Trending Now

John Freund's Posts

3360 Articles
Commercial Covid-19

COVID Brings Tech-Savvy In-House Lawyers to the Forefront

Innovation and adaptability are key factors in every business trying to stay afloat during the current pandemic. Many law firm were quick to send workers home while finding remote working solutions to stave off loss of business. But as soon as some issues were managed, others cropped up. For example, the need for cybersecurity was heightened almost immediately. Financial Times explains that savvy lawyers backed away from putting out proverbial fires and started seeking opportunities to reach out to their customers. They began by identifying issues and using creative problem-solving. Solutions included expanding the use of digital signatures for those who couldn’t go out to banks or meetings, and amping up anti-fraud protections to make distance working safer. Legal teams aren’t just innovating, they’re creating as well. WeChat has allowed the development of apps that facilitate digital transactions in bulk, and even allow for price haggling. Westpac, an Australian bank, developed a digital boot camp and training program to better help lawyers analyze and draw conclusions from data. The new reliance on technology and digital problem solving puts the traditional firm model on notice. With rare exceptions, partners with decades of legal experience will not be up-to-date on modern digital solutions. In fact, they may find themselves relying on younger, greener lawyers to help them navigate this new remote working landscape. How will that impact the way firms operate going forward? It’s easy to see COVID as a temporary disruption, even as the months pass us by. But the likelihood is that the changes being implemented now are likely to last. Staffers may continue to want to split time between home and office, while clients may prefer fewer in-person meetings. As security and safety improve, there’s more reason to rely on tech solutions for business concerns. It’s just a matter of finding a balance.
Commercial

Will the ABA’s Litigation Funding Guidelines Do More Harm Than Good?

This week, the ABA’s House of Delegates approved new best practices guidelines for litigation funders. The ABA’s inclusion of third-party funding in their guidelines is a necessary step, given the increasing popularity of the practice. Some say, however, that these new guidelines are not an accurate reflection of how Litigation Finance works.   Burford Capital details proposed revisions to the policy, which they claim will add clarity and context. Still, it’s important to keep in mind that ABA guidelines are merely that - a set of guidelines. They aren’t meant to be the basis for disciplining firms or individual attorneys. According to Burford, context should be added. It should be noted that third-party funding is widely accepted and endorsed by legal communities all over the world. Next, commercial litigation and consumer litigation should be addressed separately. It’s not logical to apply the same guidelines to two such different practices. The same applies to lawyer-directed funding versus that directed by the client. The ABA guidelines do begin by pointing out that these are separate practices with their own issues, yet they don’t seem to recognize common exceptions to this—such as what occurs when an entire portfolio of cases is funded. There’s also a suggestion that paragraphs should be devoted to the NYCBA Committee on Professional Ethics. This is a non-binding opinion from 2018, which was released without an opportunity for public comment. It has widely criticized by legal professionals, and is best left out of new guidelines. Finally, Burford suggests removing or editing any recommendations that do not practically serve clients or attorneys. In particular, amending the idea that funders having oversight of litigation is tantamount to undue influence.
Commercial

Taking a Look at Security for Costs

Over the last 10 years, provisional measures such as security for costs have been requested in progressively higher numbers. In fact, of all the provisional measures asked for, roughly 20% have included security for costs. These requests are rarely granted, however. As it stands, most courts feel that requests for security for costs can only be granted under unusual and specific circumstances.  Burford Capital explains that courts have determined that simply receiving third-party funding does not demonstrate a need for security for costs. That may be even more true now that it’s established that Litigation Finance isn’t just for those in financial peril. Funding is now commonplace, even among well-capitalized firms, since it provides financial flexibility and enables investments in growth. A case from 2019 sheds light on this, as a tribunal rejected a request by the Republic of Panama to secure costs in a funded claim. In their rejection, the tribunal questioned whether or not Panama even had the right to make such an ask. A survey conducted by the ICSID addressed compliance with cost awards, and found that most awards in favor of states were indeed paid. Of those that weren’t, the state tended not to enforce payment orders. The evidence suggests that security for costs requires that the filing party show need, timeliness, and unusual circumstances. In reality, though, many cases funded by third parties automatically request security for costs. Those applications are typically rejected. According to Burford’s 2019 Legal Finance Report, 67% of in-house counsel agree that litigation funding is a good way to reduce the impact of litigation costs. 72% see value in the practice of litigation funding overall. Where once third-party funding was a market of financial instability, it is now indicative of strategic planning and savvy money management.
Commercial Covid-19

What’s Causing the Rise in Trade Secret Litigation?

Intellectual property can become a valuable asset, especially during an economic downturn. That may be why new patent lawsuits have increased over 15% in recent months. Trade secret litigation is likely to follow—which may be encouraged by the overwhelming availability of third-party litigation funding. Therium details that the five most prominent patent litigation plaintiffs in 2020 are non-practicing. Many take this to mean that these companies are using their patent portfolios to finance their claims. When budgets are tight, patent and other types of IP litigation may be pursued, and meritorious claims that might otherwise be discarded can in fact see the light of day.  Experts suggest that several specific factors are driving the increase in trade secret actions. The Defend Trade Secrets Act, signed by President Obama in 2016, makes trade secret law more favorable to plaintiffs. The definition of ‘trade secrets’ has become broader in recent years, and some sizable awards have been issued as a result. Companies are also avoiding the patent process in favor of listing innovations as trade secrets instead. The shift to work-from-home and widespread employee furloughs may cause an increase in trade secret cases—simply because they make trade secret violations more likely. People who are out of work and desperate may be more likely to use an employer’s trade secrets for their own gain. Remote working can also lead to unsecure video chats, while important documents being left unsecured in communal work or living spaces, and a lack of proper encryption, can all lead to a loss of IP. Security overall is down during COVID, as the emphasis is placed on the safety of workers and slowing/negating virus transmission. Anyone pursuing a case involving trade secrets should move quickly. Urgency is of the essence, especially since the loss of IP can be lead to swift and crippling impacts. Trade secret litigation can lead to monetary damages or injunctive relief, either of which would be welcome during these uncertain times.
Consumer

How Did a $440K Law Firm Loan Balloon to $18MM?

