreseeable future.  Managers will need to assess (i) the degree to which the defendant’s industry has been impacted, (ii) the strength of each defendant’s business and balance sheet, (iii) the ability for the defendant (business or sovereign) to access sufficient capital to maintain solvency, (iv) the degree to which the value of such business has declined, (v) a study of the defendants’ behaviour during the last economic crisis, as it relates to litigation ongoing at that time, if any, (vi) determine the extent to which other parties have security and seniority ahead of the plaintiff’s claims and (vii) assess the defendants’ ability to raise capital outside of financing (i.e. asset sales, equity raises, etc.). Once a determination has been made as to the relative collectability risk, managers will then need to determine next steps with respect to protecting themselves from those cases where the defendant collectability risk has materially changed.  This may involve the withdrawal of any further financing provisions (to the extent the financing was milestone-based), partnering with other parties to share the increased risk of the case, or selling all or a portion of a case or a portfolio (although the manager would be selling into a weak secondary market with relatively few participants, which will be reflected in the valuation, if they can secure bids).  While the options may not be great, they may be better than investing ‘good money after bad’. Investor Insights For investors that are invested in the sector or considering making an investment in the litigation finance market, now is a good time to diligence how and the extent to which managers were on top of their portfolio in assessing collectability risk.  For those investors interested in secondary market opportunities, caveat emptor.  The risk profile for a single case secondary is much higher given the high level of uncertainty in today’s market so a portfolio of secondaries may be a better risk-adjusted avenue to pursue but the portfolio’s diversification benefits would not negate the need to reassess the collectability risk of each defendant in the portfolio.  Edward Truant is the founder of Slingshot Capital Inc., and an investor in the consumer and commercial litigation finance industry.
Commercial

Litigation Funding in Asia-Pacific Region

The growing influence of litigation finance in the global legal environment has led to increased regulation and certain ethical concerns. That said, funders, clients, and legal professionals are all feeling optimistic about the impact of lit fin in the future.  In addition, new markets are opening up in Asia-Pacific and elsewhere.  Burford Capital outlines trends in litigation funding around the world, checking in on where we’re headed and where we’ve been. In Australia, a report on third-party funding in class action suits recommended annual audits for funders. And in a surprising reversal of a 2016 decision, the HCA also found that common fund orders in open class action cases were no longer acceptable.   In Singapore, the biggest changes in come in the form of the Insolvency, Restructuring, and Dissolution Act. The changes are expected to increase the appeal and use of litigation funding in Singapore. This echoes an expected rise in third party funding in Hong Kong and India—which are both considered markets to watch in the coming year. Also in the coming year, Australia looks toward redefining class action case law, and specifically whether to disallow duplicative class actions. Financial experts there feel strongly that as financial tensions escalate around the world, litigation funding for class action suits will continue to increase. Elsewhere, Singapore and Korea are both poised for growth in funding—with cross-border disputes becoming more common. Korean companies are also availing themselves of third-party finance, especially in UK or US litigation.  It’s looking very much like Australia, Asia, and India can all expect to benefit from the increased use of litigation funding—as well as the continued refinement of its operational framework. 
Announcements Commercial

Omni Bridgeway Welcomes Raymond van Hulst to the Board

SYDNEY, 14 April 2020: Omni Bridgeway Limited (ASX:OBL) is delighted to announce the appointment of Raymond van Hulst to the Board of Directors, effective 9 April 2020. Mr van Hulst’s appointment follows the November 2019 merger of IMF Bentham and Omni Bridgeway and the adoption of the Omni Bridgeway name across the unified, global business. Mr van Hulst is a Managing Director of the Omni Bridgeway business that was acquired by OBL (then IMF Bentham Limited) in November 2019. Mr van Hulst has close to two decades of experience in structuring innovative solutions for complex and high value litigation funding and legal enforcement matters. He has a successful track record of managing the asset identification processes, enforcement strategies and settlement negotiations for multiple prominent (sovereign) awards and judgments. In addition, Mr van Hulst has established two institutionally backed funds (Fund 6 and Fund 7) aimed at funding legal disputes and enforcement matters, including with the International Finance Corporation, part of the World Bank. Before joining Omni Bridgeway, Mr van Hulst was with ABN AMRO Bank Structured Finance, based out of India and Europe and he holds an MBA from INSEAD. Mr van Hulst has been appointed as an additional director and will stand for election at the 2020 annual general meeting. Omni Bridgeway Chairman, Mr Michael Kay said: “I warmly welcome Raymond van Hulst to the Board as an executive director.  His leadership of Omni Bridgeway’s business in Europe and the Middle East and extensive global experience make him a valuable addition to our team.” ABOUT OMNI BRIDGEWAY Omni Bridgeway is a 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.
Commercial

Class Action Against Southern Response Could Surpass $400MM

Staggering data has emerged in the class action suit against Southern Response, showing that the liability of the New Zealand federal government could surpass $400MM. This estimate is based on the nearly 3,000 plaintiffs subjected to unlawful behavior by Southern Response—who had assumed responsibility for claims sold by private insurer AMI, which was liquidated in 2012.  As NZ Herald details, the case is being led by Maurice Blackburn and funded by Claims Funding Australia. The pair are representing those whose homes and property were damaged by earthquakes. Southern Response, a government-owned insurance company, was found to have failed to disclose the true cost of rebuilding after the quake.  In July of 2015, SR’s behavior was found to be unlawful by the Supreme Court. Still, they decided to settle claims from after October 1st.  The most surprising aspect of the data revealed is the amount of concealment from each policyholder, which is reported to be in the six-figure range. This case was conducted on an opt-out basis, so unless a claimant specifically declined to be part of the case, they were considered an active participant. The total recovery amount could top $400MM in damages and court costs.
Commercial Special Features

Litigation Finance Journal to Host Digital Conference on Impact of COVID-19 on Litigation Funding Industry

This publication will be hosting a special digital conference on April 16th, discussing the topic of COVID-19 and the impact it has had on the litigation funding and broader legal services industry. Guest speakers for the conference will include:

Eric Blinderman CEO (U.S.) Therium

Ralph Sutton Founder Validity Finance

Paul Haskel  Partner RK&O

Additional speakers to follow.

