Trending Now

John Freund's Posts

3311 Articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

About Baker Street Funding

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

Stans Energy Signs Cooperation Agreement with Finance Providers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About Stans Energy

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

USClaims Again Named Best Consumer Litigation Funding Provider

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

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

The landmark victory is USClaims' first with Corporate Counsel and comes as the company continues to expand its presence westward from its offices in New Jersey and Florida.   USClaims has consistently been recognized as best-in-class across the nation, including CaliforniaGeorgiaNew YorkNew JerseyConnecticutNorth CarolinaPennsylvaniaTexas, and Washington DC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Prognosis for Civil Litigation in the U.S.

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

Litigants

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

Law firm litigation departments

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

Litigation funding

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

Delta Capital Partners Management Announces New Senior Executive

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

James Foster joins Litigation Capital Management (LCM) in London

AIM-listed Litigation Capital Management Limited, a leading international provider of litigation financing solutions, is pleased to announce the hire of seasoned disputes practitioner and third-party finance expert James Foster as an Investment Manager based in London. James brings to LCM more than 25 years of experience of litigation and dispute resolution in the building and construction sector and has been involved in some of the world’s most challenging construction projects in major commercial hubs such as Dubai, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam. Before transitioning to litigation finance, James was a partner of the international law firm Gowling WLG and has more recently held the title of head of international arbitration with a London-based litigation funder. Commenting on James’ hire, LCM’s Executive Vice Chairman Nick Rowles-Davies said: “James has a formidable reputation in the market and having known him for several years, I am delighted to welcome him at such an exciting time of expansion for LCM, which includes our recent close of a new US$150m third-party fund.” Chief Executive Officer Patrick Moloney adds: “The hire of James presents a significant opportunity for LCM in relation to single-case funding, but, more particularly, as a valuable asset in considering corporate portfolio applications. Presently, LCM is receiving a large volume of applications for corporate portfolios from the global building and construction sector and James brings a particular skillset to LCM which will assist us greatly in considering those applications.” James Foster commented: “I am delighted to be joining LCM at such an exciting point in its growth and development. I know the LCM team both from my time in private practice and from their outstanding individual reputations in the market and so I am very pleased to be part of that team going forward. LCM’s international and sector focuses are a strong match for my own experience as a law firm partner and in the litigation finance field. I am very much looking forward to the opportunity to contribute to the continued success of the business.” Last week, in its first step towards a management relocation to London, LCM appointed Mary Gangemi as its new London-based chief financial officer and announced that Patrick Moloney is to relocate to London from Sydney later this year. In March, LCM closed a new US$150m third-party fund backed by significant global blue-chip investors. The fund marks LCM’s return to managing third-party funds, following its building of a permanent source of balance sheet capital through the equity markets. Contact: Angela Bilbow Global Head of Communications abilbow@lcmfinace.com +44 (0)20 3955 5271 Litigation Capital Management (LCM) is a leading international provider of litigation financing solutions. This includes single-case and portfolios across; class actions, commercial claims, claims arising out of insolvency and international arbitration. LCM has an unparalleled track record, driven by effective project selection and robust risk management. Headquartered in Sydney, with offices in London, Singapore, Brisbane and Melbourne, LCM listed on AIM in December 2018, trading under the ticker LIT.

Economic Uncertainty? Consider Litigation Finance

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

What Every GC Needs to Know About Monetization

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

Lit Fin as an Alternative Finance Solution

Many law firms and even in-house counsel are feeling the pinch from court closures and delays due to the COVID-19 outbreak. Depending on how long this disruption lasts, many legal entities may find themselves scrambling to fund in-progress claims or take on new ones. As the risk of insolvency grows, maintaining healthy balance sheets is of the essence.  As Pinsent Masons reveals, the types of cases brought about by COVID-19—breach of contract, for example—are unlikely to result in the sizable recoveries firms will need to stay afloat. When times are lean, it makes sense to hold back reserves and use third-party funding to take on new cases. This leaves more money in the operating budget, and less risk on balance sheet. Even when cases are clearly meritorious, it can take months or even years for firms or clients to see a return.   Mark Roe, partner at Pinsent Masons, explains that using a preferred supplier arrangement allows them to provide better terms to clients. Their funder, Augusta Ventures, has declared their commitment to funding the infrastructure sector—which is an unusual focus for third-party funders. They also promise transparency in terms and standardized documentation so clients can sign with confidence. 

Got Litigation Claims? Don’t Forget to Monetize!