Sean Callagy's law firm, Callagy Law, has been involved in several contentious lawsuits in recent months, in part due to defaulting on loans from Legal Capital Group. The LCG agreement was made with George Prussin, an old friend of Callagy. Their friendship fell apart after several professional differences that became litigious. Legal Newsline reports that Callagy borrowed nearly $600,000 to pursue routine medical malpractice claims, and other cases. One case in particular descended into legal chaos when Callagy sued his co-counsel. Another case involved international litigation for the proceeds of the lawsuit in a 2006 plane crash that killed more than a hundred people. That case was the stuff of tabloid news—also involving a Mexican firm owned by a non-lawyer, legal legend Benton Musselwhite, and the IRS. Callagy now claims he owes $18MM to LCG, with an effective interest rate of 90% per year. LCG has taken legal action against Callagy.  While regulations regarding litigation funding can vary from state-to-state, on the federal level, funding is treated differently than loans. The main difference is that funding is non-recourse, and therefore only repaid when the case yields a payout.
Announcements Commercial

District Court in Poznań Grants Third Injunction against Mariusz Świtalski to Secure Forteam Investments’ Claims

WARSAW, Poland, August 5, 2020 -- Forteam Investments Ltd., an investment company controlled by U.S. private equity firm Delta Capital Partners Management LLC (“Delta”), which is seeking over PLN 300 million from Mariusz Świtalski and companies he controls, has secured a third court injunction.

The District Court in Poznań granted the injunction against Druga-Sowiniec Capital sp. z o.o. S.K.A., a company controlled by Mariusz Świtalski, and Krzysztof Belcarz.

The injunction secured by Forteam concerns a claim that seeks to declare as invalid agreements to sell stakes in Czerwona Torebka S.A. (24,758,600 and 9,707,588 shares, respectively), executed in March 2020 between Świtalski FIZ and the entities facing this injunction.

Under the injunction, Forteam has secured another Czerwona Torebka shares. In total, by force of the first (granted in February 2020) and third injunction, 48.44% of the Czerwona Torebka shares have been secured. Currently, 35.5% of the Czerwona Torebka's shares have been already seized by a bailiff, while the procedure is on-going for the remaining 12,94% of shares.

Christopher DeLise, CEO of Delta, said, “We will make full use of the latest injunction issued by the court that enables us to participate in the oversight of Czerwona Torebka. We have already begun such involvement by exercising our rights to safeguard the interests of the shareholders and to protect the company’s commercial interests and assets.This includes an extensive review of the price, trading volume, and history of Czerwona Torebka’s securities. We also intend to exercise our rights to meet with and hold fully accountable the Management Board and to obtain all essential information and detailed plans concerning the company’s future. We also intend to express our concerns regarding the way the company appears to be mismanaged for the benefit of certain parties rather than as required by law and consistent with the fiduciary duties of the Board”

The transactions between Świtalski FIZ, Druga-Sowiniec Capital and Krzysztof Belcarz took place in March 2020 after the District Court in Poznań’s February 21, 2020 decision that granted Forteam an injunction against Mariusz Świtalski and companies from Sowiniec Group under his controls (with the exception of Druga-Sowiniec).

As a result of that ruling, Mariusz Świtalski’s assets are frozen until the case is concluded. These share sale transactions illustrate Mariusz Świtalski’s attempts to sell and conceal his assets to make it more difficult for Forteam to satisfy its claims.

This newest injunction is yet another positive court ruling for Forteam, following the court’s June 25, 2020 dismissal of an appeal lodged by Mariusz Świtalski on February 21, 2020. Moreover, Mariusz Świtalski previously failed in his attempt to exclude all judges working at Poznań-based courts from all cases between him and Forteam.

At the end of April 2020, the court, in connection with potential detriment being suffered by Forteam as a creditor, decided to secure Forteam’s claims on parts of the assets of Mariusz Światalski’s children: Mikołaj, Marcin, Mateusz (President of the Management Board at Czerwona Torebka S.A.) and Natasza (Proxy at Czerwona Torebka S.A.). The court’s decision concerns investment certificates in fund Świtalski FIZ, which Mariusz Świtalski had transferred to his children.

All three injunctions were obtained in anticipation of a conclusion in a civil proceeding against Mariusz Świtalski that relates to his breach of a guarantee agreement executed with Forteam Investments in 2015.

Reminder: On May 8, 2015, Forteam purchased a 100% stake in Małpka S.A. from Czerwona Torebka. Małpka was the owner of the Małpka Express chain. In settling the transaction, Forteam sold its stake (16.18%) in Czerwona Torebka. Upon signing the sale agreement, the parties were aware of Małpka’s difficult situation. The agreement, itself, noted that the parties realize that further considerable financing would be needed for the company to reach the break-even point.

Because of this, Mariusz Świtalski and Sowiniec Group also executed a Guarantee Agreement with Forteam, which provided Forteam with a guaranteed return on the Małpka investment if the Małpka Express store chain was later sold to a third party. Mariusz Świtalski submitted a written declaration that his personal assets were sufficient to perform the Guarantee Agreement.

When Forteam attempted to sell Małpka Express in 2018, it was unable to obtain consideration at or above the minimum sale price, despite engaging a respected independent investment bank to run a robust sales process. Mariusz Świtalski has not exercised his preemptive rights and did not buy Małpka for the guaranteed amount.