The panel discussion will be moderated by Ed Truant, founder of Slingshot Capital, and there will be a Q&A session with audience questions following the panel.

Here is the link to attend: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/how-is-covid-19-impacting-the-litigation-funding-industry-tickets-101938809724 Additionally, Eric Blinderman contributed a recent article discussing how the Coronavirus outbreak has forced businesses to adapt to help prevent further economic slowdown. We look forward to having you attend the conference! - The LFJ Team
Commercial

Insolvency Litigation in UK Market Tops GBP 1.5Bn

A new report from Wolverhampton University Professor Peter Walton shows a 50% increase in the UK insolvency litigation market over the last four years. Given the financial stress caused by COVID-19, we can only assume that the increase in insolvency litigation will continue apace.  Directors Talk Interviews points out that Walton’s study, commissioned by Manolete Partners Plc, found that about half of the 173 legal professionals surveyed believe that third-party funding is preferable for insolvency cases. This type of funding keeps balance sheets balanced and leads to faster dispute resolution.   Walton, considered the foremost authority on insolvency litigation in the UK, also found that litigation finance is now a vital and integral facet of the legal system. In fact, it’s considered a go-to funding option for claims that, before 2016, would have utilized conditional fee arrangements. After changes implemented in the so-called Jackson Reforms, CFAs were less desirable to clients. In fact, three out of five IP attorneys now use third-party funders more frequently than before.   Walton’s study demonstrates clearly that litigation funding should be one of many tools in the IP lawyer's toolbox to ensure that creditors are compensated for losses. This represents a distinct shift away from CFA arrangements, which can leave parties on the hook for expenses after the conclusion of a case. Walton’s report focused predominantly on the Jackson Reforms, and how they impact the progression of insolvency cases. Manolete, who commissioned Walton’s study, is a leader in the insolvency litigation market with a 67% share.  
Commercial

Burford Claims Global Litigation Finance Association is Coming Later This Year

Burford Capital, a worldwide leader in legal finance, has announced the development of a global association for commercial legal finance. Expectations are that it will be finalized before summer is out. As Burford Capital’s website reports, legal finance is increasing in popularity, and firms and funders around the world have adapted to this new normal. As Burford’s second decade approaches, the firm has announced that a global association for commercial legal finance is in the works - and has been for over a year.  This announcement comes on the heels of broad acceptance of the funding industry worldwide. Often, media coverage implies that legal finance is in need of stricter regulation. Yet when looking at worldwide trends in the industry, governing bodies don’t seem to feel that micromanagement of terms is needed. To most of the world, litigation funding is another tool in a legal toolbox that cannot be improved by excessive regulation.  Australia’s legal world has undergone a good deal of policy review, and the jurisdiction has enacted a few bills that keep government out of the details of funding arrangements. Aside from some class actions, the restrictions are not believed to be damaging to current lit fin practices. In Hong King, the justice department has initiated a study of fee arrangements to determine if further regulation is needed. Hong Kong is known for holding a tight leash when it comes to legal fees.  India is considered a market to watch in 2020, as Indian laws regarding insolvency have recently changed. This is especially important due to COVID-19 precautions impacting industries across the board. We can presume that if the predicted spike in litigation occurs after the pandemic, India (and Singapore, where much Indian arbitration takes place) will be a hotbed of legal activity. Developments around the world have spurred Burford’s desire to lead a global association. They’re confident that as lit fin becomes a more standard facet of law, the global community will band together to find the best solutions for clients and investors. 
Commercial Special Features

Litigation Funding May Be a Lifeline for Businesses and Law Firms Distressed by Coronavirus Shutdown