It cannot be denied that this is a time of stress, uncertainty, and delays. The legal field feels this more acutely than other industries, and it’s already showing in how cases are conducted. We all have a choice: react to what happens, or try to get ahead of it through diligent planning. One key factor in said planning comes in the form of monetization. As ACC Docket reports, monetization involves utilizing legal claims as collateral to gain working capital. This might be calculated as a multiple of the monetized amount, a percentage of the total recovery amount, or some combination of the two.  Monetization funds are provided for the purpose of working capital. That means they can be used to pay legal fees, under specific conditions. Monetized funds can be used in conjunction with traditional funding, which allows lawyers to be compensated as sort of a hybrid-contingency platform. Coronavirus constraints may make this an attractive option for firms and counsel whose budgets are impacted. In addition to slowdowns in most courts, there are other factors impacting the closing of cases—like the inability or unwillingness to take remote depositions impacting discovery. With that in mind, a firm experiencing budget constraints during COVID-19 would do well to consider monetization.

Forbes Ventures Plc – Board Changes and Operational Update

Forbes Ventures announces that Kirk Kashefi and Igor Zjalic have resigned as Non-executive Directors of the Company with immediate effect.  Additionally, Igor Zjalic has resigned as a director of Forbes’ subsidiary, Forbes Ventures Investment Management Limited.  The resignations of Kirk and Igor are by mutual consent and follow Forbes’ announcement of 2 March 2020, which confirmed that the Company’s future strategy would focus on the securitisation of litigation funding assets, via the establishment of a Securitisation Cell Company (SCC) in Malta.

Forbes expects to appoint additional directors to the Board as the Company’s strategy progresses.

Peter Moss, Chairman of Forbes, commented, “We would like to thank both Kirk and Igor for their service to Forbes over the last couple of years and wish them both the very best in their future endeavours.  We at Forbes are extremely excited about our new direction and the establishment of our securitisation capability in Malta.  The set-up of our Securitisation Cell Company is progressing well, and we do not foresee any delays in the process, despite the Covid-19 virus.

While global markets may remain volatile in the short term, we believe that securitised litigation funding assets, with appropriate credit support, will prove to be popular with institutional credit investors when the current market volatility subsides.

The Directors of Forbes accept responsibility for the contents of this announcement.

Delta Capital Partners Announces Liquidity Solutions for Law Firms, Businesses and Individual Claimants

Chicago, IL, March 30, 2020 -- Delta Capital Partners Management LLC (Delta), a private equity and advisory firm specializing in litigation and legal finance, today announced its ability to provide bespoke liquidity solutions to law firms, businesses, private investment funds, and individual claimants affected by recent macroeconomic developments, including those caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. As the world economy has slowed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, liquidity has become a major concern for all economic actors and many traditional sources of liquidity will be tapped out very shortly. As a result, many law firms, private investment funds, businesses and individual claimants will not have access to capital to fund their needs.  Delta can provide liquidity to such parties based on their litigation or arbitration claims, judgments, awards, alternative fee engagements (i.e., contingency or success based), outstanding accounts receivables or work-in-process, or a combination thereof. Christopher DeLise, Delta’s Founder, CEO and Co-CIO stated, “In the face of horrible healthcare and economic challenges, we are still able to go forward and be helpful, we hope, in a troubled marketplace. As Delta’s core business is the pricing of litigation, enforcement and recovery risks, we are able to timely provide lending and liquidity solutions based on our assessment of such factors.” Delta provides such solutions to meet the needs of law firms, private equity firms, businesses and individual claimants through a variety of arrangements, including litigation-collateralized loans, draw-down facilities, and term loans. Each of these arrangements can be customized to suit the particular needs of borrowers, are competitively priced, and can be backed by a variety of assets and/or enhancements. These flexible solutions ensure that Delta can effectively meet the needs of a broad range of professional service firms, businesses, and individual claimants and thereby improve their financial situations during these unprecedented times. “While Delta has offered such bespoke credit-oriented solutions for many years, these products typically accounted for only a small percentage of its total business. However, we have already started to see that demand for such products is rapidly increasing and we anticipate that this demand will continue to significantly escalate as traditional sources of liquidity will dry up and/or the rates being offered by traditional lenders will materially increase. We are grateful to be able to play a constructive role in helping firms, especially troubled ones, keep their heads above water. Accordingly, we have allocated more resources and capital to meet this growing demand, and will continue to do so as we expect high demand now and for the foreseeable future as the aftereffects of the pandemic are felt around the world,” stated Mr. DeLise. Learn more at www.deltacph.com or contact Delta Capital Partners via email at liquidity@deltacph.com