Accordingly, Forteam notified Świtalski on December 28, 2018, of his obligations to remit the monies owed to Forteam pursuant to the Guarantee Agreement. Notwithstanding, Świtalski and the companies have failed to pay any amounts due and owed to Forteam, which, in turn, necessitated the filing of the injunction and civil lawsuits. As a result of Mariusz Świtalski’s actions, Forteam was forced to take additional steps to secure part of his children's property and other entities to which Świtalski transferred owned assets.

Krzysztof Belcarz has been affiliated with Mariusz Świtalski's various businesses for years. In the course of his career, he has served as Development Director at Świtalski FIZ, Management Board Representative for Commercial Affairs in Czerwona Torebka and Expansion Partner at Świtalski & Synowie S.A.

Announcements Consumer

KBRA Assigns Preliminary Rating to TVEST 2020A, LLC Note

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Kroll Bond Rating Agency (KBRA) assigns a preliminary rating to one class of notes from TVEST 2020A, LLC, a $123 million securitization collateralized by litigation finance and medical receivables serviced by Experity Ventures LLC (“Experity”). The TVEST 2020A, LLC notes (“Notes”) represents Experity’s first ABS securitization collateralized by litigation finance and medical receivables. Experity, formed in April, 2019, is the parent company of the various receivable originators including Thrivest Legal Funding LLC (“Thrivest”), a direct to market pre-settlement legal funding company with a history of originations dating back to 2009 and ProMed Capital Venture LLC (“ProMed”), a recently acquired leading medical lien funding company that has been originating since 2017. Experity is also the parent of four other litigation finance receivable originators that were formed in connection with strategic financing and operational partnerships with third parties. The portfolio securing the transaction has an aggregate discounted receivable balance (“ADPB”), including assumed prefunding, of approximately $160 million as of the May 31, 2020 cutoff date. The ADPB is the aggregate discounted cash flows of the collections associated with the TVEST 2020A, LLC portfolio’s litigation funding receivables (“Litigation Receivables”) and medical receivables (“Medical Receivables” and, collectively, “Receivables”). The discount rate used to calculate the ADPB is a percentage equal to the sum of the assumed interest rate on the Notes, the servicing fee rate of 1.00%, and an additional 0.10%. As of the cutoff date, Medical Receivables comprise 83.20% of the portfolio by count and 67.44% by advance amount and have an average advance to expected settlement case value (“Expected Case Worth Ratio”) of 22.06%. Litigation Receivables comprise the remaining 16.80% of the portfolio by count and 32.56% by advance amount and have and Expected Case Worth Ratio of 8.77%. The Notes benefit from credit enhancement in the form of overcollateralization, a cash reserve account and a capitalized interest account. The transaction also features a $20 million prefunding account that may be used to purchase additional Receivables during the three months after closing, subject to certain eligibility criteria. Click here to view the report. To access ratings and relevant documents, click here Disclosures Further information on key credit considerations, sensitivity analyses that consider what factors can affect these credit ratings and how they could lead to an upgrade or a downgrade, and ESG factors (where they are a key driver behind the change to the credit rating or rating outlook) can be found in the full rating report referenced above. A description of all substantially material sources that were used to prepare the credit rating and information on the methodology(ies) (inclusive of any material models and sensitivity analyses of the relevant key rating assumptions, as applicable) used in determining the credit rating is available in the U.S. Information Disclosure Form located here. Information on the meaning of each rating category can be located here. Further disclosures relating to this rating action are available in the U.S. Information Disclosure Form referenced above. Additional information regarding KBRA policies, methodologies, rating scales and disclosures are available at www.kbra.com. About KBRA KBRA is a full-service credit rating agency registered as an NRSRO with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, KBRA is designated as a designated rating organization by the Ontario Securities Commission for issuers of asset-backed securities to file a short form prospectus or shelf prospectus. KBRA is also recognized by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners as a Credit Rating Provider and is a certified Credit Rating Agency (CRA) with the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA). Kroll Bond Rating Agency Europe is registered with ESMA as a CRA.
Consumer Special Features

ABA Adopts Guidance in Third-Party Litigation Funding

This article was contributed by Eric Schuller, President of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC). On August 3, 2020, The American Bar Association (ABA) House of Delegates, by a vote of 366-10, voted to adopt the resolution for “Best Practices for Third-Party Litigation Funding”. This established a slew of national guidelines that law firms, consumers and legal funding companies should follow. We applaud the ABA in setting these standards that ARC and its members already follow. Some of the items that they highlight are:
  • The arrangement should be spelled out in writing.
  • The writing should make clear the non-recourse nature of the investment the funder is making in the claim; how the funder will be compensated
  • Who is responsible for paying the funder, from what source (g., the recovery after trial or settlement) and when (e.g., time period after receipt of judgment or settlement funds)
  • The arrangement should be structured so that the client retains control of the litigation, and not the funder.
  • Lawyers should be cautious in making case-related reports or predictions.
  • Funding agreements should state the amount of funding to be provided, the amount or method of calculating the return to the third-party funder, and how and when the proceeds of the party’s recovery are to be distributed among Funding agreements should provide a fair, transparent, and independent dispute resolution process.
  • Funding agreements also should include a recommendation that a party obtain independent legal advice as to whether to enter into the proposed There should also be a confidentiality obligation for the funder that survives termination of the agreement
  • In client-funder financing, the third-party funder and the party should be the sole parties to the funding agreement, in order to avoid any potential attorney conflicts of interest, should the party and the funder disagree on a material issue during the course of the litigation. Many non-recourse finance agreements ask the attorney to promise the funder that the attorney will notify the funder when the case is resolved.
  • Limitations on a third-party funder’s involvement in, or direct or indirect control of, or input into (or receipt of notice of), either day-to-day or broader litigation management and on all key issues (such as strategy and settlement), should be addressed in the funding agreement.
  • Lawyers may want to obtain written acknowledgement that the funder will not seek to control the litigation or the expense.
These items are consistent with the statutes that ARC and its members support in legislation. ARC fully supports proper regulation of the Consumer Legal Funding Industry across the country. Eric Schuller President
Commercial