The following piece was contributed by Joshua Libling, Portfolio Counsel at Validity Finance, LLC. Litigation finance has always billed itself as a way of helping meritorious claims regardless of the economic strength of the litigant. The coronavirus pandemic is now exerting enormous and growing stress on law firms and clients. If ever there was a moment for litigation finance to live up to its own hype, this is it. We think it can. Keeping Plaintiff Cases Running at Reduced Cost.  Paying hourly fees to a law firm may be low on the priority list when weighed against retaining key employees or preserving cash for an economic re-start. But having the right priorities doesn’t change the fact that clients with pending claims deserve to see an appropriate return.  Funders can assist in at least two ways. First, by converting hourly rate cases into hybrid contingency fee cases, clients can continue litigating claims without outlaying funds. Funders will pay law firms 50% or more of their hourly fees and potentially all costs, as needed, in return for about 20% of any recovery.  The law firm would also be entitled to a similar contingency, leaving clients with the bulk of the case proceeds. This can be good for both the client and the law firm. The client gets to reduce its expenditures. The law firm takes or continues a case that may have become a de facto contingency case anyway because of the client’s resources constraints, or may have disappeared altogether, and gets 50% of its billables paid now with participation in the upside later. Second, economic pressures unrelated to the merits of the litigation can cause clients to accept unreasonably low settlement offers.  Sometimes settling is the right thing to do.  But settling for too little is no different than any other asset fire-sale. A funder can help by ensuring that the resources exist to continue the litigation, if that is the best course. Again, this should help all parties. The client doesn’t sell an asset on the cheap, and the law firm protects a meritorious ongoing case. Monetizing New Plaintiff Cases.  This is a time when many clients need to be taking a hard look at their balance sheets and maximizing their assets. A meritorious claim is an asset, but it is an unproductive asset unless you litigate it. Funding can help monetize a company’s litigation assets. Even in the pre-litigation, investigation stage, funders can assist in identifying claims, independently confirming case merits, connecting clients without lawyers to a small group of suitable and efficient counsel to choose from, and making the necessary investments to effectively pursue the case. In fair funding transactions, clients will still retain the lion’s share of the upside. Because a funder’s capital is non-recourse to any other collateral, this kind of arrangement offers  upside opportunity without downside risk to a client, and a contingency recovery to the law firm. Clients can take a litigation asset they would otherwise get nothing from, turn it into something productive, and minimize risk while doing so. Helping Defendants With Trouble Paying.  The lack of capital and decreased ability to tolerate outflows is not limited to the plaintiff side of the v. Law firms are seeing clients unable or unwilling to properly fund their defense, and clients are being faced with difficult trade offs between continuing to defend their legal rights and directing that capital to their core business needs. Funding can help these clients and law firms also. Defense-side cases can be turned into partial contingency matters through the negotiation of success fees or similar arrangements that define and monetize what victory means on the defense side. Funding can draw its return from that success fee and pay a portion of defense costs to the law firm in the interim, reducing the burden on the client (perhaps to nothing during the pendency of litigation) and providing the law firm with a reliable stream of paid work. Bundling Plaintiff and Defense Cases to Reduce Fee Exposure.  Law firms and clients look forward to inflows of proceeds from strong plaintiff cases.  Clients must defend claims against them.  By bundling plaintiff and defense-side litigation together, funding provides capital for both affirmative claims and defensive needs. In effect, the client uses the value of the plaintiff-side litigations to reduce their costs on the defense side, thereby reducing outlays and smoothing their risk profile.  Most obviously, the risk of continuing fee exposure can be greatly mitigated. This can work at the law firm level as well as the client level. Enhancing Law Firm Growth. Law firms will need to pitch to companies facing just the kind of liquidity or capital issues that funders can help solve. Law firms with pre-existing relationships and in-place portfolios with funders will have a competitive edge because they can offer contingency fee arrangements at the outset of the competitive process. Funding can thus speed up client matter acquisition. Funding is not limited to plaintiff-side litigations. A firm that has a stable of plaintiff-side contingency cases can use those litigations, and funding, to create bundled portfolios of mixed defense-plaintiff matters. Moreover, funding can provide a mechanism for investing in firm growth, allowing firms to share the risk of large portfolios of cases, or even to hire new partners to bring business to the firm. Difficult times call for creative solutions and new ways of doing business. But being creative doesn’t have to mean doing something untested. In the United States, litigation funding has been providing increased liquidity and decreased risk to companies and firms for over a decade. In Australia and the United Kingdom, funding has been used effectively for even longer. Litigation assets should not be squandered, nor sold for bargain basement prices, nor made to sit idle for months or years when clients urgently need capital. The time for funding to make a significant contribution to clients and firms is now.  If you have litigation assets and need to extract value from them, or need to reduce your litigation costs or risks, this is the moment to be creative.  Funding can help.
Announcements Commercial

Robert Capper Joins Ankura as Senior Managing Director, Bolstering Firm’s Complex Investigations Expertise

NEW YORK, April 7, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Ankura, a global business advisory and expert services firm, today announced its appointment of Robert Capper as Senior Managing Director. Based in London, Mr. Capper bolsters Ankura's complex investigations capabilities for clients in Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA), Asia and globally. A former member of the British Intelligence Services, Mr. Capper specializes in high-profile sovereign disputes and asset tracing, as well as fraud and white-collar crime investigations.

Mr. Capper developed his unique expertise by serving over many years a diverse clientele ranging from law firms and multinational companies to sovereign states and government agencies. Prior to joining Ankura, he spent five years at Burford Capital, the world's largest litigation financing provider, as a Vice President leading the firm's consultancy asset tracing and investigations team. Mr. Capper also spent eight years with the British Intelligence Services, focusing on counterintelligence and counter terrorism investigations with an emphasis on North and West Africa.

"We are pleased to welcome Robert to our team as we continue to strengthen and deepen our investigations capabilities for clients across all geographies," said Simon Michaels, Chairman of EMEA and APAC at Ankura. "One of our greatest assets is the diverse experiences and perspectives that our people bring to each project, and we're committed to investing in and integrating into our global Ankura team professionals with one-of-a-kind credentials like Robert. His extensive background in investigations and asset tracing coupled with his experience as a former British Intelligence Services officer will provide our clients with unique insight and expertise as we help them with their investigations."

"I am incredibly excited to have the opportunity to join Ankura and work with such an established team of talented and dedicated professionals," said Robert Capper. "I was drawn to Ankura's collaborative, client-focused culture. I look forward to adding my skills and advancing Ankura's complex investigations capabilities around the world."

Mr. Capper holds an MSc in International Relations from the University of Bristol, a PGDip in Terrorism Studies from the University of Edinburgh, and a BA (with honors) in History from the University of Bristol.

About Ankura

Ankura is a global business advisory and expert services firm defined by HOW we solve challenges. Whether a client is facing an immediate business challenge, trying to increase the value of their company or protect against future risks, Ankura designs, develops, and executes tailored solutions by assembling the right combination of expertise. We help clients navigate a wide range of corporate performance and risk management challenges, including those pertaining to compliance, investigations, forensics, technology, turnaround and restructuring, and corporate strategy. We build on this experience with every case, client, and situation, collaborating to create innovative, customized solutions, and strategies designed for today's ever-changing business environment. This gives our clients unparalleled insight and experience across a wide range of economic, governance, and regulatory challenges. At Ankura, we know that collaboration drives results. For more information, please visit: www.ankura.com.

