Trending Now

John Freund's Posts

3123 Articles
Announcements Commercial

Sérgio Moro Leads Speakers at OffshoreAlert Brazil Conference

MIAMI, Aug. 27, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- Brazil's Minister for Justice, Sérgio Moro, will give the keynote address at The OffshoreAlert Conference Latin America on Financial Intelligence & Investigations on September 16-17, 2019. Tickets can be purchased now at oacbrazil.com, where you will also find details about our agenda and speakers. Attendees will learn how to detect financial crime, recover hidden assets, obtain litigation funding to pursue claims, file whistleblowing claims, evaluate investment opportunities, and increase their chance of success in high-value, cross-border finance. Network with industry leaders in a stunning, five-star setting. Moro is known internationally for his role as a judge overseeing bribery and corruption cases arising from Operação Lava Jato, a.k.a. Operation Car Wash, including the trial of Brazil's former president Luís Inácio Lula da Silva. He is part of a powerful and influential line-up of speakers that also includes Latin American Herald Tribune publisher Russ Dallen, Brazil's Director of Asset Recovery & International Judicial Cooperation, Erika Marena; judges Paulo Furtado de Oliveira Filho and Moacyr Lobato de Campos Filho, prosecutors Vladimir Aras, Eronides Aparecido Rodrigues dos Santos, and Pedro Lupera Zerpa, politician Hugo Leal, whistleblower Jonathan Taylor, leading fraud and asset recovery attorneys, insolvency practitioners, journalists, and other experts on serious financial crime. Sessions include:
  • An Introduction To International Asset Recovery;
  • Asset Recovery Latin America: Tips From The Experts;
  • Litigation Funding: How to Get Your Multi-Million Dollar Claims Funded By Third Parties;
  • How Latin American Whistleblowers Can Make Millions From US Whistleblowing Programs;
  • Brazil's Whistleblowing Laws: An Analysis of Existing & Proposed Legislation;
  • The Emperor Has No Clothes: The Great Cryptocurrency Scam;
  • Busting the Blockchain: How To Trace & Seize Virtual Assets & Evaluate Risk in a Pseudo-Anonymous World;
  • Data Leaks: What The ICIJ's Panama & Paradise Papers Revealed About Latin America;
  • Corruption & Asset Recovery: The Brazilian Perspective;
  • Allen Stanford: An Update for Latin American Victims;
  • Bankruptcy Fraud in Brazil: The Duties of Trustees;
  • Inside Venezuela: An Overview of Fraud & Corruption;
  • Cross-Border Insolvencies: Chapter 15 & Latin American Equivalents;
  • Investing in Distressed Assets & Legal Claims: What You Need To Know; and
  • Corruption & Money Laundering in Brazil: Problems & Solutions.
The OffshoreAlert Conference Latin America will be held at the magnificent Palácio Tangará hotel in Sāo Paulo, Brazil, on September 16-17, 2019. Presentations will be simultaneously interpreted in English, Portuguese, and Spanish. About OffshoreAlert Launched in 1997, Miami-based OffshoreAlert is the leading provider of investigative information about individuals and businesses operating in high-value, cross-border finance. We offer a subscription-based news and documents service at www.offshorealert.com and hold annual conferences on financial intelligence and investigations in Miami, Brazil, and London. OffshoreAlert has exposed more than 175 fraudulent schemes and helped prosecutors and regulators punish those responsible. FIFA's top officials were exposed at our Miami Conference in 2010 - 5 years before they were indicted for corruption. SOURCE OffshoreAlert

Related Links

https://www.offshorealert.com/
Commercial Special Features

Why Litigation Finance is Suited to Public Markets

The following was contributed by Nick Rowles-Davies, Executive Vice Chairman of Litigation Capital Management (LCM). The recent and well documented attacks by activist short-seller Muddy Waters on Burford Capital have brought litigation finance into the limelight. Whilst largely focussed on Burford’s accounting methods and corporate governance, the hedge fund’s accusations have raised concerns around the practices and legitimacy of the industry more broadly. One key question raised is around whether funders should even be listed on a public market. More pointedly, why can companies with questionable governance practices, an unpredictable revenue forecast, and operating in an industry with limited access to a secondary market against which claims can be evaluated, be listed? A lot of this is down to varying levels of understanding around Burford’s accounting practices, and indeed those of the wider industry. It is important to recognise that while there are many companies operating in the growing litigation finance space, they do not all do the same thing, or account the same way and shouldn’t all be tarred with the same brush. Fair value accounting – adopted by Burford and others under IFRS 9, is not an evil. But the application of it does matter. There are differing ways of adopting fair value accounting and how it is used is ultimately a management team decision. The accounting treatment for litigation projects varies across the industry and some approaches are more reliant on subjective judgement by management teams than others. For a clear representation, fair value numbers should always be given alongside historical cash accounting figures, so investors and counterparties are able to see the underlying performance of the business. It is vital that funders are fully transparent and have numbers that can be easily verified and valued externally. In practice, this entails the development of a fair value accounting method that can be scrutinised and tested by external parties. This probably results in lower valuations than management may have reached alone. But ultimately, as we’ve seen over the past fortnight, it is prudent to be cautious and conservative. The importance of disclosure to shareholders and clients cannot be underestimated. Subject to the right application of fair value accounting, there are several significant advantages to being listed - relating to transparency, regulation and access to capital - that make it a highly appropriate model for funders. Being listed on any stock exchange ensures a level of regulation and transparency that the private markets do not. We say this with some authority having been listed on both a main market (the Australian Securities Exchange) and the Alternative Investment Market (“AIM”). Our experience has been that there is little difference in standards and accountability between the two. As a constituent of a public market, there is pressure to ensure that standards of corporate governance are upheld. Natural checks exist to hold companies to account in the form of selling investors, analysts publishing negative research, and, at the most extreme level, activists or short sellers publicly targeting companies. What’s difficult is that there is no formal regulation of the litigation finance sector, although its introduction in multiple jurisdictions is inevitable in time. It is hard to predict what form it will take, but I have no doubt that respectable funders will welcome it when it arrives, and we should do. In the meantime, our listed status provides a platform through which we can continue to meet regulatory standards. This is particularly important for firms like LCM looking to fund corporate portfolio transactions. Naturally, sophisticated corporates have stringent KYC protocols, and being listed demonstrates a level of oversight and transparency around where your capital is coming from, often in stark contrast to some. Furthermore, litigation finance is capital-intensive by its very nature and being listed provides funders with access to public sources of capital in the equity and bond markets. Equity raises provide funders with permanent capital to invest from the balance sheet, thereby avoiding any potential liquidity mismatches that might occur with some alternative fund structures. It also means investors of all types (from institutions to individuals) can gain access to the asset class’s attractive, uncorrelated returns. There will be a failure in this industry soon. This will be in large part due to the use of contingent revenues to hide loss positions, as well as funders being over reliant on one part of the market, such as single case investments. This is clearly not a sustainable business model and further illustrates the need for the considered use of fair value accounting. Recent events have been no help to the ongoing education process around the benefits of legal finance generally. It is a rude awakening that the practices of one business in our industry have raised so many questions around the governance and reporting of its peers. It will take time for the jitters to settle. In the meantime, the regulatory oversight that being a listed company provides should be seen as a positive. Nick Rowles-Davies is Executive Vice Chairman of Litigation Capital Management (LCM) and leads the company’s EMEA operations.
Commercial

New Jersey Court Reaffirms Litigation Funding in Woodsford IP Claims

In the case of WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Multi Media LLC, Civil Action No. 2-14-cv-02340, a New Jersey court has reaffirmed that the pursuit of litigation funding by a plaintiff - in this case a partnership with Woodsford Litigation Funding - does not harm standing. As reported in Nat Law Review, WAG Acquisition owns a pair of patents related to streaming media buffering systems, which it sought to enforce in a series of 10 disputes against various adult website operators. Several defendants sought to remove WAG's standing given the litigation funding agreement with Woodsford. The funding agreement gave Woodsford right of first refusal on any potential claim, but allowed WAG to pursue any claim which Woodsford refused fund. Only WAG could initiate a claim, yet Woodsford maintained the right to reject any settlement offer. Should WAG and Woodsford disagree on whether or not to settle, a third party expert would be entrusted to make a binding decision. Woodsford is entitled to less than 50% of any damages claim, though it maintains first payout. And should WAG default, the patents themselves are transferred to Woodsford. Based on these terms, the defendants argued that the funding agreement transferred significant rights to Woodsford - so much so, that WAG lacked standing to enforce its patents. They argued that Woodsford essentially controlled the litigation, and that Woodsford's involvement necessitated negotiation with a non-party entity - one that had ownership rights in the patents no less, given that they'd be transferred to Woodsford should WAG default. However the court rejected those claims, on the basis that Woodsford cannot compel WAG to settle (Woodsford can only reject a settlement offer, and prompt a third party's binding decision). Additionally, Woodford's interest in WAG's patents do not amount to ownership, only a security on its investment. The court's decision reaffirms a plaintiff's standing with respect to seeking a funding agreement - even one with some (arguably) onerous terms.
Announcements Commercial

EQUITY ALERT: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit Against Burford Capital Limited

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Burford Capital Limited (OTC: BRFRF, BRFRY) from March 18, 2015 through August 7, 2019, inclusive (the “Class Period”). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Burford investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Burford class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1647.html or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR’S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Burford has been manipulating its metrics, including ROIC and IRR, to create a misleading picture of investment returns to investors; (2) these manipulations hid the fact that the Company is at high risk for a liquidity crunch and is already arguably insolvent; and (3) as a result of the aforementioned misconduct, Defendants’ statements about Burford’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 21, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1647.html or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.