Class Action Accuses Banks of $500MM in Overcharges

UK Litigation Finance firm Woodsford is funding a class action against BT, AMP, and Commonwealth Bank. If successful, the case could bring the funder as much as 25% of any potential reward. Craig Allsopp, class action leader at Shine, who has taken on the case, has said that funders generally receive between 20-30% of awards from successful cases. The News Daily explains that the class action suit against Commonwealth Bank, BT, and AMP alleges that the banks improperly signed members up for a superannuation fund at a higher rate than is appropriate. A claim has already been lodged against AMP, with BT and Commonwealth Bank claims to follow. Allsopp stated that Shine law firm is confident that the evidence shows overcharges of more than $500MM. Essentially, the banks are accused of vertical integration—which includes the practice of selling in-house products at artificially inflated prices. Allsopp calls this practice both “illegal” and “unfair” to clients. The difference in policy costs varied, but BT and CBA are accused of charging 10-30% more for comparable services. AMP was even more aggressive, charging between 30-50% more. The claimants assert that this isn’t representative of an error or two—but that the evidence is indicative of systemic misconduct by the banks. While signups to the claim are still ongoing, Shine law firm suggests a possible membership class of half a million people. Shine is expected to contact bank members past and present to inform them of the claim.
Announcements Commercial

Pravati Capital Completes Expansion to Key Markets and Adds Accomplished New Hires to its Distinguished Leadership Team

NEW YORK, July 29, 2020 — Pravati Capital, leading litigation finance pioneer and consulting firm, today announced four new members to its esteemed leadership team, each complementing the firm’s outstanding services and legal insight. Joining Pravati Capital, Bruce Cohen, Douglas Smith, Scott Potter and Shane Ham will bolster the company’s litigation practice with specialized experience to better serve clients. Pravati Capital announced four new members to its esteemed leadership team, each complementing the firm’s outstanding services and legal insight. Joining Pravati Capital, Bruce Cohen, Douglas Smith, Scott Potter and Shane Ham will bolster the company’s litigation practice with specialized experience to better serve clients. The accomplished new additions bring a wealth of knowledge in areas such as debtor-in-possession financing, complex litigation and commercial litigation, and will help steer and strengthen the firm’s plans for growth, while expanding its footprint to key markets including New York, Los Angeles and Dallas. As Pravati Capital continues to grow and scale, the strategy will remain on developing attractive alternative investment funds that offer solid returns at a low risk given that assets are not related to the economic cycle. The established focus combined with the specialized experience will allow the industry leader to explore new and existing opportunities within the dynamic and growing field. “We are thrilled to welcome these accomplished individuals and look forward to the value they will add to our insight and practice,” said Alex Chucri, CEO at Pravati Capital. “Our clients are our top priority and we are confident these additions will enhance our company as we continue to grow and offer exceptional service as we expand our practice of finance litigation.” New additions to Pravati Capital’s leadership includes: Pravati Capital welcomes Bruce Cohen as Director of Business Development in the Dallas office. Cohen’s 30 years of well-rounded background add extreme value to the firm and his past positions include Senior Legal Director at PepsiCo, Inc., where he was responsible for sales and antitrust matters in its Frito-Lay subsidiary and Associate General Counsel of Verizon Communications Inc. A former U.S. Army Field Artillery Officer, he is a Distinguished Graduate with Honors of the Virginia Military Institute and received his Juris Doctor summa cum laude from the University of Georgia School of Law. Cohen was a litigation partner at a prominent Atlanta law firm and has appeared in trials, regulatory proceedings and appeals in over three dozen states. He holds advanced degrees in history and law from Michigan State, the University of North Texas, and King’s College London. He previously served as a Special Assistant to the Attorney General of Texas, and as a judicial law clerk for a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. “I’ve really enjoyed the challenge of learning about litigation finance and explaining it to law firms and legal departments, many of whom really didn’t know it existed, let alone the ways it could help their practice and their teams,” said Cohen. “It’s still a nascent business in many respects, and I look forward to helping it grow.” Doug Smith serves as Senior Commercial Lending Advisor in the Scottsdale, AZ office. With a 30-year background managing corporate and commercial real estate lending, Smith focused primarily on structured finance transactions, Debtor-In-Possession bankruptcy restructuring, and distressed loan portfolios. Prior to the private sector, he worked for Congressman John Rhodes, Minority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives during the Carter and Reagan administrations. Currently, he is a member of the Arizona board of directors for a commercial bank and President of the private non-profit Phoenician II Foundation. In the past, he has served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Maricopa County Industrial Development Authority, the Board of Directors for the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, the Maricopa County Community Development Advisory Committee and the Arizona Republican Party Finance Committee. “The economy is experiencing major dislocation and businesses will need debtor-in-possession and debt restructuring services for some time to come,” said Smith. “Pravati is uniquely positioned to provide these financial services in an efficient and creative manner to middle market enterprises.” Scott Potter joins as Director of Business Development in Pravati Capital’s home office in Scottsdale, AZ. Potter honed both his legal and client relations skills through a decade long commercial litigation career and an additional four years of in-house counsel experience. He was the corporate counsel and global client relations manager for an international manufacturing firm and the vice president of legal affairs for a national lien company. Scott is a graduate of both the Marriott School of Management and the J. Reuben Clark Law School at Brigham Young University. He has practiced at the administrative, trial and appellate levels in both real estate and commercial litigation and represented both billion-dollar corporations and impoverished individuals. Scott has served on the Arizona State Bar’s alternative Dispute Resolution committee and been named a Southwest Super Lawyer Rising Star. “My parents always said I could excel at anything that I wanted to do.  What I always wanted to do was help people to be happy,” said Potter. “Pravati gives me the chance to lift financial burdens from others as they seek greater peace in their lives.” Shane Ham joins as a Legal Investment Analyst in Pravati Capital’s home office in Scottsdale, Arizona. Formerly a litigation partner at Osborn Maledon, he focused on complex commercial and personal injury matters. His practice spanned a broad variety of topic areas, from constitutional law to medical marijuana compliance. Prior to attending law school, Shane spent nearly a decade in Washington, D.C. where he worked as a producer on a political talk show and a technology policy analyst for a prominent think tank. Shane received both his Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science and Juris Doctorate (magna cum laude) from the University of Arizona, and he clerked for then-Vice Chief Justice Andrew D. Hurwitz at the Arizona Supreme Court. “As a litigator I saw too many cases that were strong on the merits but had to be abandoned because the plaintiff did not have the funds to fight for years against a deep-pocket defendant,” said Ham. “At Pravati I get to help level the playing field, and give people who have been wronged a chance to have their day in court.” “The new additions to our leadership team will continue to support our vision of transformation and innovation, which together with leading and breakthrough insight and practices within our industry, will allow us to continue serving our clients as we grow in the future,” added Pravati Capital’s CEO Chucri. About Pravati Capital As a leader in the litigation financing field, Pravati Capital has changed how companies and law firms envision their future. For more than a decade, we have been at the forefront of litigation financing solutions, creating innovative sources for bridge capital. It is our mission to provide innovative, efficient capital solutions for law firms, compassionate assistance to plaintiffs, and a secure alternative investment option for accredited investors.
Announcements Commercial