Australian Government Rallies to Protect Insolvent Businesses

Australia is being extremely proactive when it comes to mitigating the impact of the Coronavirus outbreak. In addition to swift self-quarantine protocols and shutdowns, Australia has enacted the COVID-19 Response Act, which passed both houses of parliament.  Lexblog reports that the goal of these laws is to protect existing businesses from insolvency.  The primary purpose is to provide businesses more time to meet their financial obligations to creditors—six months in most cases. It also shields some directors from being held personally liable for financial shortfalls in their companies. The main focus of the COVID-19 Response Act is to mitigate the impact that the pandemic is having on businesses across the spectrum. Australian government foresaw that directors will need to seek additional credit and inventory, raise equity, and take on new debt to keep businesses afloat. As many businesses are forced to employ remote workers, the need for tech and training must be addressed as well.  Not all the new regulations of the C19RA have been released to the public. But they appear to focus on reporting obligations, treatment of existing debt, and extensions of how much time must pass before non-payment on insolvency claims can be made. Directors should be aware that unless a provision is specifically stated in the act, their usual responsibilities remain the same. The responsibilities to employees and shareholders do not change, even during a pandemic.  Given how prevalent litigation funding has become in Australia, both funders and class action law firms should take note of the recent changes.

Even Well-Heeled Clients Are Turning to Litigation Finance

We already know that litigation finance can provide opportunities to pursue bigger and more time consuming cases. We also know that funders help companies and clients who couldn't otherwise afford strong legal representation. But what about those who aren't strapped for capital? Why are they turning to litigation finance, when they don't appear to need to? Above the Law, in their series on litigation finance, explains that there are plenty of other reasons for lawyers or firms to team up with litigation funders. The most obvious being the mitigation of risk. Any company can be sued, meritoriously or not, and eventually, many large businesses find themselves in the position of having to sue. While this may not cause a financial crisis for the company, neither is it a cause to celebrate. A litigation funder can assume some risk by providing funding in exchange for a share of the recovery amount. This loosens up capital restrictions while allowing the company to pursue legal matters effectively.  Litigation funders may also provide a sound measure of the merits of a case. When a big funder like Omni Bridgeway, for example, decides to fund a case—it's a strong indicator that a case has value and is worthy of being pursued. Further, many funders have vast experience and connections with researchers and others who can support the case.   Litigation funding allows for the raising of capital, or the freeing of funds to be used for other purposes. Overall, this can reduce financial pressure and relax time constraints that might impact the pursuit of a claim. For plaintiff companies, funding enables them to exempt legal costs from their balance sheets, which provides increased solvency.  During these uncertain economic times, it should come as no surprise that even prosperous clients are turning to litigation funding.

Even Strong Cases Benefit from Litigation Funding

When you have a strong case you feel great about, you're probably not thinking about litigation funding. But perhaps you should be. Aside from the inherent risks associated with all litigation, there are a host of reasons why funding should be considered—even when you're feeling confident.  IMF Bentham points out that while retaining a big judgement is desirable, retaining all the risk may not be. Arbiters and judges can make unexpected rulings, and even the most meritorious cases can go south. Litigation finance can reduce risk while ensuring that legal teams have the means to pursue cases effectively.   When an opponent has a huge financial war chest, they have more options at their disposal.  By securing comparable funds, lawyers, firms, and clients have a stronger fighting chance. Even when a company is flush with cash, a protracted legal battle can siphon resources from other areas of business. Balance sheets can be less balanced when cases drag on or blow past the planned budget. The costs associated with a case are sometimes mitigated by hiring attorneys or firms that work on contingency. The benefits vary, depending whom you ask. Many top firms will not accept cases on full contingency, but with a strong litigation funder like Omni Bridgeway, clients can hire the best representation without budgetary concerns. 

Are Court Delays Better or Worse for Litigation Funders?

There's a debate currently underway in the legal world: Will work stoppages brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic be better for litigation funders, or worse? Will it enhance earnings by increasing demand, or lead to lower settlements and fewer payouts? Can an influx of new cases bolster the legal field, or will it merely increase competition to land lit fin deals? As Bloomberg reports, we don't yet know for sure. Generally speaking, funders bring in excess revenue when cases take longer to resolve, as a spokesperson for Omni Bridgeway (formerly Bentham IMF) explained. Burford Capital also stated that delays tend to benefit them economically, provided the courts remain largely up and running.   A recent case involving an investment by Omni Bridgeway of $1MM illustrates how time plays a part in funder earnings. The contract stated that if the case was resolved within 6 months, Bentham would recoup more than 1 ½ times their investment. If the case took a year, that amount would double. If the case really dragged on, Bentham could have made as much as $4MM. Based on those terms, it's hard to imagine funders weeping at the prospect of long court delays. That said, court delays caused by pandemics are generally not part of existing lit fin contracts. However, Force Majeure may apply in some cases. Contracts are becoming more precise and competitive, as firms spar for funding. Lawyers and clients are now in the process of negotiating what needs to happen during the various shutdowns and delays caused by COVID-19.  But why should lawyers or firms accept a lower percentage when they weren't responsible for delays?  Negotiating these situations is new territory for the parties involved. Should we expect litigation funders to accept lower returns as competition for cases ramps up? Given how long this crisis is expected to last, we're sure to find out eventually. 