Contacts

Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com  pkim@rosenlegal.com  cases@rosenlegal.com  www.rosenlegal.com
Commercial

How GCs Can Benefit from Litigation Finance in the Current Economic Environment

Study after study shows that General Counsel are growing more and more interested in the product of litigation finance, yet the adoption rates remain low. There are numerous hurdles, not the least of which is cultural: many GCs simply retract from the idea that their role and responsibility should transform from cost container to revenue producer. That said, given the shifting economic climate, it's worth taking another look at how litigation funding can benefit GCs and the balance sheets they are entrusted to safeguard. As reported in Crypto Coin Discovery, litigation finance helps move risk off the corporate balance sheet - not just litigation risk, but interest rate risk as well. Rates have whipsawed over the last year, and it's getting more and more difficult to predict Fed moves and future outcomes. So if corporates want to hedge their bets here, freeing up capital by engaging with litigation funders is a terrific option, and one that provides increased flexibility as the interest rate environment continues to fluctuate. Additionally, litigation finance is growing more sophisticated. Defense-side funding is slowly-but-surely evolving, and this is likely to spur more corporate interest. As corporates begin to bundle portfolios of plaintiff-side claims with defense-cases, expect the GC community to take notice. It's one thing to try to sell GCs on the idea of turning a cost center into a profit center, it's quite another to sell them on expanding their cost center, which defense-side funding is capable of achieving. All of this comes in addition to the accounting and operational benefits that corporations accrue when engaging with funders. When times are good, perhaps these benefits are less substantial. But with the global economy on shaky ground, GCs should certainly take a closer look at all of their options.
Announcements Commercial

Second Annual Litigation Finance Dealmakers Forum to Be Held on September 18-19 in New York City

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Premier Event in Litigation Finance to Feature Innovative Program, One-to-One Meetings, Industry Leaders, and Keynote Speaker Stephen Susman

Amid continued growth and developments in the litigation finance market, the leading companies and executives in the industry will convene at the Second Annual LF Dealmakers Forum to be held in New York on September 18-19. The keynote speaker will be Stephen Susman, one of the nation’s top trial lawyers and founder of Susman Godfrey, a nationally recognized firm specializing in high stakes litigation.

Two hundred executives are scheduled to attend the highly anticipated LF Dealmakers Forum, which has quickly become the signature gathering in the litigation finance space and builds on the success of the inaugural event last year. The exclusive event will be attended by a hand-selected group that includes leading executives from law firms, litigation finance firms, corporations, institutional investors, and advisors.

The forum will feature a mix of interactive sessions, roundtable discussions, and case studies designed to provide attendees with insights into deals, data, and regulatory trends.

LF Dealmakers Forum will also provide attendees with exclusive opportunities to expand referral networks and discuss new business through thirty-minute one-to-one meetings. More than 150 meetings were scheduled at the inaugural LF Dealmakers Forum last year.

“This was the “go-to” conference for litigation funding. The speakers were prepared, the content was strong, and the participants wanted to connect with each other,” said Collin Cox, Partner, Yetter Coleman LLP, following the conclusion of the inaugural event.

A-list attendees include top executives from sponsoring companies such as Longford Capital, Mintz, ME Group, Bentham IMF, Brown Rudnick, Burford, Curiam, Validity, Westfleet Advisors, the D. E. Shaw Group, Houlihan Lokey, HTS, Parabellum, and Therium.

“The LF Dealmakers Forum really delivered on all fronts from the opening keynote to the closing remarks,” said Brian Haan, Partner, Lee Sheikh Megley & Haan about last year’s event. “Candid panel discussions with leading financiers, executives, academics, and attorneys provided invaluable insight through topical debate.”

For more information about the Litigation Finance Dealmakers Forum and to apply for attendance at the limited seating event, please visit https://lfdealmakersforum.com/.

Media and other partnership inquiries may be directed to Wendy Chou at 718-812-6707 or wendy@dealmakersforums.com.

About Dealmakers Forums

Dealmakers Forums specializes in high interaction conferences that bring together select groups of forward-thinking, global executives for meaningful dialogue, debate and dealmaking. Developed in collaboration with industry leading practitioners, our events present timely issues that matter, real case studies, A-list speakers, and our signature one-to-one meetings. For more information about Dealmakers Forums and the 2019 schedule, please visit our website.

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190821005329/en/

Announcements Commercial

Legal-Bay Opens Nationwide Commercial Litigation Funding Division

LOS ANGELES, Aug. 20, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- Legal-Bay LLC, the Lawsuit Settlement Funding Company, announced that they have launched a new lawsuit finance division for commercial litigation, lawsuit loans or advances, and attorney loans for law firms. Commercial litigation cases can be extremely complex and require expansive resources for both plaintiffs and law firms to fight. Legal-Bay feels this is an under-served market and plans to build a new division to accommodate the needs in the market. Commercial litigation loans were created to assist plaintiffs level the playing field against deeper pocket defendants, who can simply outspend them and make winning a case more difficult. Legal-Bay's experience involving complex litigation will give hope to plaintiffs and middle market law firms that resources are available to prosecute a successful claim. Chris Janish, CEO of Legal-Bay, commented, "We are exciting to be expanding from our traditional personal injury and mass tort litigation to much larger commercial litigation involving complex cases that need large funding amounts. Typically, these cases have minimum requests of anywhere from $100K to $20MM and take more time to evaluate, and our network of experienced underwriters and investment bankers are eager to begin funding. We believe this is a service that will aid many plaintiffs and law firms in their quest for justice." Legal-Bay has outlined a nationwide network of outside consultants and strategic partners to properly service their clients. Their network involves organizations from New York NY, New Jersey NJ, Texas TX, Florida FL, Arizona AZ, Nevada NV, California CA, Illinois IL, Minnesota MN, Pennsylvania PA, and Connecticut CT. Legal-Bay currently funds car accidents, personal injury cases, wrongful termination, medical malpractice, clergy sex abuse, discrimination, trips and slip and fall cases, mass tort litigations and many commercial litigation cases. However, the commercial litigation funding division will focus on larger commercial litigation cases or products such as: Whistleblower or Qui Tam Cases, Breach of Contract, Executive Wrongful Termination Cases, Judgment or Verdict on Appeal Cases, Attorney or Law Firm Loans or Financing of Case Costs up to $20MM, Intellectual Property Cases, Estate or Partnership Unwinds, Franchise Protection, Franchise Protection, Security Fraud or Finra Arbitration Cases, Real Estate Cases, Partnership Fraud, Insurance Bad Faith Claims, Patent or Copyright Infringement Cases, Hospital or Surgery Medical Malpractice, Wrongful Death, and any large civil lawsuits where the plaintiffs have already filed complaints.    If you are looking for pre-settlement cash from your commercial litigation lawsuit, large lawsuit loan for general working capital, or to inquire about specific case costs, please apply at: http://lawsuitssettlementfunding.com Legal-Bay has now secured additional funding capital for these and other types of commercial litigation cases, and encourages plaintiffs or law firms that have been denied funding in the past not to be discouraged about applying with Legal-Bay. Most of Legal-Bay's commercial litigation funding programs are non-recourse lawsuit cash advances, also known as case funding. None of the programs should be considered to be a lawsuit loan, lawsuit loans, pre-settlement loans or a pre settlement loan; however each funding amount is different and traditional lawsuit loan terms may apply depending on the type of funding and jurisdiction. To learn more, or to apply for a commercial litigation cash advance, please visit: http://lawsuitssettlementfunding.com or call: 877.571.0405 where agents are standing by to hear about your specific case.  
Commercial