Consumer Special Features

Utah Legislators Are an Example of How it is Done Right

This article was contributed by Eric Schuller, President of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC). In today’s “us vs. them” political environment, it is refreshing to see exceptions in the state of Utah.  I saw one example of people working together in the political environment during Utah’s most recent legislative session. Utah Representative James Dunnigan introduced a bill (HB 312), with the purpose of creating some guardrails around the Consumer Legal Funding industry. This industry helps needy consumers receive financial assistance on a pending legal claim, as they wait for their case to make its way through the legal process.  This is not a service that many people know about, but it is an important one to consumers who are trying to make ends meet, while waiting for an accident claim to make its way through what is often a long and cumbersome legal process. To his credit, Representative Dunnigan immediately brought together all of the stakeholders in the industry and crafted a bill that will not only allow this service to be available to the consumers of Utah, it also puts in place strong regulations to protect Utah consumers . The new statute, which goes into effect on May 12, will require companies in our industry to simply register with the state, clearly disclose all fees associated with their product, and ensure that consumers and state officials have recourse against any company not following the law.  In short, it will essentially eliminate what we call the “bad actors” in the industry. HB 312, now called the “Maintenance Funding Practices Act”, is a piece of legislation that should be applauded. It took into consideration the needs both of business community, while also ensuring that Utah consumers are fully protected. In my role as President of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC), I deal with legislatures all across the country. It is quite rare to see a bill sponsor start the process the way Representative Dunnigan did—hearing all sides of the issue, working to find a careful balancing, and then passing legislation with which everyone can agree. As an industry, we appreciate both Representative Jim Dunnigan and Senator Curt Bramble (the Senate floor sponsor) for taking the time to look out for both Utah consumers as well as the business community.  We applaud their collaborative approach to solving difficult issues and would love to see this “Utah Approach” to legislation take place in so many other states across the country. Eric Schuller President Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC) http://arclegalfunding.org/
Commercial

Will the Arkin Cap Ruling Impact Funder Confidence?

It’s rare to see rulings that specifically address the finer points of litigation funding and remuneration therein. In February of this year, however, a pair of separate rulings have garnered mass attention.  The Law Society Gazette reports that the Arkin cap rule is being redefined by the precedent set in the case of ChapelGate Credit Opportunity Master Fund Limited v Money (and others). The Arkin cap refers to a 2005 provision which limits a funder’s liability for costs to the amount that was initially invested in the case. This means that despite how much a funder might stand to win from funding successful litigation, they’d be protected from excessive financial liability if they wind up on the losing side.   In the ChapelGate case, the judge ruled that applying the Arkin cap was not automatic. So even though the cap might be applied in some cases, a mandatory application across the board is not in the interest of fairness. The thinking is that the Arkin cap is best applied when funding is provided for a specific part of the case—like expert testimony or a PI.  Later, the Court of Appeal laid out more specific guidelines for applying the cap. That decision asserted that when determining whether or not the cap should be applied, courts must consider not just the investment, but the potential recovery as well.   In the wake of Arkin, industry analysts are now asking whether the ruling will impact funder confidence, and hinder investment into otherwise meritorious claims.  
Commercial Special Features

Stimulus for The Legal Industry

The following piece was contributed by Louis Young, Managing Director of Augusta Ventures.  The Legal Services industry, like many others, is today racing to come to terms with the implications of coronavirus. A range of impacts have been felt to date, including cases being put on hold, staffing concerns and critically, cash flow issues. With clients under pressure, bills aren’t being paid and pipeline looks increasingly uncertain. Alongside this, law firms have high fixed costs, particularly staff, so income is urgently needed. Whilst well-managed firms will have a limited cash buffer, leaders now need to look at all sources of finance. There are three challenges: Firstly, they will want to identify the best way to keep firms afloat in the short term of the lock-down without taking on crippling long-term debts. Secondly, they will want to ensure whatever action they take does not damage client relationships. And thirdly, they will want to position for growth for when the crisis eventually subsides. Litigation funding could be the solution that many law firms seek to all three challenges. In all likelihood, the greatest fall in law firm revenues will be in their corporate and commercial practices. These businesses are usually the mainstay of a firm – offering steady, regular income. In normal times, this reliable revenue streams helps to subsidise more volatile practices including disputes. One option for corporate teams is to seek payment of outstanding invoices. The challenge here is that clients are themselves under pressure. Partners will, therefore, be reluctant to squeeze long time clients in such difficult circumstances, when it has taken many years to cultivate these relationships. Another source of funds may naturally be preferable. Today, the signs are that disputes work is increasing in importance for many firms as a source of income for partnerships as a whole. The challenge however is the lumpy, often delayed nature of revenue from litigation work. Third-party funding offers a solution to this challenge. Law firms may consider introducing a funder to their key clients to seek funding of the corporate’s portfolio of cases. This would allow the client to move forward with cases that might otherwise be on hold for cash flow reasons. It could also allow the firm to pick up work that wouldn’t normally come their way. And it would ensure that the law firm gets paid today, rather than many months down the line, thereby avoiding taking on external debt or damaging precious relationships. A key difference between such third-party funding and traditional bank finance is the impact on the client’s balance sheet. Bank loans are liabilities requiring repayment by the client in any eventuality. Litigation finance on the other hand is non-recourse. Whatever the outcome of a case, the lawyers’ fees are paid by the funder and can include both costs incurred to date, and time yet to be recorded. Should a case be lost, the client does not bear any liability for the law firm’s fees. And when a case is won (70%+ of funded cases usually are), the client receives a substantial return. In this way, lawsuits can be converted by clients from an onerous liability, into a potentially valuable asset. And the client is likely to thank the law firm for introducing this solution, providing the choice of funder is appropriate. Established litigation funders have effective case management processes in place. Often combining analytical and legal skill, they assess cases on a variety of bases including not only the legal merits, but also the financial dynamics of the claim and the defendant’s ability to pay. And well-managed funders participate in the self-regulatory body ALF - the Association of Litigation Funders. Here they undertake to act transparently, fairly and to ensure appropriate returns for claimants. ALF membership demonstrates a commitment to good governance and fair businesses practices akin to established insurers. Law firms will want to protect their reputations and client relationships in selecting funders to introduce. The time for law firm leaders to act is now. As businesses of all types seek to mitigate the impact of the coronavirus, many investments and activities will be put on hold. Such decisions around legal cases may however be reversed if corporate leaders were able to obtain third-party funding that would not strain their balance sheets. Lawyers who are able to introduce such an option now, would not only win valuable guaranteed fees today, but cement or even develop new client relationships for the long term. When the turmoil of COVID-19 subsides, hopefully sooner rather than later, the law firms best positioned for growth will be those who provided value to their clients through the lock-down.
Announcements Consumer Covid-19