Helene Roins joins Litigation Capital Management (LCM) in Sydney

Litigation Capital Management Limited, a global provider of disputes funding, publicly listed on the London Stock Exchange’s AIM market, is pleased to announce the hire of Helene Roins as an Investment Manager based in Sydney. With extensive experience in insolvency and restructuring, commercial litigation, insurance disputes and class actions, Helene joins LCM after more than two years with a Sydney-based litigation funder where she was responsible for the assessment and management of a number of high-profile insolvency projects and class actions. Prior to her transition into litigation finance, Helene spent 15 years in private practice, most recently as a Senior Associate at TressCox Lawyers (now HWL Ebsworth Lawyers) where she acted for corporations, shareholders, directors and insolvency practitioners in a variety of litigation involving insolvency and restructuring, bankruptcies, insurance, intellectual property and other commercial disputes across State and Federal jurisdictions. Among Helene’s notable achievements, she has conducted various liquidator’s examinations in the Supreme and Federal Court under the Corporations Act, led a team of lawyers in defending an A$30 million claim under a D&O policy on behalf of an insurer and acted for a shareholder in Federal Court proceedings commenced against the company and its directors for the unlawful reduction in share capital, unlawful re-organisation of the company and breach of officer’s duties. Commenting on Helene’s hire, LCM’s Chief Executive Officer Patrick Moloney said: “We are very pleased to welcome Helene to the LCM team. Helene is a highly experienced practitioner with a specialisation in insolvency claims which is an area where we anticipate there will be significant growth for LCM in the next 12 to 18 months. Helene will be a great addition to our high-performing team of investment managers, and she joins at an exciting period of growth for LCM globally.” Helene Roins added: “I am delighted to be joining such a reputable organisation that has experienced strong growth over the past few years. LCM’s history and strong track record, particularly in insolvency and commercial litigation claims funding, is strongly aligned with my own experience in both private practice and more recently in the litigation finance industry.” Helene is a member of the Law Society of NSW, the Women’s Insolvency Network Australia, and Women in Insolvency and Restructuring Victoria. In April 2020, Investment Manager James Foster and Chief Financial Officer Mary Gangemi both joined LCM in London. Their hires followed the March closing of a new US$150m third-party fund backed by significant global blue-chip investors. The fund marked LCM’s return to managing third-party funds, following its building of a permanent source of balance sheet capital through the equity markets. About LCM Litigation Capital Management (LCM) is a leading international provider of litigation financing solutions. This includes single-cases and corporate and law firm portfolios across class actions, commercial claims, claims arising out of insolvency, including assignments, and international arbitration. LCM has an unparalleled track record, driven by effective project selection and robust risk management. Headquartered in Sydney, with offices in London, Singapore, Brisbane and Melbourne, LCM listed on AIM in December 2018, trading under the ticker LIT.
Commercial