There is Now a Litigation Funder Solely Focusing on IRS Whistleblower Claims

The average IRS whistleblower claim takes more than eight years to pay out, if they pay out at all. That's a huge gamble, but one that isn't stopping one new litigation funder, whose brand new fund is solely devoted to funding IRS whistleblower claims. According to Bloomberg, Charles Middleton is a former senior tax executive who has blown the whistle on a pair of prominent ex-employers: Walmart and Oxbow Carbon (owned by Bill Koch). Middleton is still waiting for a payout in each claim, but his experience as a whistleblower has prompted him to form his own litigation fund dedicated to the niche legal sector. Middleton says his experience as a tax expert differentiates him from other litigation funders who are all ex-lawyers or finance professionals. That said, it's not like Middleton will have a ton of competition in the space, since many funders wouldn't touch an IRS whistleblower claim given the exorbitantly lengthy time-to-settlement. However, the claims themselves can provide enormous paydays. In 2018, the IRS paid out nearly $300 million on just 217 claims. The largest payout was over $100 million to a former UBS banker who blew the whistle on his employer's tax shenanigans. One challenge in funding such claims is that the IRS tends not to disclose case information to whistleblowers, which makes it nearly impossible to judge whether a payout is likely. However, The Taxpayer First Act was recently signed into law, and seeks to compel the IRS to be more forthcoming with a claimant's case progress. Another challenges is the structure of the funding agreement. Funders can't purchase a portion of the claim itself, or risk regulatory backlash. So they either provide working capital to the whistleblower or the attorney. Middleton's fund - Tax Truth Capital - will fund the whistleblowers, not their attorneys. And he will target claims that are very mature, since those more than eight years in progress are likely to be meritorious. According to Middleton, there are nearly 5,000 such claims across the U.S.
Commercial

Questions Arise Over Burford Executives’ Pay

New questions have arisen over payouts to top Burford executives, including CEO Christopher Bogart and co-foudner Jonathan Molot. Despite founding the company, the pair were not actually employees of Burford Capital until 2012. Prior to that, they formed an advisory firm - Burford Group Limited - and charged Burford Capital fees for their advisory work. In the wake of the Muddy Waters allegations, the pair are facing questions about the complex financial structure, as well as their current salaries which remain undisclosed, given the fact that neither is on the company's board. As reported in This is Money, Bogart and Molot both cashed out to the tune of £120 million after selling shares of Burford Capital last year. Their share compensation was offered when they became official Burford employees in 2012, and at today's stock price are worth over £200 million. The Mail on Sunday also revealed that Bogart and Molot made £15 million in fees from 2009-2012, when they were technically advising the company they founded. Carson Block, founder of Muddy Waters, the hedge fund that has accused Burford of misreporting its financials among other things, claims that Burford's financial statements convey that the executives are pulling plenty of cash out of the business, given how high the expenses are on the balance sheet. With 120 employees, Burford's staff costs last year added up to $50 million. Burford has stated that its complex financial structure is common among financial entities, and that it is considering revealing Bogart and Molot's salaries in the interest of transparency, even though it is not compelled to do so. All of this comes as US regulators are now taking a look at the market manipulation which Burford has accused various short-sellers of. Burford claims short-sellers 'spoofed' the stock, or issued short sales then quickly recalled them, in order to drive the share price down.
Announcements Commercial

Supreme Court of Canada agrees to hear an appeal in a case funded by Bentham IMF involving lawsuit against Callidus Capital Corporation

Bentham IMF Capital Limited (Bentham) is pleased to announce that the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has agreed to hear an appeal in a matter that Bentham is funding. As a result, Canada’s highest court will hear arguments for the first time relating to the important role of modern litigation funding in providing access to justice for parties, including those who are insolvent or bankrupt. The SCC will consider certain important questions, including if and how an insolvency court can approved a litigation funding arrangement (a case summary provided by the SCC is available here). This appeal does not directly relate to the merits of the underlying litigation that Bentham is funding, which is a claim for approximately $228 million by two insolvent entities (f.k.a. Bluberi Gaming Technologies Inc. and Bluberi Group Inc.) at al. against Callidus Capital Corporation, Catalyst Capital Group Inc., Newton Glassman et al. In a typical year, about 500 applications are made for permission to bring an appeal before the SCC, with the Court granting about 10% of such applications. In order for a matter to be granted permission, the SCC must be satisfied that it raises questions of public importance. A hearing before the SCC in this matter will likely take place in early 2020. For more information about this decision, including copies of court filings, please contact Bentham IMF at the coordinates below. Bentham background Bentham is the Canadian arm of publicly-traded IMF Bentham Limited (ASX:IMF), which has 14 offices in Australia, Canada, the US, Asia and Europe. IMF has built its reputation as a trusted provider of innovative litigation funding solutions and has established a diverse portfolio of litigation funding assets, assisting clients with meritorious claims across a range of industries and jurisdictions. As a pioneer of litigation funding in Australia since 2001, IMF has played a significant role in the development of a global industry. IMF has a highly experienced litigation funding team overseeing its investments. As of 31 December 2018, it has achieved a 90% success rate across 184 completed cases, thereby generating AUD$2.3 billion in recoveries.
Announcements Commercial

ParkerVision Reports Second Quarter 2019 Results; Touts Litigation Financing of its IP Claims for Reduction in Operating Costs

JACKSONVILLE, FL / ACCESSWIRE / August 14, 2019 / ParkerVision, Inc. (PRKR), a developer and marketer of technologies and products for wireless applications, today announced results for the three and six months ended June 30, 2019.

Second Quarter 2019 Summary and Recent Developments

  • Louis Freeh and Freeh Sporkin & Sullivan LLP joined the ParkerVision litigation team in June 2019.
    • Freeh, former federal judge and FBI Director, has been admitted as the Company’s counsel alongside Mintz Levin and Mckool Smith in the Company’s two district court patent infringement cases in Florida.
  • The District Court in the Middle District of Florida (Jacksonville division) issued an order denying Apple’s motion for summary judgment in the pending patent litigation against Qualcomm and Apple and also issued its claim construction (Markman) order, in which the Court adopted the Company’s proposed construction for two terms and the “plain and ordinary meaning” on the remaining terms.
    • A case management schedule has been submitted to the court with a proposed trial date in August 2020.
  • The District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Orlando division) granted the Company’s proposed selection of patent claims from four asserted patents and denied Qualcomm’s request to limit the claims and patents, including claims that survived Qualcomm’s validity challenges through Inter Partes Review (“IPR”).
    • The court also agreed that the Company may elect to pursue accused products that were at issue at the time the case was stayed, as well as new products that were released by Qualcomm during the pendency of the stay.
    • A case management schedule has been submitted to the court with a proposed trial date in December 2020.
  • The Company has withdrawn its pursuit of appellate actions in Germany.
    • The Company declined to appeal the April 2019 decision by the District Court of Munich Germany that Apple does not infringe the Company’s German ‘853 patent.
    • The Company recently withdrew its appeal of the October 2018 decision by the Federal Patent Court in Munich that ruled the Company’s German ‘831 patent is invalid.

Second Quarter and First Half Financial Results

  • Net loss for the second quarter of 2019 was $1.6 million, or $0.05 per common share, compared to a $4.5 million net loss, or $0.18 per common share, for the second quarter of 2018.
  • Net loss for the first half of 2019 was $3.7 million, or $0.12 per common share, compared to an $8.8 million net loss, or $0.39 per common share, for the first half of 2018.
  • Cash used for operations decreased approximately 68% in the second quarter of 2019 compared to the same period in 2018 as a result of the Company’s cost reduction measures.
  • The Company sold $1.64 million in five-year, 8% convertible notes during the first half of 2019. Of this amount, $1.3 million have a fixed conversion price of $0.25 per share and $0.34 million have a fixed conversion price of $0.10 per share. The majority of the proceeds were used to finance operations, with $0.15 million used for retention payments to legal counsel engaged to assist in a wide range of litigation related activities.

Jeffrey Parker, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, commented, “We are pleased with the recent decisions from the two district courts in Florida and are looking forward to having trial dates set in both of those cases. Our decisions to abandon our appellate actions in Germany were made based on the lengthy timeframe that this process requires, and our belief that the best return for our shareholders and the fairest compensation for the unauthorized use of our technologies can be achieved by focusing our resources on the two U.S. district court actions.”