Baker Street Funding Is Experiencing A 50% Increase In Lawsuit Funding Applications Due To COVID-19 Pandemic

Baker Street Funding announced today as a result of the effects of the global pandemic, COVID-19 and because of the unprecedented global shutdown of business activities, many people (including people who depended on Baker Street Funding) do not have the opportunity to earn an income. Baker Street Funding has increased their funding applications by 50%.

The funding firm is advancing people money with strong cases and attorney representation. Post and pre-settlement funding, attorney funding, commercial litigation funding and surgery funding for injured victims applications have increased.

A lot of times, personal injury victims need financial help because of the prolonged nature of battles with the defendant’s insurance company. This kind of situation can put the plaintiff in a financial crisis. Baker Street Funding comes in and helps you get through this tough period until you can finalize your settlement. By receiving lawsuit funding, you can make a positive impact in your own life, especially during this global pandemic.

A Baker Street Funding representative reported that the increase in their lawsuit funding applications is based on people not being able to plan for the lockdown because of its “sudden” nature. Just like everyone else, they are forced to work from home and offer legal funding services at a time when there is a spike in demand. This situation is unprecedented in the industry, and it will be interesting to see how it will all play out.

Baker Street Funding encourages anyone who is or will be a plaintiff in litigation to contact them for a consultation and to apply. The application process is quick and easy to complete and does not require plaintiffs to undergo unnecessary checks nor have any type of human contact, this can be done while the plaintiff is at home. If the case is lost, plaintiffs owe nothing.

About Baker Street Funding

Headquartered in NYC, and opening a new office in Naples, Florida, Baker Street Funding was created to establish the most user-friendly, simple legal funding process. They partner up with a high-level team of individuals combining passionate team members with some of the best underwriters in the industry to create an easy legal funding process. They have a unique ability in the legal finance industry that sets them apart from the competition by virtue of their strategic partnerships with major players within the market. They have a diversified risk portfolio, select investor base, superior underwriting team and extensive expertise and education.
Announcements Commercial

Stans Energy Signs Cooperation Agreement with Finance Providers

TORONTO, ON / ACCESSWIRE / April 6, 2020 / Stans Energy Corp. (HRE.V)(HREEF) ("Stans" or the "Company") is pleased to announce that it has entered into a Cooperation agreement with its Finance Providers to secure financing for the Award recognition and enforcement proceedings. This Agreement is an extension of the existing Litigation funding agreement of March 2018, and its main terms provide for the following:

  • Stans assigns all its rights to title to and interest in the Award and the Costs Order (by the High Court of Justice of England) to the Finance Providers.
  • Parties to the Cooperation agreement will cooperate in all matters pertaining to recognition and enforcement proceedings relating to the Award and the Costs Order.
  • The Finance Providers bear full responsibility for all collection activities with respect to the Award and the Costs Order
  • If the proceeds of the Award and the Costs Order are collected, then the Finance Providers shall pay the Stans an amount equal to US$500,000.

Update on the Status of the Lobash-1 Gold-Copper Project

The initial review by Stans of the documentation of the Lobash-1 gold-copper project produced the following results:

  1. The current status of the Mine Licensing Agreement for the Lobash-1 property, held by the JSC "Promnedra-Regions", is being confirmed with the Russian State Sub-soil Agency.
  2. Since exploration began in 1980, 100 exploration drill holes totalling over 23,000 m of core have been completed on the Lobash-1 property. Of these, analytical results from core from 43 drill holes completed in 2009, were used to prepare mineral resource estimates for the property.
  3. The preliminary C2 Category mineral resource estimates of the Russian Federation Standard for the Lobash-1 property, as approved by the Russian State Reserves Committee in its report of February 17, 2010, are reported in the Company's Press Release of February 27, 2020.
  4. The mineral resource estimates for the Lobash-1 project are not NI 43-101 compliant and should not be relied upon.

The Company is continuing its due diligence of the data including exploration and metallurgical test results, as well as the mineral resource estimates, while waiting for licensing issues to be cleared.