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

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

Burford Hosts Roundtable on Restructuring and Liquidity

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

Litigation Finance—High Risk, High Reward

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

Litigation Finance Journal’s Quarterly Industry Roundup

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

Closing the Gender Gap in Law

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

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

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

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

LONDON, 28 July 2020: Omni Bridgeway Limited announces that it has resolved to fund proposed litigation to be brought by shareholders of Wirecard AG against its auditor, Ernst & Young GmbH. Such litigation will be brought in Germany by leading international law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP. BACKGROUND German company Wirecard AG was compelled to initiate insolvency proceedings in Germany on 25 June 2020. The catalyst for this inevitability was that its auditor, Ernst & Young GmbH, informed Wirecard AG on 18 June 2020 that no sufficient audit evidence could be obtained in relation to cash balances in trust accounts that were to be consolidated in the consolidated financial statements in the amount of EUR 1.9bn. A matter of days afterwards, Wirecard AG was then forced to acknowledge that the EUR 1.9bn in cash included in those financial statements probably never existed in the first place. The consequence of the recent actions of Wirecard AG is that the share price of Wirecard AG has dropped by over 95%. In these circumstances, shareholders have rightly turned their attentions to the auditor who has been in post since 2008. All of the audits of Wirecard AG have been unqualified. This is despite the fact that, over the last years, Wirecard AG has been the subject of intense scrutiny by shareholders, short sellers, journalists and regulators. Wirecard AG has also been the subject of two key external reviews – one by Rajah & Tann, a respected Singapore law firm, and the other by KPMG. PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR WIRECARD AG SHAREHOLDERS Jeremy Marshall, Senior Investment Manager of Omni Bridgeway, said “Shareholders have understandably relied increasingly heavily on the audited financials of Wirecard. The nature of the Wirecard insolvency is such that it was inevitable that serious claims would be levelled against the auditor, and it is only right that we provide shareholders with the opportunity for redress, particularly where their prospects of a modest recovery against Wirecard itself are so limited.” WHAT AFFECTED SHAREHOLDERS CAN DO Shareholders who purchased shares in Wirecard AG since 1 April 2012 are encouraged to contact:
ABOUT OMNI BRIDGEWAY
Omni Bridgeway is the global leader in dispute resolution finance, with expertise in civil and common law legal and recovery systems, and operations spanning Asia, Australia, Canada, Europe, the Middle East, the UK and the US. Omni Bridgeway offers dispute finance from case inception through to post-judgment enforcement and recovery. Since 1986, it has established a proud record of funding disputes and enforcement proceedings around the world. Omni Bridgeway is listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX:OBL) and includes the leading dispute funders formerly known as IMF Bentham Limited, Bentham IMF and ROLAND ProzessFinanz. It also includes a joint venture with IFC (part of the World Bank Group). Visit omnibridgeway.com to learn more.
ABOUT QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
Quinn Emanuel is the largest law firm in the world dedicated solely to the resolution of business disputes. Quinn have 800+ attorneys working in 23 offices in ten countries around the world, including 4 offices in Germany. Quinn Emanuel sees litigation as an independent practice that calls for a high degree of specialization. As an integral part of the firm’s international network of offices, Quinn Emanuel’s German legal team is dedicated to providing the highest standards of service, professional excellence, industry knowledge and experience that firm clients expect. Quinn Emanuel has taken a leading role in some of the largest security cases that are currently pending before the German courts, including the representation of the largest group of investors (by damages) participating in model case proceedings against Volkswagen AG in the Higher District Court of Brunswick centering on the so-called “Dieselgate” scandal. Quinn also represented a group of Tier-1 bondholders in litigation against Hamburg Commercial Bank.
Announcements Commercial

Delta Capital Partners Management Welcomes a New Board of Advisors

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

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

  • Ian Casewell – London Office Managing Partner of the Mintz Group, a top-tier business intelligence and investigation firm, and a former Europol intelligence analyst;
  • Nitin Chadda – Co-Founder and Managing Partner of WestExec Advisors, former Senior Advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Defense, and former Director at the White House National Security Council;
  • David Hellier – Partner and Chair of the Capital Markets Group at Bertram Capital, member of the Board of Directors of the Association for Corporate Growth, and former CEO of a highly technology company and one of the fastest growing Internet companies;
  • Brian Maddox – Senior Managing Director at FTI Strategic Communications with over 30 years of experience in public relations and marketing;
  • Bill Moran – Retired Four-Star Admiral who served as the Vice Chief of Operations and Chief of Personnel for the United States Navy;
  • Ileana Ros-Lehtinen – former Chairperson of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee, and member of United States Congress for nearly 30 years;
  • Dennis Ross – former special assistant to the United States President and former Director at the White House National Security Counsel; and
  • Geoffrey Verhoff – Senior Advisor at Akin Gump, and former Vice Chairman of the Republican National Committee’s Finance Committee.