Mr. Parker continued, “We have significantly reduced operating costs over the past year, and we believe those reductions, paired with additional litigation financing for the completion of our cases in Florida, will enable us to see these cases through to conclusion. Our longer-term goal is to rebuild ParkerVision’s innovative culture and to continue to bring new solutions to the challenges of a wireless world.”

About ParkerVision

ParkerVision, Inc. has designed and developed proprietary radio-frequency (RF) technologies which enable advanced wireless solutions for current and next generation wireless communication products. ParkerVision is engaged in a number of patent enforcement actions to protect patented rights that it believes are broadly infringed by others. For more information, please visit www.parkervision.com. (PRKR-I)

Safe Harbor Statement

This press release contains forward-looking information. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any such forward-looking statements, each of which speaks only as of the date made. Such statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties which are disclosed in the Company’s SEC reports, including the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018 and the Forms 10-Q for the quarters ended March 31 and June 30, 2019. These risks and uncertainties could cause actual results to differ materially from those currently anticipated or projected.

Contact: Cindy Poehlman Chief Financial Officer ParkerVision, Inc. 904-732-6100 cpoehlman@parkervision.com

ParkerVision, Inc. Balance Sheet Highlights

(in thousands)
(unaudited)
June 30, 2019
December 31, 2018
Cash and cash equivalents$63$1,527
Prepaid expenses637538
Accounts receivable and other current assets51122
Finished goods inventories5898
Property and equipment, net96129
Operating lease right-of-use assets364-
Intangible assets & other3,3573,917
Total assets4,6266,331
Accounts payable and other accrued expenses2,8101,833
Operating lease liabilities, current portion26486
Notes payable, current portion1,9332,437
Long-term liabilities28,30527,285
Shareholders' deficit(28,686)(25,310)
Total liabilities and shareholders' deficit$4,626$6,331

ParkerVision, Inc. Summary of Results of Operations (unaudited)

Three Months EndedSix Months Ended
(in thousands, except per share amounts)June 30,June 30,
2019201820192018
Product revenue$25$38$35$115
Cost of sales(25)(31)(35)(84)
Write down of obsolete inventory-(42)-(42)
Gross margin-(35)-(11)
Research and development expenses-1,0013341,875
Selling, general and administrative expenses1,8512,9024,0075,879
Total operating expenses1,8513,9034,3417,754
Interest and other income (expense)(76)(18)(138)(32)
Change in fair value of contingent payment obligation365(538)823(987)
Total interest and other289(556)685(1,019)
Net loss$(1,562)$(4,494)$(3,656)$(8,784)
Basic and diluted net loss per common share$(0.05)$(0.18)$(0.12)$(0.39)
Weighted average shares outstanding30,88824,56430,04222,672

ParkerVision, Inc. Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows (unaudited)

Three Months EndedSix Months Ended
(in thousands)June 30,June 30,
2019201820192018
Net cash used in operating activities$(877)$(2,775)$(2,550)$(6,126)
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities-2617
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities5652,6021,0804,854
Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents(312)(171)(1,464)(1,255)
Cash and cash equivalents - beginning of period3752701,5271,354
Cash and cash equivalents - end of period$63$99$63$99

SOURCE: ParkerVision, Inc.

Announcements Commercial

Comprehensive Report on Litigation Funding and Expenses Market 2019-2025

This report studies the Litigation Funding and Expenses Market size by players, regions, product types and end industries, history data 2019-2026 and forecast data 2019-2026; This report also studies the global market competition landscape, market drivers and trends, opportunities and challenges, risks and entry barriers, sales channels, distributors and Porter's Five Forces Analysis. “Litigation Funding and Expenses Market” Size and Outlook 2025 report provide detailed insight into aspects of controlling and enhancing market growth by classifying food additives in the correct way. The research report provides thorough information on market share analysis, market size, consumer volume, key market sectors, diverse regions, key market participants and industry/business tactics. The competitive scenario section of the report provides the major participants operating in the market. Request Sample Copy of this Report at- https://bit.ly/2OW9KxZ Key Strategic Players: Sydney-based IMF Bentham Ltd., Apex, and... This report lists the details of the production and consumption patterns of the business in addition to the current scenarios in the Litigation Funding and Expenses Market and trends in this industry. Also, the market report makes some important proposals for a new project of Commercial and Corporate Card Industry before evaluating its feasibility. Market size is calculable in terms of revenue (USD Million) production volume during the forecast period. Geographically, the Litigation Funding and Expenses market is divided into seven major regions: North America, South America, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Asia Pacific, Japan and the Middle East and Africa. North America and Europe have accounted for the top share of total producing revenue across the world due to the quantity of small, midsized and large enterprises in both the regions are very high. The Global Litigation Funding and Expenses Market offer data in the concluding part that is an assessment of the significant performance of the market is indicated by various analysis tools and comprehensive research reports. In conclusion, this report clearly shows all the facts of the market without reference to other research reports or data sources. Reasons to buy this report: • Assesses 2019-2026 Litigation Funding and Expenses Market development trends with the recent trends and SWOT analysis. • Find the most up to date information available on all active and planned Litigation Funding and Expenses Market globally. • Understand regional Litigation Funding and Expenses Market supply scenario. • Assess the production processes, major issues, and solutions to mitigate the development risk. • Recognize opportunities in the market industry with the help of upcoming projects and capital expenditure outlook. • Facilitate decision making on the basis of strong historic and forecast of market capacity data. Get Complete Report: https://bit.ly/2OW9KxZ Table of Contents: Global Litigation Funding and Expenses Market Report 2019 to 2025 Chapter One Global Litigation Funding and Expenses Market Overview Chapter Two Litigation Funding and Expenses Market Data Analysis Chapter Three Litigation Funding and Expenses Market Technical Data Analysis Chapter Four Litigation Funding and Expenses Market Government Policy and News Chapter Five Global Litigation Funding and Expenses Market Manufacturing Process and Cost Structure Chapter Six 2013-2019 Litigation Funding and Expenses Market Productions Supply Sales Demand Market Status and Forecast Chapter Seven Litigation Funding and Expenses Market Key Manufacturers Chapter Eight Up and Down Stream Industry Analysis Chapter Nine: Marketing Strategy - Litigation Funding and Expenses Market y Analysis Chapter Ten 2019-2025 Litigation Funding and Expenses Market Development Trend Analysis Chapter Eleven Global Litigation Funding and Expenses Market New Project Investment Feasibility Analysis ……………………………………………..Continued Contact Us: Sanjay Jain Manager - Partner Relations & International Marketing www.reportsandmarkets.com info@reportsandmarkets.com Ph: +44-020-3286-9338 (UK) Ph: +1-214-736-7666 (US) About Us: Market research is the new buzzword in the market, which helps in understanding the market potential of any product in the market. Reports And Markets is not just another company in this domain but is a part of a veteran group called Algoro Research Consultants Pvt. Ltd. It offers premium progressive statistical surveying, market research reports, analysis & forecast data for a wide range of sectors both for the government and private agencies all across the world. This release was published on openPR.
Commercial

BMW Takes Regency Funding to High Court Over Common Fund Order

In what could be the largest class action in Australian history, Regency Funding is bankrolling a claim against several car makers over faulty airbags which led to at least one fatality and multiple injuries. However one of the car makers, BMW, is challenging the common fund order that allows Regency to collect 25% of any payout, even from those who have not formally joined the class. As reported by ABC News, common fund orders emerged in the United States, and have now spread to Australia, the land where litigation funding first took hold. A common fund order lumps all claimants into a pool that then pays out the litigation funder a court-approved rate. The idea being that the funder bankrolls the case, which all claimants benefit from, and this ensures the funder receives fair compensation. BMW is taking Regency to the NSW High Court, in a bid to limit Regency's reimbursement level from any compensation offered to the former owners of the faulty Takata airbags. There are an estimated 2 million potential claimants in the action against six major car makers, 10% of whom could join the action against BMW.
Announcements Commercial

ROSEN, A TOP RANKED LAW FIRM: Updates Investigation of Securities Claims Against Burford Capital Limited

NEW YORK, NY / ACCESSWIRE / August 12, 2019 / Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, issues this update on its continuing investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Burford Capital Limited (OTC PINK:BRFRF)(OTC PINK:BRFRY) resulting from allegations that Burford Capital may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public.