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

About Stans Energy

Stans Energy Corp. is a resource development company focused on advancing rare and specialty metals properties and processing technologies. Stans is now transitioning to become a supplier of materials and technologies that will assist in satisfying the future energy supply, storage and transmission needs of the world. Previously, the Company acquired, among other things, the right to mine the past producing rare earth mine, Kutessay II, in the Kyrgyz Republic. Due to the expropriation actions taken by the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic, the Company proceeded with the international arbitration litigation to protect the Company's rights and in August 2019 won the Award for damages at over US$24,000,000 plus interest.

Announcements Consumer

USClaims Again Named Best Consumer Litigation Funding Provider

DELRAY BEACH, Fla., April 6, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- DRB Financial Solutions, LLC, is pleased to announce that its subsidiary, USClaims (www.USClaims.com), America's premier pre-settlement funding company, was recently chosen as America's "Best Consumer Litigation Funding Provider"  by the audience of Corporate Counsel, the leading national legal and business news publication for in-house counsel at global companies.

The reader ranking survey is directed by The National Law Journal, which asks its readers to help recognize the best legal service providers in the industry. This year's ballot consisted of more than 59 categories ranging from law firm marketing and communications to technology, litigation support, accounting, banking, and insurance.

The landmark victory is USClaims' first with Corporate Counsel and comes as the company continues to expand its presence westward from its offices in New Jersey and Florida.   USClaims has consistently been recognized as best-in-class across the nation, including California, Georgia, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington DC.

"Thank you for your votes and confidence in USClaims as your preferred funding company. We are committed to our mission of providing necessary funds to plaintiffs so you, their attorney, has the time to pursue fair settlements," stated Donna Lee Jones, Esq., President of USClaims.

USClaims, established in 1996, is the longest continuously operating pre-settlement funding firm in the United States and has been consistently voted among the best in the nation.  In 2019 alone, USClaims earned first place rankings by the audience of The National Law Journal in several categories, including "Best Law Firm Funding Provider," "Best Case Funding [pre-settlement]," "Best Consumer Litigation Funding Provider" and several "Hall of Fame" awards.

In 2014, a Florida-based specialty finance company, DRB Financial Solutions, LLC, acquired the business, a move that has enabled USClaims to assist more customers than ever before.  The company offers plaintiffs who are waiting on a lawsuit settlement the opportunity to receive cash before their case is resolved. There are no out of pocket cost, the transactions are non-recourse to the claimant, do not require a credit check, and – best of all – nothing is owed unless the claim is successful.

For additional information on USClaims' pre-settlement funding, please call (877) 872-5246 or visit USClaims.com. Funding is subject to approval and is not available in every state.

About USClaims: USClaims (USClaims.com) provides litigation funding for plaintiffs, attorneys, and surgeries.  Its flagship offering is providing non-recourse financial support to personal injury victims, some of whom may have suffered catastrophic injuries from defective products, unsafe premises, motor vehicle accidents, and other types of accidents. This financial support provides the injured plaintiff the means to pay bills and endure the often long and arduous litigation process.

About DRB Financial Solutions, LLC, (DRB) provides liquidity solutions to individuals and small/medium-sized businesses holding high quality but illiquid assets. Having raised over $1 billion in capital and developed a robust origination platform, DRB is a market leader in four major lines of business:  CRG Financial, (CRGFinancial.com), Producer Advance (ProducerAdvance.com), USClaims (USClaims.com), and DRB Capital (DRBCapital.com).

Commercial Special Features

A Prognosis for Civil Litigation in the U.S.

The following piece was contributed by Eric Blinderman, Chief Executive Officer (U.S.) at Therium Capital Management. This piece was originally published on Mr. Blinderman's LinkedIn page.  To learn more about Therium and their U.S. operations, visit them at their website.  Approximately two weeks ago, the world as we know it changed. Every assumption that governed our daily lives was uprooted. Grabbing a bite to eat with friends stopped. For most, commuting to work ceased. Touching an elevator button became tinged with the fear of contracting an unknown disease. Riding a subway and hearing the person next to you cough caused panic. Stock markets collapsed and businesses across the country simply shut their doors, laying off millions. Courts shut down.
Those who were merely frightened but kept their jobs were the lucky ones. The unlucky ones lost their jobs, or worse, were infected with this mysterious disease called COVID-19 and began an unthinkable journey from which many have recovered but others have not. In spite of these upheavals, businesses are attempting to adapt. Those with jobs are continuing to perform their duties, albeit in large part from home. And life continues. Making sense of these changes and their impact remains challenging but is also important so that people can plan, take steps to minimize harm, and protect themselves and their livelihoods from continued disruption to the extent possible. That is where we are today. But it may help to keep in mind, as California Governor Gavin Newsom has said, that this pandemic occupies only a moment in time. At some point, we will come out the other side. For those who find solace in contemplating that future, here is our prognosis for the short-and longer-term effects of COVID-19 on litigants, law firms, and the litigation finance industry.