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

About Delta

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

Commercial

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

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

“Edge” for Litigation Finance Managers

The following article is part of an ongoing column titled ‘Investor Insights.’  Brought to you by Ed Truant, founder and content manager of Slingshot Capital, ‘Investor Insights’ will provide thoughtful and engaging perspectives on all aspects of investing in litigation finance.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
  • As the litigation finance industry matures, there will be more competition, more fragmentation and more specialization
  • Competitive advantages will be necessary for managers to differentiate themselves in the marketplace and produce strong risk-adjusted returns
  • Managers should institutionalize their “edge” to create equity value for themselves, and separate the value of their organizations from the principals running it
INVESTOR INSIGHTS
  • Investors should be looking for managers that have some advantage, or “edge” vis-à-vis their competition; an informational advantage is one approach
  • Funders should be open-minded about their diligence process, and experiment with non-conventional approaches to add value to the case
  • Informational advantages may be particularly beneficial in collections and enforcements
In the capital markets industry, there is a concept referred to as “edge”, which can be defined as any legal form of information, insight or proprietary process or knowledge which an investor possesses that allows him or her to outperform peers and generate alpha.  Investors look for managers with “edge” as a point of differentiation, and as a means to lower risk and enhance returns in a given investment strategy. In thinking about how a litigation funder can develop ‘edge’, one option is to acquire an informational advantage that enables the funder to invest where others do not dare to tread, or avoid investing where the path is well worn.  One way to obtain an informational advantage is to look where others are not looking.  Today, we have at our disposal the world’s largest accessible database free for anyone to access – the worldwide web.  We also have the so-called “dark web”, where fewer dare to participate, but which may possess insights nonetheless. In order to get a better perspective on the nuggets of gold that lie within the web, I decided to reach out to Cameron Colquhoun of NEONCentury, a UK-based intelligence firm, to better understand how the litigation finance community may be able to generate edge. The Web…. In some ways, little has changed about our use of the internet in 30 years: we all still use screens, keyboards and mice to open windows and browser pages. What has changed, without exception, is the size of the world behind our screens – which is far bigger than our brains and imaginations can appreciate. As of 2016, Google revealed it knew of 130 trillion web pages, and the real number today is likely to exceed 200 or 300 trillion. To put it another way; as the Head of Security at Twitter pointed out back in 2011, one-in-a-million events happen on the internet every second, and one in a billion events happen almost as frequently. It is a mathematical near-certainty that within all of this data, game-changing intelligence is sitting there, waiting to be found - vital to the success of any litigation. The truth is, very few law firms or investors understand this reality, and therefore rarely ever engage or commission the type of intensive, detailed online investigations that are required to push the confidence intervals of success up by 1, 2, 5, 10 or even 20%. In the biggest cases, this can mean tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars of difference in settlement. …and the Dark Web The dark and unindexed web is another part of the web that is as yet untouched by both law firms and litigation finance. In particular, leaked data and data 'dump' sites hold huge amounts of pivotal intelligence. The most prominent case of leaked data to date is of course the Panama Papers, where millions of files belonging to a single Panamanian law firm were leaked online and led to over $1.2bn in recoveries (the real figure is likely to be far higher, as most countries do not make settlement data public). Dozens of prominent individuals had their assets exposed, and with millions of documents available to research – many more hidden assets and frauds are likely to be revealed amongst the 11.5 million files. Every time a new major leak is released online, (more recently BlueLeaks and 29Leaks), law firms or litigation financiers should be feverishly combing through its contents looking for angles. Case Study At NEONCentury, we are often tasked with conducting investigations prior to a potential litigation. In one case, a hedge fund asked for our help as they believed a group of CEOs were meeting in secret, and were considering a litigation. This global company, they suspected, was going to be sold for several billion below market value in some kind of backroom boys club deal. Using our data capabilities, we tracked the private jets owned by those who attended these meetings, but the planes were delisted from public view (this is known as a BARR / LADD request and often used by CEOs and Ultra High Net Worth investors for anonymity). BARR-listed jets do not appear on sites like FlightRadar and FlightAware. However, these aircraft, by law, must emit radio signals (ADS-B) data, and using the right online databases and sources, the aircraft can be tracked and historical manifests can be discovered. We were able to conclusively prove that the private jets belonging to three members of the secret meetings were all on the same runways at multiple times and locations, giving our client a route to a potentially multi-billion dollar litigation. It is difficult to imagine a single law firm on the planet that would have these capabilities in-house, or even understand the ‘art of the possible’ when it comes to open data. Today, litigation financiers allow law firms to manage the research and investigation sides of a case, hoping that either the law firms' in-house research teams or external corporate intel firms might yield further intelligence to tip the outcome in their favour. Law firms are not known for their technological prowess or understanding of the internet, generally, and therefore the litigation finance world may be missing real value in allowing law firms to manage the technical and cyber side of a case on their behalf. …the “Edge” If investors can accept that game-changing intelligence for any litigation is out there in the public domain, they may be better-prepared to commission this research directly with corporate investigations firms *before* any litigation is even considered. Investors would then be forearmed with a much stronger hand when they engage both law firms and claimants. This approach would greatly improve the ROI of litigation finance, and is analogous with the world of hedge funds and short-sellers. Many of these firms spend months or years investigating a company, searching for hidden value or opportunity. In the case of Wirecard, hedge funds discovered evidence of fraud just by conducting deep online investigations of Wirecard’s clients. Some walked away with billions in returns on this research. There is no reason why the same approach cannot be applied to the world of litigation finance: forward-thinking investors, who understand the power of corporate intelligence and the scale of the internet, can partner with world class investigators, and take these results to the right law firms to alter the course of multimillion and multibillion-dollar litigations. Investor Insights As the litigation finance industry matures, there will be a significant increase in managers who are attracted by the returns inherent in the industry, and the intellectual challenge of applying their litigation craft in another application.  The industry will scale, fragment and specialize.  This will make it more difficult for fund managers to differentiate their approach and value.  Forward-thinking managers should be looking at ways to create “edge” for themselves to attract institutional capital and generate superior risk-adjusted returns.  An informational advantage is one such way to create “edge”. As always, I am open to criticism and other points of view, so feel free to contact me to exchange ideas.  Edward Truant is the founder of Slingshot Capital Inc., an investor in the litigation finance industry (consumer and commercial) and a former partner in a private equity.  Ed is currently designing a new fund focused on institutional investors who are seeking to make allocations to the commercial litigation finance asset class.  Cameron Colquhoun is the founder of Neon Century, a former UK intelligence officer and winner of the Fulbright Award for Cyber Security. Neon Century is an elite corporate intelligence firm based in London, providing clients in the hedge fund, equity and litigation sectors with decisive advantage.
Commercial Covid-19

Assisting Clients with Relationship Management During COVID

Contract disputes are expected to rise dramatically during and after COVID, causing disruptions across entire industries. How should commercial attorneys manage this in a way that helps clients, without overburdening a shrinking resource pool? Bloomberg Law suggests three main ways lawyers can strategize with clients to stay ahead of issues that might lead to litigation. The first pertains to contract inventory. Reviewing contract inventory—particularly those contracts that seem fine at present—is a proactive way to stay ahead of the curve. A review allows lawyers and clients to identify impending risks and manage them before they turn into problems. This might include preparing for global supply issues, mitigating potential contract breaches before they occur, or looking at underwriting as a way to protect against future litigation. Next is the use of litigation as a tool for better business, as opposed to simply solving existing disputes. As litigation partner Jonathan Polak told Legalist, litigation can be a tool to force a business transaction. Seeing litigation as necessary to business rather than a sign of dispute or animus can help keep relationships from disintegrating in the face of legal action. Finally, there’s the issue of cost management in the long-term. It’s essential that clients make informed decisions about their cases, including understanding the long-term financial implications of pursuing litigation. When lawyers and clients work together to manage costs, solutions are more lasting and effective. Accomplishing this might include assessing financial pitfalls or finding solutions like alternative financing options, contingency contracts, or the use of Litigation Finance to make up for financial shortfalls. Ultimately, when attorneys work with clients to stave off problems before they occur, it improves lawyer-client relations, not to mention business relationships across the board.
Commercial Covid-19

How GCs Can Mitigate Economic Pressure

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

How Litigation Finance Can Benefit Cases Mid-Litigation

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

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

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

BPC served as exclusive financial advisor to ProMed.