Generally, the U.S. federal securities laws permit class actions for securities listed or traded over the counter in the U.S. Thus, only purchasers of BRFRF and BRFRY are eligible to participate in the proposed class action the firm is preparing. Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover losses suffered by Burford Capital investors. If you purchased shares of Burford Capital please visit the firm’s website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1647.html to join the class action. You may also contact Phillip Kim of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

-------------------------------

Contact Information:

Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com

SOURCE: Rosen Law Firm PA

Announcements Consumer

Legal-Bay Pre Settlement Funding Begins Funding Plaintiffs of 3M Earplug Lawsuits

PENSACOLA, Fla., Aug. 12, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- Legal-Bay LLC, The Pre Settlement Funding Company, announced today that they will be the first lawsuit funding company to begin offering cash advances for veterans who are involved in the 3M earplug litigation. 3M Corporation has come under fire recently for their Combat Arms brand earplugs, Version 2 (CAEv2). The Minnesota-based company is being accused of allegedly falsifying testing documents and knowingly manufacturing and distributing substandard earplugs to the U.S. military. The earplugs didn't maintain a tight enough seal, thereby allowing dangerous levels of sound to invade the wearer's ears, causing discomfort, pain, and in some cases, loss of balance, ringing in the ears or tinnitus, and permanent hearing damage. 3M has settled with the Department of Justice for $9MM regarding the allegedly defective earplugs. The company did not admit any fault in the settlement. Chris Janish, CEO of Legal-Bay, commented, "Although this litigation is in its very early stages, our experience in the mass tort industry tells us that these claims against 3M are strong. 3M will continue to fight for a long time. Regardless, we are going to begin funding these cases to help any veterans who may need an emergency cash advance." An MDL was created in early 2019 in the Northern District of Florida, and is still in the very early stages. No bellwether trials have been scheduled yet, and additional cases are still being added to the docket. It's possible that thousands of military personnel may have been affected. If you're involved in a 3M earplugs lawsuit and are looking for presettlement cash now, you can apply at: http://lawsuitssettlementfunding.com. In order to receive funding, you must have hearing damage and already have an attorney retained. If you do not have an attorney, Legal-Bay works with the top 3M law firms and lawyers in the country and can give you a referral. All of Legal-Bay funding programs are risk-free as you only repay the advance if your case is successful. The non-recourse advance is not a lawsuit loan, lawsuit loans, pre settlement loan, or pre-settlement loans. Please apply online: http://lawsuitssettlementfunding.com or call: 877.571.0405 where agents are standing by.
Commercial

Burford Responds to Muddy Waters Claims; Labels Them ‘False and Misleading’

Burford Capital CEO Christopher Bogart and co-founder Jonathan Molot have shot back at US-based hedge fund Muddy Waters' claims that Burford misreports its earnings, and is 'arguably insolvent.' In a call to investors earlier today, Bogart characterized the allegations as 'false and misleading,' and sought to assure investors by stating that both he and Molot had personally invested $4MM into Burford's stock after the Muddy Waters announcement was made. As reported in CDR, Bogart and Molot added during their call that employees remain steadfastly confident in the company. Bogart insists that Burford's accounting practices are transparent and have consistently met industry standards for years. He points out that its fair value accounting practice is widely-used in the Finance sector, and also points to 'major inaccuracies' in Muddy Waters' report. Bogart reiterated that Ernst & Young has audited and confirmed Burford's accounting. Bogart also labelled the accusation that Burford is 'arguably insolvent' as patently wrong, claiming the word 'arguably' was inserted to avoid a lawsuit. Burford, however, is currently investigating whether a lawsuit is appropriate. Speaking of lawsuits, a pair of law firms - Rosen Law and Schall Law - are each conducting investigations into whether Burford's management is at fault for the precipitous stock drop, which has negatively impacted shareholders. Depending on how this plays out, it could have wide reverberations for the industry. Already, rivals LCM and Manolete Partners - both publicly-traded companies like Burford - saw their stocks drop the day of the Muddy Waters announcement, only to watch them seesaw back up today. Of perhaps larger concern is how this will impact the industry's ability to raise capital going forward, and whether private funders will eschew going public, as some - including Vannin Capital and Litigation Lending - have both publicly considered. Doubtless this will continue to play out in both the media and the financial markets. We'll keep a close eye and continue to update accordingly.
Announcements Commercial

IMF Bentham responds to share price movement of rival Burford Capital Limited

PERTH, AUSTRALIA, 8 AUGUST 2019: In response to a (short) report issued by a US investment firm on 7 August 2019 on Burford Capital Limited (Burford), leading global dispute resolution financier and industry founder, IMF Bentham Limited (ASX:IMF), notes the following in relation to IMF’s accounting policies and disclosures. “There are fundamental differences between IMF Bentham and other funders. Our investors understand and value this and our investor base now includes some of the largest, most sophisticated institutional investors in the world,” says CEO and MD, Andrew Saker. Accounting treatment of Litigation Finance Assets
  • The accounting treatments adopted by IMF and some of its competitors vary materially.
  • IMF’s litigation funding assets, and those of investment vehicles managed or advised by IMF, are classified as intangible assets and therefore, in accordance with the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), are recognised at cost throughout the life of the investment and are subject to impairment testing. IMF does not record any unrealised gains attributable to market value adjustments of its litigation assets during the life of the investment.
  • IMF recognises any gain on assets at the time of completion of an investment. Losses on investments are recognised at the earlier of either negative developments which impact potential recoveries via an asset impairment, or from a loss at trial.
  • IMF’s conservative and transparent approach removes potentially-artificial estimations of asset values and offers investors comfort in the integrity and stability of the reported results.
  • IMF prepares its accounts in accordance with the Corporations Act and complies with the Australian Accounting Standards and the IFRS.
IMF’s key metrics
  • As stated in prior ASX announcements, IMF calculates its aggregate Return on Invested Capital (ROIC) and Internal Rate of Return (IRR) on concluded investments only (excluding any partial conclusions), withdrawals and overheads. These metrics include losses on concluded cases.
Funding for Future Investments and strategic capital management
  • A substantial capital position is essential in the dispute finance industry to underwrite investments.
  • During FY19, IMF significantly increased its capital reserves with the launch of two new Funds (Fund 4, Fund 5) with aggregate capital commitments of US$1 billion (including commitments from IMF of US$200 million). This external capital secures IMF’s medium-term funding requirements for its current and future litigation funding investments.
  • In FY19, IMF also completed an equity placement raising approximately $75 million, refreshed the terms of its listed bonds pushing maturity out to FY23 and raising a further $41 million from the issue of new bonds. IMF also currently expects to receive income of approximately $70 million in FY20 from conditional and in-principle settlements which have occurred since 1 July 2019 (of which $23.5 million relates to on-balance sheet investments and $45.7 million reflects fund investments).
About IMF Bentham Ltd IMF Bentham is one of the leading global dispute resolution financiers, headquartered in Australia and with offices in the US and Canada, Singapore, Hong Kong and the UK. IMF Bentham has built its reputation as a trusted provider of innovative funding solutions and has established an increasingly diverse portfolio of dispute resolution funding assets. IMF Bentham has a highly experienced dispute resolution funding team overseeing its investments. We have an exceptional success rate over 187 completed investments and have recovered over A$1.4 billion for clients since 2001. IMF now has close to A$2 billion in combined funds under management globally, making us a strong ally for our funded clients. For further information regarding IMF Bentham and its activities, please visit www.imf.com.au.
Commercial

Litigation Funding and Expenses: Are We Bound for a Conflict of Interest?