Litigants

In the short term: Already, the coronavirus outbreak has given rise to lawsuits tied directly to the disease or to the economic disruptions that have followed. Restaurants and other business simply seeking to survive have filed suit against their insurers to recover some portion of their losses. Class action lawyers have filed suit against Norwegian Cruise lines which allegedly told sales reps to lie about passengers’ risk of contracting the virus. Investors have also sued a biotech company for claiming it could develop a COVID-19 vaccine in three hours, while other class action lawyers have filed suit against Germ X, which made advertising claims that its hand sanitizer protected against coronavirus. These claims represent the smallest fraction of suits that will likely get filed and which lawyers will litigate for years to come. Beyond this immediate burst of litigation, the judicial system needs to begin functioning anew. At present, dozens of federal courts throughout the country are closed or have delayed trials while approximately 30 state court systems and the District of Columbia have followed suit. Indeed, the Supreme Court postponed oral arguments on more than a dozen cases for the first time since the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic. Once the judicial system restarts (and it will), the new normal of how lawyers and clients litigate will change at least for the short term to medium term. Already, courts, arbitration tribunals, and mediators are requesting that litigants refrain from attending in-person hearings or trials in favor of video proceedings. Ignoring the ramification of these closures on the criminal justice system for a moment and focusing on civil litigation, every practitioner has to ask whether such alterations in how the practice of law is conducted will become regularized and how such disruptions might impact the cases they are presently prosecuting. In the longer term: When COVID-19 reached America, half a trillion dollars in M&A deals were waiting to close. All of those deals are now imperiled, with buyers as deep-pocketed as Volkswagen (which had inked a deal for U.S. truck maker Navistar) expressing reservations about going through with them. It appears a near certainty that a massive wave of disputes over the duty to consummate these deals and perform other contracts will occupy the courts for years. Fewer than 10% of force majeure clauses contain a carve out for pandemics, leaving ample room for argument over that doctrine, as well as defenses like impossibility, impracticability, and frustration of purpose. Conventional wisdom holds that economic slowdowns are accompanied by a compensating increase in litigation, which smooths out the economic ride for those connected to the legal profession. These contractual disputes could bear that wisdom out. But they aren’t likely to if courts remain closed for an extended period. Also, while remaining humble about my ability to predict the future, I will point to this unfortunately prescient piece about the impact of a recession on BigLaw, which I wrote in late December. There, I discussed that conventional wisdom did not hold in the Great Recession; demand for litigation was down in 2008, 2009, and 2010. The most likely reason was fear: “As corporate resources become more precious in a recession, general counsel may have been spooked by the thought of spending them on cases – even strong and valuable ones – only to lose.”

Law firm litigation departments

Short term: At the moment, law firms do not have the luxury of thinking far into the future. They are busy staying operational in our current, locked-down state. With so many lawyers and staff working from home, multiple AmLaw 50 firms have experienced network capacity issues. Normally, the impact of slowing economic activity takes time to hit law firms, but this situation appears different. While law firm mergers did not fall off in 2008 or 2009, for instance, the current disruption to the M&A market appears to have hit firms with full force. The merger between Troutman Sanders and Pepper Hamilton, for instance, has been delayed to July 1. Longer term: The expected boom in contractual disputes may provide a cushion of sorts for litigation-focused law firms. But most litigation departments, particularly at AmLaw200 firms, are sitting in a life raft with any number of other practice groups, some of which could get heavy in a recession or depression. This experience will prove a stiff test of how well law firms learned the lessons of the Great Recession. Many responded by diversifying their practice mix and improving their balance sheets. Already, however, law firms are asking banks for credit line increases at a rate six times higher than this time last year. That’s a warning sign that law firms, like their clients, are experiencing cashflow challenges. The biggest outgoing flow, of course, is compensation. Law firms had just begun to loosen the spigot a bit, with promotions increasing 20% between 2018 and 2019. Now, it seems clear that if and when COVID-19 impacts stretch into their fourth, fifth, and sixth month—if not sooner—layoffs will occur and firms that do not maintain strong balance sheets will not survive.  

Litigation funding

Short term: For corporate plaintiffs and law firms with claims to prosecute and who are facing immediate and pressing cash flow needs, litigation finance offers a potential to relieve at least some degree of uncertainty. That’s not to say that litigation finance will emerge from the pandemic as the answer to every problem. To this point, investors have been attracted to litigation finance in part because its returns are not correlated to the broader economic cycle. The value of a products liability case, after all, does not depend on what happened to the Dow last week. We’re realizing now, however, that there is a limit on that lack of correlation. The disruption from COVID-19 is so severe—shuttering courts, stopping trials—that it is pausing returns on lawsuits as it pauses the rest of the economy. Longer term: The legal industry has been incorporating novel ways to manage risk while seeking to redefine the billable hour business model for decades. Without doubt, the economic impact of recent events will likely accelerate this shift and provide litigation finance companies an opportunity to partner more robustly in this process with law firms and corporate entities large and small. For example, large firms that had to lay off attorneys may consider litigation funding as a way to further diversify their workload and keep cashflow coming to stave off additional cuts in the future. Similarly, attorneys lacking the security of a big law job and failing to qualify for conventional recourse capital will likely turn to litigation finance companies to seed their practices and to develop entirely new firms. Equally as important, larger corporate entities may begin to see the value of entering into more long-term dedicated facility arrangements with litigation finance companies as a hedge against lean economic times while small mom and pop business rely upon such arrangements to free up cash flow for recovery, growth, and expansion. Ultimately, this is all speculation. COVID-19 has already laughed at the plans many of us had for this year. We know only this: that the virus will pass, and that until then, we very much look forward to the day when lawsuits are our biggest concerns.
Announcements Commercial