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

About ProMed

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

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

About Experity Ventures

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

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

About Bryant Park Capital

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

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

Commercial

Bangladeshi Economy Attracts Litigation Funders

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

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

SYDNEY, 16 July 2020: Omni Bridgeway Limited (ASX:OBL), announces a new legal finance facility and an equity investment in an exciting new Japanese business providing Japanese clients with access to justice, without the associated costs and risks of pursuing their claims. These developments extend Omni Bridgeway’s global footprint and allows Japanese citizens to experience a service others have come to know and trust around the world. They also draw on Omni Bridgeway's expertise in providing innovative LegalTech solutions and enhance the company's portfolio of LegalTech investments. Established in April 2015 by two highly-experienced lawyers, Japan Legal Network Co., Ltd (Japan Legal Network) offers finance service similar to After The Event (ATE) insurance for clients pursuing legal actions in the corporate and other sectors (such as employees seeking reimbursement of un-paid wages). The ATE finance covers claimants’ legal expenses and is novel for Japan. Mr Yasufumi Minamitani, Representative Director and one of the founders of Japan Legal Network (previously an Attorney at leading Japanese law firm Nishimura Asahi and a business consultant at Boston Consulting Group), said: “Japanese claimants have traditionally not had an avenue to progress their legal rights while outsourcing the costs and risks to a finance institution at the same time. Japan Legal Network is the first service of this kind in Japan and provides clients with the capital and expertise to pursue their rights.” Co-founder of Japan Legal Network, Mr Nobuhisa Hayano (previously an Attorney at leading Japanese Law firm Oh-ebashi Partners) added: “Thanks to Omni Bridgeway’s investment, we are assisting thousands of claimants in recovering their damages and advocating for a fairer society in Japan.“ Mr. Seiichiro Wada, Representative Director of Monex Ventures, Inc. who is a co-investor with Omni Bridgeway, said: “Although consultation services to lawyers and other experts have become widespread and access to justice has become easier in Japan, there are many cases in which victims have to give up filing a lawsuit due to the financial burden. We also believe that there are many people and corporations who have a legal problem, but are unable to take action due to their customs or beliefs. We hope that the finance service provided by Japan Legal Network will become widespread and facilitate the use of legal professional services and that it will help people and corporations struggling with legal issues to resolve them.“ Tom Glasgow, Chief Investment Officer - Asia at Omni Bridgeway, said: “Omni Bridgeway has the largest team of its kind in Asia and the world and we are delighted to support Japan Legal Network and be at the forefront yet again of introducing new finance services to another part of Asia”. ABOUT OMNI BRIDGEWAY Omni Bridgeway is the global leader in dispute resolution finance, with expertise in civil and common law legal and recovery systems, and operations spanning Asia, Australia, Canada, Europe, the Middle East, the UK and the US. Omni Bridgeway offers dispute finance from case inception through to post-judgment enforcement and recovery. Since 1986 it has established a proud record of funding disputes and enforcement proceedings around the world. Omni Bridgeway is listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX:OBL) and includes the leading dispute funders formerly known as IMF Bentham Limited, Bentham IMF and ROLAND ProzessFinanz. It also includes a joint venture with IFC (part of the World Bank Group).
Announcements Commercial

NERA Consulting Economist joins Augusta as Lead Economist

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

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

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

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

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

About Augusta

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

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

Commercial

Ontario Makes Sweeping Changes to Class Proceedings Act

Last week, it was determined that Bill 161 would be signed into law. This bill includes several amendments to the Class Proceedings Act of 2002, which details specific guidelines for class action lawsuits. Mondaq explains that the changes were proposed to make the courts move more swiftly while ensuring that justice is served. The most prominent changes include a centralized database of class action cases in Ontario—which had never been required before. Other new rules include prohibiting overlapping cases, limiting time periods for indemnity claims, and new requirements regarding appeals, certifications, notifications of class action members, and dismissal of dormant actions. The amendments also stipulate that when a party seeks settlement, the court must be given detailed information before approving. Litigation Finance did not escape notice in the amendments. Ontario now requires that funding agreements be subjected to court approval. Courts will require that agreements be reasonable and fair and that agreements with funders will not supersede the rights of plaintiffs to make decisions regarding their case. Funders must also be willing and able to cover adverse costs—which is to say that if a case loses and the winner’s court costs must be paid—the funder will be liable to cover it. After a funding arrangement is approved by the courts, defendants can obtain their costs from funders in accordance with the indemnity clause in the funding agreement. Defendants may also get security from the funder for costs in some circumstances. These include defendants who live and work outside of Ontario, those who may not have the ability to pay, or instances when a funder owes money to a defendant or plaintiff that remains outstanding. Courts will also require reports from those who distribute funds. These reports must be filed within 60 days of funds being disbursed. This is to ensure that plaintiffs, attorneys, and funders are all appropriately compensated.
Commercial Covid-19

Law Firms Utilize Lit Fin to Meet Obligations During COVID

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