There's been much talk about litigation funding and legal fees, and whether the existence of funding generates an inherent conflict of interest. While there are some legitimate concerns here, the anxiety is mostly overblown. In an increasingly-commoditized industry, litigation funders aren't likely to risk repetitional harm by directing or even influencing case management and strategy. All of that said, legal fees are only one side of the coin. Funders also cover case expenses, and here is an area where conflict of interest may actually arise. In Above the Law, Gaston Kroub, founding partner of IP litigation boutique Kroub, Silbersher & Kolmykov, points out that when claimants accrue expenses, they utilize the services of numerous vendors (experts, eDiscovery platforms, transcripts, etc.). These vendors are naturally expensive, and the litigation funder is the one footing the bill. It's therefore natural to assume that funders might try to steer clients toward preferred vendors - either those with lower costs, or vendors with whom they form preferential relationships. Some have already expressed concern that funders may be nudging (for lack of a better term) claimants towards certain vendors, or in not utilizing support services out of a costs concern. While funders may counter that this in fact keeps the legal team honest (it's not unheard of for lawyers to suggest the use of superfluous experts/vendors in a bid to run up expenses), the potential for a conflict still exists. And at the very least, the optics aren't great. Kroub argues that in the long-term, the more forward-thinking funders may even build out their own in-house discovery teams and support services. Claimants may then be contractually obligated to utilize the funding company's vendor platforms.
Consumer

Court Orders Tom Girardi to Reveal Financials in Law Finance Claim

Tom Girardi, of the eponymous law firm Girardi Keese, has been ordered to deliver to his financials to the court after he failed to pay $6MM of a $16MM settlement with Law Finance Group. Law Finance sued Girardi for failure to repay a $15MM loan, and eventually settled on the $16MM figure, only to claim that Girardi skipped out on the final $6MM payment. As reported in The Blast, the court's order comes just days after Girardi's wife and Real Housewives of Beverly Hills star Erika Jayne was slapped with a $3MM lawsuit by Arizona-based law firm funder Stillwell Madison. Stillwell is also suing Girardi for alleged failure to repay an over $5MM loan the funder made. Stillwell is suing for the full $5MM, plus interest and damages. The embattled Girardi has been accused by both funders of spending their money on his and his wife's 'lavish lifestyle.' In addition to her role on The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, Jayne sings a song titled "It’s Expensive to Be Me."
Commercial

Hedge Fund Muddy Waters Alleges Burford’s Largest Shareholder Invesco Bailed Out One of its Clients

US-based hedge fund Muddy Waters has caused some serious ripples with its allegations against Burford Capital. In a recently released video, Muddy Waters CEO contends that Burford's largest shareholder - Invesco - essentially bailed out Napo Pharmaceuticals, a company whose legal claim Burford was financing. In 2013, Burford categorized Napo as a 'concluded investment,' with an ROIC of 113%. Yet according to Block, "there was actually a jury verdict in that case the next year, in 2014." The verdict was a loss for Napo, yet Burford had already concluded the case as a positive ROIC. Block claims that Burford entered into an agreement with Napo - the circumstances of which are unknown - whereby Napo owed Burford money. Yet after the jury verdict, Napo had to enter into a debt forbearance agreement, since it had no money to repay Burford. According to Block, Napo was merged into another company - Jaguar Animal Health - also run by Napo head Lisa Conte.  Jaguar then raised $8MM, and subsequently issued $8MM of stock to Burford. Block alleges that $3MM of the $8MM raised by Jaguar came from a fund managed by Mark Barnett, who is the protege of well-known UK investor Neil Woodford. So according to Block, an Invesco subsidiary - run by Mark Barnett - essentially bailed out a Burford investment. Block also contends that Burford likely 'wouldn't exist' if not for Woodford's investment. Woodford was previously at Invesco, before founding his hedge fund Woodford Investment Management. Block alleges that Burford got to mark up a positive ROIC during several years subsequent to the Napo case - in 2013 and 2014. According to Block, Burford's 2013 annual report claims a 53% ROIC. "Without Napo... the ROIC would have been only 2.9%." Block claims the company has been misleading investors for years, "and that pattern continues today." No response yet from Burford's management about the allegations, which have sent the stock plummeting 50%.
Commercial

New Survey Shows 98% of Attorneys Who Use Litigation Finance Would Re-Use

A new survey by Validity Finance and ALM has yielded some impressive results for litigation funders to harp onto. A full 98% of attorneys surveyed who had used litigation finance at least once in the past said they would do so again, and 93% found their experience to be positive. According to the report, the two companies surveyed 285 private attorneys and 45 in-house counsel, for a total of 330 attorneys. In addition to the aforementioned results, the survey also found that 70% of respondents believe litigation funding to be a key disruptor in the legal space. And only 27% of those who had used funding in the past have lingering ethical concerns (primarily around privilege and confidentiality). While just 15% of respondents said they had used litigation funding in the past (which helps yield that awfully-high 98% figure), a full 50% claimed they are open to using funding in the future. The main reason? The high cost of litigation (no surprise there). The report comes on the heels of a recent Burford Capital study which found similar results pertaining to CFOs and Financial Executives at major corporations. Apparently, market adoption of litigation funding remains slow, yet there are still plenty of growth prospects given the results of the dual surveys. Surveys such as these may help allay the concerns of those who decry market saturation and excessive competition from an influx of capital into the space. Clearly - at least as far as the respondents to these surveys go - there's plenty of opportunity for that capital to be put to work.
Announcements Commercial

Launch of ArbiLex Brings AI and Predictive Analytics to International Arbitration

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Aug. 5, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- ArbiLex today announced the launch of its Arbitrator Analytics Platform, which is transforming the practice of international arbitration by ranking arbitrators through a proprietary reasoning system to enhance decision-making by law firms and litigation funds. ArbiLex has successfully tested the efficacy of its algorithms with leading global law firms and litigation funds seeking a competitive edge in multi-billion-dollar cases around the world. International arbitration is one of the fastest-growing practice areas for global law firms and litigation funds. Last year, Singapore and Hong Kong became the latest jurisdictions to liberalize the entry of litigation finance into international arbitration, broadening beyond traditional venues such as the United States, where the litigation finance market size is estimated to be between $50 billion to $100 billion. "In the era of global litigation finance, international arbitration cases are emerging as a multi-trillion-dollar asset class. Under this new paradigm, the status quo of relying solely on anecdotal evidence and qualitative memos is insufficient. When the stakes are all-or-nothing, there needs to be a more quantitative, coherent and explainable framework in assessing deal risk," said ArbiLex Founder and CEO Isabel Yang, a statistician, economist and graduate of Harvard Law School with experience in law and policy across four continents. "ArbiLex's analytics solution leverages expert knowledge and probabilistic modeling to inform high-value strategic decisions, starting with the selection of arbitral tribunals, which is arguably the highest-value decision in any arbitration case," Yang added. Yang first tested the concept of ArbiLex in the Harvard Innovation Labs before forming the team earlier this year. Since then, the company has attracted world-class engineers, AI and machine learning scientists, and designers from organizations including Google, MIT, Harvard University, and IDEO. Law firms and litigation funds consider the application of ArbiLex to international arbitration as a potential game-changer. Yas Banifatemi, Partner and Co-Head of the International Arbitration practice at the law firm Shearman & Sterling, said: "Artificial intelligence is growing fast as a disruptive technology in the practice of international arbitration. ArbiLex represents a key initiative and has the ambition – and means – to become a leading resource in the field." Tom Glasgow, Chief Investment Officer for Asia at global litigation fund IMF Bentham, said: "ArbiLex brings data-driven intelligence to difficult and critical decisions like tribunal selection, providing an important objective overlay to the legal team's analysis. This will likely become a highly sought-after risk management tool for funders and commercial parties alike." Benjamin Roe, Lead Knowledge Lawyer for Global Disputes at the law firm Baker McKenzie, said of ArbiLex: "The kind of analysis provided by ArbiLex has the potential to transform arbitration." Mark Beckett, International Arbitration Partner at the law firm Cooley LLP, and an adviser to ArbiLex, added: "ArbiLex's use of AI will help counsel and clients test their positions, adopt the best strategy and provide important feedback on when it makes sense to fight and when it makes sense to settle. The array of tools significantly enhances the ability of counsel to help claimholders use the process intelligently and achieve better outcomes." SOURCE ArbiLex
Announcements Commercial

Editec Global HR Head joins Augusta

London, 5th August 2019, Augusta, the UK’s largest litigation and dispute funding institution by case volume - today announces the appointment ofAnna Malek as Head of HR, based in London. Anna joins from software and services group Editec where, as Global Head of HR, she managed the full range of people related functions.

Anna’s recruitment is the latest addition to Augusta’s management team following the recent arrivals of Proskauer’s Director of Professional Resources Polly Bahl as Chief Operating Officer (COO) and FTI Consulting Managing Director Leor Franks as Chief Marketing Officer (CMO). These hirings reflect Augusta’s growth and investment in professional functions to support the increasing demand for dispute and litigation funding. Commenting on the appointment, Louis Young, Managing Director at Augusta, said: “We’re delighted to welcome Anna to Augusta. With her broad experience of human resources strategy and tactics, Anna will play a key role around our most important asset, our people, who are critical to this important phase of our growth”. Anna Malek commented: “I’m excited to become part of the continued expansion of Augusta’s operations, given the potential for the business to grow in the UK and internationally. I’m looking forward to working with Augusta's capable management team and to support the development of a leading player in litigation and dispute funding”.