Delta Capital Partners Management Announces New Senior Executive

April 6, 2020, Chicago IL--Delta Capital Partners Management LLC, a global private equity firm specializing in litigation and legal finance, today announced the hiring of a new senior executive. Gabriel Olearnik has been hired as a Managing Director to lead Delta’s business in Europe and is based in London and Warsaw. Prior to joining Delta, Mr. Olearnik was the General Counsel of a major private equity firm in London and was previously a Partner and Chair of the Private Equity Practice Group at Kochanski & Partners, a leading independent European law firm. Prior to these roles, Mr. Olearnik was an attorney at Dentons, Mayer Brown, and Clifford Chance in London and Continental Europe. Christopher DeLise, Delta’s Founder, CEO and CO-CIO, stated, “Delta continues to meet key business objectives for 2020 by hiring top-tier professionals and building out our geographic footprint. These developments continue to strengthen Delta’s business and competitive advantages in key markets. The hiring of Gabriel Olearnik materially enhances our capabilities across Europe and demonstrates our ongoing commitment to providing unparalleled service to claimants, law firms, professional service providers, and other end-users of litigation and legal finance in those important regions. We are pleased to have someone with Gabriel’s talent and experience joining Delta’s senior management team.” Mr. Olearnik is joining Delta at a very important time as the firm continues to expand to meet the growing liquidity and other financing needs of law firms, businesses, private investment funds, and individual claimants affected by recent macroeconomic developments, including those resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Demand for Delta’s proprietary liquidity solutions (DLS) has skyrocketed over the past month, including those involving litigation-collateralized loans (LCLs), term loans and draw-down facilities. 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 de-risk, significantly enhance the probability of a successful and timely resolution of claims, and/or maximize the effectiveness of their businesses.
Announcements Commercial

James Foster joins Litigation Capital Management (LCM) in London

AIM-listed Litigation Capital Management Limited, a leading international provider of litigation financing solutions, is pleased to announce the hire of seasoned disputes practitioner and third-party finance expert James Foster as an Investment Manager based in London. James brings to LCM more than 25 years of experience of litigation and dispute resolution in the building and construction sector and has been involved in some of the world’s most challenging construction projects in major commercial hubs such as Dubai, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam. Before transitioning to litigation finance, James was a partner of the international law firm Gowling WLG and has more recently held the title of head of international arbitration with a London-based litigation funder. Commenting on James’ hire, LCM’s Executive Vice Chairman Nick Rowles-Davies said: “James has a formidable reputation in the market and having known him for several years, I am delighted to welcome him at such an exciting time of expansion for LCM, which includes our recent close of a new US$150m third-party fund.” Chief Executive Officer Patrick Moloney adds: “The hire of James presents a significant opportunity for LCM in relation to single-case funding, but, more particularly, as a valuable asset in considering corporate portfolio applications. Presently, LCM is receiving a large volume of applications for corporate portfolios from the global building and construction sector and James brings a particular skillset to LCM which will assist us greatly in considering those applications.” James Foster commented: “I am delighted to be joining LCM at such an exciting point in its growth and development. I know the LCM team both from my time in private practice and from their outstanding individual reputations in the market and so I am very pleased to be part of that team going forward. LCM’s international and sector focuses are a strong match for my own experience as a law firm partner and in the litigation finance field. I am very much looking forward to the opportunity to contribute to the continued success of the business.” Last week, in its first step towards a management relocation to London, LCM appointed Mary Gangemi as its new London-based chief financial officer and announced that Patrick Moloney is to relocate to London from Sydney later this year. In March, LCM closed a new US$150m third-party fund backed by significant global blue-chip investors. The fund marks LCM’s return to managing third-party funds, following its building of a permanent source of balance sheet capital through the equity markets. Contact: Angela Bilbow Global Head of Communications abilbow@lcmfinace.com +44 (0)20 3955 5271 Litigation Capital Management (LCM) is a leading international provider of litigation financing solutions. This includes single-case and portfolios across; class actions, commercial claims, claims arising out of insolvency 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.
Commercial

Economic Uncertainty? Consider Litigation Finance

The Coronavirus is impacting every industry, not to mention affecting all of us personally. This leads to economic anxiety on a massive scale. It can also mean that the sizable recoveries some firms are counting on may not be viable once this crisis is over—and for some time afterwards.  With everyone scrambling to stay afloat, Ted Farrell of Litigation Funding Advisers LLC has some thoughts. As Farrell writes in Bloomberg Law, litigation finance might be one of the most impactful ways to stem losses, no matter where you are in the world. At this moment, billions of dollars in capital can be made available to firms struggling to keep balance sheets in balance. Nine-figure investments are not as rare as one might think. Individual partners in law firms are paid a monthly draw, which is different from a salary in terms of bookkeeping. These draws are based on profits predicted for the year. So if the books don’t balance at the end of the year, partners can be liable to pay some of that money back. With that in mind, firms would do well to consider litigation funding, particularly for high-end cases. Once you have that capital, what do you do with it? Step one should be calculating existing risk, then selling off as much as you can. Now is the time funders are seeking promising cases in which to invest. A popular strategy involves pooling contingency cases and allowing funders to invest in them together. This type of arrangement makes for good deals, allowing firms to take a healthy portion of recovery while still making funder investments worthwhile.
Commercial

What Every GC Needs to Know About Monetization

2019 was a year of change and growth in the legal field. Monetization was of particular interest to in-house legal teams. This practice allows firms to de-risk portfolios and exert greater control over receivables by essentially converting an impending recovery into working capital.   As Burford Capital explains, their goal as a funder is to empower in-house counsel to be proactive in securing recoveries, while reducing their costs. Burford reveals that General Counsel from various companies share many of the same questions. Why, for example, is lit fin preferable to companies simply using their own funds? It’s often to a company’s benefit to leverage funding to assure liquidity of funds and to manage balance sheets. Monetization also frees up funds sooner than a post-trial collection—and sometimes, timing makes all the difference.  How is working with a funder better than hiring a legal team on contingency? This seems like a sensible question. The answer is about more than simple finance. It’s about the caliber of legal team one can hire on contingency versus the type of strategy that can be developed using a powerhouse firm backed by an experienced litigation funder. Burford wants you to know that this difference is significant—and can be the deciding factor when it comes to getting the resolution you want, and settling for something far less.  What about control?  How much say do funders have on decision making or settlements?  While every funder is different, Burford acts as a silent partner; providing capital is where their input ends. At the same time, should a client request additional support, a worthy funder will work with clients to devise a strategy in everyone’s best interests.