About Augusta Ventures: - Established in 2013, Augusta is the largest litigation and dispute funding institution in the UK by # cases with a team of 70 in London and 85 worldwide. Augusta’s scale enables us to make decisions in market-leading timeframes and fund cases of any size. - Augusta is organised into specialist practice groups: Arbitration, Class Action, Competition, Consumer, Intellectual Property and Litigation, and sectors: Financial Services and Construction & Energy. - By the end of H12019, Augusta had funded 213 claims with a market-leading win ratio of over 80%. - Augusta recently announced £25m funding deals with international law firm Pinsent Masons and leading litigation law firm HFW.

Commercial

Ethical Considerations of Litigation Finance Under Scrutiny

As litigation funding gains mainstream acceptance, there have been more and more headline-making allegations which are casting a shadow over the industry. Despite the funding community's best efforts to assuage such ethical concerns, they persist and continue to plague the nascent market. As reported in Forbes, litigation funding fills a genuine gap in the market - not only for claimants who must face the prospect of excessive legal costs if they are to attain access to justice, but also for law firms who accept additional risk in order to meet client demand and offer contingency-fee arrangements (as opposed to the traditional billable hour model). Litigation funding reduces risk for both the claimant and the law firm, and does so without the onerous terms of a traditional loan. Consider that commercial banks offer loans at 5-7% interest, collateralized by an attorney's personal assets. Middle-market lender can charge upwards of 10-13%, and hard-money lenders 18-24%.  That is some costly recourse financing. Litigation funding offers non-recourse financing, which is much more attractive to risk-averse attorneys and claimants. That said, the ethical considerations of whether funders are indeed leveraging their stake in the claim to influence case strategy, as well as issues of privileged communication and even champerty and maintenance are continuously espoused by industry opponents. On the one hand, financing makes attorneys and claimants more independent (they are not beholden to financial concerns when pursuing their case). On the other, they may in fact be beholden to those who control the purse strings (the litigation funders). Critics of the industry contend that while litigation funding offers liquidity to claimants and attorneys, it can also be subjected to abuse, and therefore requires oversight. It is worth considering whether a clarified set of regulations around third party funding would actually benefit the industry, if only to assuage such ethical concerns.
Announcements Consumer

Lawsuit Loans Market Growing Demand Rapidly 2019 With Major Players Oasis Legal Finance, Fair Rate Funding, High Rise Financial, LawCash, Mayfield Settlement Funding, Nova Legal Funding

Lawsuit Loans Market Industry Research Report focuses Market Size, Share, Growth, Manufacturers and Forecast to 2026. This Market Research Report primarily based upon factors on which the companies complete in the market and this factor which is useful and valuable to the business. This report has published stating that the Global Lawsuit Loans Market is anticipated to expand significantly at Million US$ in 2019 and is projected to reach Million US$ by 2026, at a CAGR of during the forecast period. Sample Report with Latest Industry Trends @: https://www.qyreports.com/request-sample/?report-id=221027 Lawsuit Loans helps the enterprises to monitor and maintain the overall functioning of the building infrastructure with quick response to any system failure. Globally, enterprises are continuously focusing on a sustainable model for facilities to reduce the carbon footprint of their organization. Top Key Companies Players Analyzed in this Report are: Peachtree Financial Solutions, DRB Capital, J.G. Wentworth Structured Settlements, Oasis Legal Finance, Fair Rate Funding, High Rise Financial, LawCash, Mayfield Settlement Funding, Nova Legal Funding, Pravati Capital Lawsuit Loans Market: Reports Intellect represents the detail analysis of the parent market based on elite players, present, past and futuristic data which will offer as a profitable guide for all Lawsuit Loans Market competitors. The overall analysis Advanced Lawsuit Loans Market covers an overview of the industry policies that Lawsuit Loans Market significantly, the cost structure of products available the in the market, and their manufacturing chain. The scope of the Lawsuit Loans Market report is as follows the report provides information on growth segments and opportunities for investment and Benchmark performance against key competitors. Geographically, the global mobile application market has been segmented into four regions such as North America, Europe, Asia Pacific and the rest of the world. Get Reasonable Discount on this Premium Report @: https://www.qyreports.com/ask-for-discount?report-id=221027 Finally, all aspects of the Global Lawsuit Loans Market are quantitatively as well qualitatively assessed to study the Global as well as regional market comparatively. This market study presents critical information and factual data about the market providing an overall statistical study of this market on the basis of market drivers, limitations and its future prospects. The report supplies the international economic competition with the assistance of Porter’s Five Forces Analysis and SWOT Analysis. Following are the List of Chapter Covers in the Lawsuit Loans Market:
  1. Lawsuit Loans Market Overview
  2. Global Economic Impact on Industry
  3. Global Market Competition by Manufacturers
  4. Global Market Analysis by Application
  5. Marketing Strategy Analysis, Distributors/Traders
  6. Market Effect Factors Analysis
  7. Global Lawsuit Loans Market Forecast
About Us We at, QYReports, a leading market research report published accommodate more than 4,000 celebrated clients worldwide putting them at advantage in today’s competitive world with our understanding of research. Our list of customers includes prestigious Chinese companies, multinational companies, SME’s and private equity firms whom we have helped grow and sustain with our fact-based research. Our business study covers a market size of over 30 industries offering unfailing insights into the analysis to reimagine your business. We specialize in forecasts needed for investing in a new project, to revolutionize your business, to become more customer centric and improve the quality of output. Contact: QYReports Jones John +(1) 786-292-8164 204, Professional Center, 7950 NW 53rd Street, Miami, Florida 33166 sales@qyreports.com http://www.qyreports.com
Commercial Consumer

Global Lawsuit Loans Market Report 2019

Global Lawsuit Loans Market Report 2019 is a professional and in-depth research report on the world's major regional market conditions of the Lawsuit Loans industry, focusing on the main regions (North America, Europe and Asia) and the main countries (United States, Germany, Japan and China). The report firstly introduced the Lawsuit Loans market basics: definitions, classifications, applications and industry chain overview; industry policies and plans; product specifications; manufacturing processes; cost structures and so on. Then it analyzed the world's main region market conditions, including the product price, profit, capacity, production, capacity utilization, supply, demand and industry growth rate etc. In the end, the report introduced new project SWOT analysis, investment feasibility analysis, and investment return analysis. Get sample copy of this report@  https://bit.ly/2LSDBVP Some of the key players operating in this market include: Peachtree Financial Solutions,DRB Capital,J.G. Wentworth Structured Settlements,Oasis Legal Finance,Fair Rate Funding,High Rise Financial,LawCash,Mayfield Settlement Funding,Nova Legal Funding,Pravati Capital The report includes six parts, dealing with: 1) Basic information 2) The Asia Lawsuit Loans market. 3) The North American Lawsuit Loans industry. 4) The European Lawsuit Loans industry. 5) Market entry and investment feasibility. 6) The report conclusion. Reasons for Buying this Report This report provides pin-point analysis for changing competitive dynamics It provides a forward looking perspective on different factors driving or restraining market growth It provides a six-year forecast assessed on the basis of how the market is predicted to grow It helps in understanding the key product segments and their future It provides pin point analysis of changing competition dynamics and keeps you ahead of competitors It helps in making informed business decisions by having complete insights of market and by making in-depth analysis of market segments TABLE OF CONTENT: 1 Industry Overview of Lawsuit Loans Market 2 Manufacturing Cost Structure Analysis of Lawsuit Loans Market 3 Technical Data and Manufacturing Plants Analysis of Lawsuit Loans Market 4 Global Lawsuit Loans Market Overview 5 Lawsuit Loans Market Regional Market Analysis 6 Global (2015-2019) Lawsuit Loans Market Segment Market Analysis (by Type) 7 Global (2015-2019) Lawsuit Loans Market Segment Market Analysis (by Application) 8 Major Manufacturers Analysis of Lawsuit Loans Market 9 Development Trend of Analysis of Lawsuit Loans Market 10 Lawsuit Loans Marketing Type Analysis 11 Consumers Analysis of Lawsuit Loans Market 12 Conclusion of the Global Lawsuit Loans Market Professional Survey Report 2019 Get Complete Report@ https://bit.ly/2LSDBVP Contact Us: Sanjay Jain Manager - Partner Relations & International Marketing www.reportsandmarkets.com info@reportsandmarkets.com Ph: +44-020-3286-9338 (UK) Ph: +1-214-736-7666 (US) About Us: Market research is the new buzzword in the market, which helps in understanding the market potential of any product in the market. Reports And Markets is not just another company in this domain but is a part of a veteran group called Algoro Research Consultants Pvt. Ltd. It offers premium progressive statistical surveying, market research reports, analysis & forecast data for a wide range of sectors both for the government and private agencies all across the world. This release was published on openPR.
Commercial

How AI Can Help Litigation Funders Predict Legal Bills

Legal Tech is slowly-but-surely permeating all aspects of the Legal Services industry. And one fast-moving sector of Legal Tech is billing software, which seeks to scrape data on legal costs to better predict how much lawyers will end up charging on a given claim. As reported in LexBlog, Legal Tech firms can now aggregate billing data to develop more accurate budgets and track how lawyers perform against those budgets. Law firm-specific, or even lawyer-specific benchmarks can then be established, which can help funders and claimants assess which attorneys are most efficient with their time (and therefore cost less, for the same amount of work produced). Available software can also identify billing irregularities and guideline violations. Consilio's Sky Analytics is an AI-software that benchmarks lawyers using data from numerous companies and law firms. CounselLink's Insights is another analytical assessment tool, which maintains a database of 7 million invoices across 1.7 million legal matters that it uses to benchmark cost and efficiency. Though these tools are becoming more and more sophisticated, experts agree that humans are still needed to analyze and act upon the results provided. The software delivers natural benefits to both funders and claimants, who can better predict their legal spend as a result. Yet many experts also predict that law firms will begin using these tools to improve their own efficiencies, without waiting for funders or corporate clients to make such demands of them. Already, platforms like Headnote exist which help law firms better assess their realization rates and determine the causes of reduced rates. All told, AI will raise back the curtain of law firm billing, which remains an opaque cost center for claimants. Transparency is the new name of the game, and that bodes well for those footing the bills, including litigation funders.
Announcements Commercial

Litigation Funding Investment Market Report 2019 Analysis By Major Players; Sydney-based IMF Bentham Ltd., and Apex

The research report, titled “Global Litigation Funding Investment Market Size and Forecast to 2024,” proposes an evaluation of this market on the basis of its history as well as the present-day performance. The report further emphasizes on each of the topographical segments. The principal driving forces, restrictions, hindering factors, key trends, opportunities, and future prospects of the global market have also been taken into consideration in this market study. Get The Sample Copy Here @ https://bit.ly/331GTv2 Some of the key players operating in this market include: Sydney-based IMF Bentham Ltd., Apex Litigation Finance, and Many More. The report firstly introduced the Litigation Funding Investment market basics: definitions, classifications, applications and industry chain overview; industry policies and plans; product specifications; manufacturing processes; cost structures and so on. Then it analyzed the world's main region market conditions, including the product price, profit, capacity, production, capacity utilization, supply, demand and industry growth rate etc. In the end, the report introduced new project SWOT analysis, investment feasibility analysis, and investment return analysis. Development policies and plans are discussed as well as manufacturing processes and cost structures are also analyzed. This report also states import/export consumption, supply and demand Figures, cost, price, revenue and gross margins. The report includes six parts, dealing with: 1) Basic information 2) The Asia Litigation Funding Investment market. 3) The North American Litigation Funding Investment industry. 4) The European Litigation Funding Investment industry. 5) Market entry and investment feasibility. 6) The report conclusion. TABLE OF CONTENT: •Industry Overview of Litigation Funding Investment Market •Manufacturing Cost Structure Analysis of Litigation Funding Investment Market •Technical Data and Manufacturing Plants Analysis of Litigation Funding Investment Market •Global Litigation Funding Investment Market Overview •Litigation Funding Investment Market Regional Market Analysis •Global (2019-2024) Litigation Funding Investment Market Segment Market Analysis (by Type) •Global (2019-2024) Litigation Funding Investment Market Segment Market Analysis (by Application) •Major Manufacturers Analysis of Litigation Funding Investment Market •Development Trend of Analysis of Litigation Funding Investment Market •Consumers Analysis of Litigation Funding Investment Market •Conclusion of the Global Litigation Funding Investment Market Professional Survey Report 2019 Full Report Description @ https://bit.ly/331GTv2 About us Market research is the new buzzword in the market, which helps in understanding the market potential of any product in the market. This helps in understanding the market players and the growth forecast of the products and so the company. This is where market research companies come into the picture. Reports And Markets is not just another company in this domain but is a part of a veteran group called Algoro Research Consultants Pvt. Ltd. It offers premium progressive statistical surveying, market research reports, analysis & forecast data for a wide range of sectors both for the government and private agencies all across the world. Contact Us: Sanjay Jain Manager - Partner Relations & International Marketing info@reportsandmarkets.com Ph: +1-214-736-7666 (US) +1-352-353-0818 (US) This release was published on openPR.
Announcements Commercial

Crowdfunding Litigation Market Industry: global market trends, share, size and forecast report 2019-2024

Global Crowdfunding Litigation Market Report 2019 is a professional and in-depth research report on the world's major regional market conditions of the Crowdfunding Litigation industry, focusing on the main regions (North America, Europe and Asia) and the main countries (United States, Germany, Japan and China). Get The Sample Copy Here @ bit.ly/2K3XzLb Some of the key players operating in this market include: AxiaFunder’s, Burford Capital,and IMF Bentham The report firstly introduced the Crowdfunding Litigation market basics: definitions, classifications, applications and industry chain overview; industry policies and plans; product specifications; manufacturing processes; cost structures and so on. Then it analyzed the world's main region market conditions, including the product price, profit, capacity, production, capacity utilization, supply, demand and industry growth rate. In the end, the report introduced new project SWOT analysis, investment feasibility analysis, and investment return analysis. The report includes six parts, dealing with: 1) Basic information 2) The Asia Crowdfunding Litigation market. 3) The North American Crowdfunding Litigation industry. 4) The European Crowdfunding Litigation industry. 5) Market entry and investment feasibility. 6) The report conclusion. TABLE OF CONTENT:
    • Industry Overview of Crowdfunding Litigation Marke
    • Manufacturing Cost Structure Analysis of Crowdfunding Litigation Market
    • Technical Data and Manufacturing Plants Analysis of Crowdfunding Litigation Market
    • Global Crowdfunding Litigation Market Overview
    • Crowdfunding Litigation Market Regional Market Analysis
    • Global (2019-2026) Crowdfunding Litigation Market Segment Market Analysis (by Type)
    • Global (2019-2026) Crowdfunding Litigation Market Segment Market Analysis (by Application)
    • Major Manufacturers Analysis of Crowdfunding Litigation Market
    • Development Trend of Analysis of Crowdfunding Litigation Market
    • Consumers Analysis of Crowdfunding Litigation Market
    • Conclusion of the Global Crowdfunding Litigation Market Professional Survey Report 2019
Full Report Description @ bit.ly/2K3XzLb
Category: Market Research Publishers and Retailers
Company about: Reports And Markets are part of the Algoro Research Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and offers premium progressive statistical surveying, market research reports, analysis & forecast data for industries and governments around the globe. Are you mastering your market? Do you know what the market potential is for your product, who the market players are and what the growth forecast is? We offer standard global, regional or country specific market research studies for almost every market you can imagine ...

For more information:

 
Commercial

Enforcement in the UK is a Growing Problem

With no automatic enforcement mechanism in place and only 60% of awards under £10,000 being fully enforced, the UK is experiencing a crisis of enforcement. Given that litigation funders must take collection risk into account when proposing an investment thesis, it's worth examining the current enforcement climate in the UK in greater detail. As reported in The Law Gazette, if the defendant fails to pay a court order, the claimant must return to the court and file additional forms (which carry additional fees) merely to enforce the judgment. In small-claims cases, this becomes so burdensome that the aforementioned 60% of awards are never claimed. One solution bandied about is the digitization of the enforcement process. In fact, HMCTS’s £1bn courts and tribunals reform program is set to do just that. The only catch? The program isn't due to come online until 2023. In the meantime, Lord Justice Briggs - who called the issue of enforcement the 'Achilles heel' of the court system in his 2016 civil court review - has appealed for a broader approach to centralizing the process, including the launch of an Online Court to resolve disputes up to £25,000. Unfortunately, given the inherent complexities of enforcement, not many are holding their breath. In higher-value cases - especially cross-border disputes - forms and filing fees are the least of a party's concerns. Take the ongoing saga of Russian oligarch Farkhad Akhmedov's ex-wife Tatiana, who partnered with Burford Capital to enforce a £453 million divorce settlement. Part of the settlement includes impounding Akhmedov's super-yacht, the M.V. Luna, which was slated for collection until a Dubai court overruled the UK High Court's decision to impound. All of this, and we haven't even touched on Brexit, which will surely throw a monkey wrench into the enforcement mechanism of UK courts. Until some form of harmonization takes place, funders will have to account for the added risk of enforcement.