Litigation Finance Can Perk Up a Down Economy

When the economy takes a downturn, a spike in litigation can follow. Desperate financial times can turn even the most non-confrontational towards dispute—as assets dwindle and every penny counts.  But in an economy beset by losses, slow growth, layoffs, and shutdowns, how are people supposed to fund cases? Enter: Litigation Finance.  As Bloomberg reports, lit funding allows financially strapped clients an opportunity for top-notch legal representation, the best research, and all of the resources needed to reach a satisfactory resolution. This makes lit fin a net gain for firms, clients, lawyers, and anyone who is a fan of access to justice. The practice has also been called a 'force multiplier,' which enhances litigation hedge. Litigation finance can be a vital part of "countercyclical" planning. That is to say, that lit fin provides a way for existing cases to continue, and new cases to be taken on, in spite of bad economic times. This is true of several legal specialties—bankruptcy law, for example.  Macro-economic pressure can spur clients into being more adamant about recouping damages, and make them less interested in compromise or settlements. Litigation funding levels the playing field between the AmLaw firms and those of lesser means. Funding also lowers overall risk to firms, and may therefore allow them to take on riskier cases. By providing non-recourse capital, third party funders remove strain from individual investors, as well as clients and the litigators who serve them. While providing opportunities for low-risk profit, lit fin investors are increasing access to justice and aiding those with meritorious claims. 

Balance Legal Capital Raises New US $100MM Litigation Fund

LONDON, 25 MARCH 2020 - BALANCE LEGAL CAPITAL LLP, a London-based provider of litigation and arbitration finance, today announced it has raised a further US$100 million from 8 institutional investors in a new UK fund for deployment in the UK, Australia and other common law jurisdictions. The investors in the new fund include Balance’s anchor investor, which is increasing its commitment, and 7 further global institutional investors, located across the UK, US, Switzerland and Australia.  They include a university endowment fund, a European asset manager, and a global investment bank.  As with Balance’s prior funding vehicle, Balance continues to have complete delegated authority over its litigation investment decisions.  In addition to the discretionary capital pool, Balance has direct access to significant further co-investment capital from its investors. Balance will use the new funds to invest in commercial litigation and arbitration proceedings with a continued focus on disputes in common law jurisdictions, particularly the UK and Australia.  Balance will continue to invest across all sectors and commercial claim types including contract, tort, shareholder disputes, joint venture disputes, competition, intellectual property, class actions and more. Robert Rothkopf, Managing Partner of Balance Legal Capital, saidThese are difficult times but we feel it is nevertheless important to publicise important milestones – being the launch of our new fund, and the next step in the firm’s growth.  The interest we’ve had from investors is testament to the success of the business so far, the calibre of our team, and our ability to provide a great service to litigants and law firms.”  Balance Legal Capital LLP was advised on the establishment of its new fund by Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, London. About Balance Legal Capital Balance Legal Capital was founded in 2015. It is led by a highly experienced team of litigators formerly of Herbert Smith Freehills and Freshfields. Its investment committee includes Lord David Gold (former global senior partner of Herbert Smith and head of its disputes division) and Ian Terry (former managing partner of Freshfields and global head of disputes).  Fraser Shepherd (former litigation partner at Gilbert + Tobin, Sydney) and Nick Gardner (former head of Intellectual Property Litigation at Herbert Smith) are senior advisers to the investment committee. Balance Legal Capital LLP is a member of the Association of Litigation Funders of England and Wales (ALF) where Robert Rothkopf is also a board member.  Balance Legal Capital LLP is also a founder member of the Association of Litigation Funders of Australia (ALFA).  Balance Legal Capital LLP is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. https://www.balancelegalcapital.com

SPONSORED POST: Free Webinar Explaining the Latest NYC Bar Report, Hosted by Validity Finance

Understanding the Latest NYC Bar Report on Litigation Funding

Tuesday, March 31, 2020

1:00 pm to 2:00 pm

The NYC Bar Association's Working Group on Litigation Funding delivered a long-anticipated 90-page report concluding that funding agreements between lawyers and funders will benefit litigants, and recommending that the legal ethics rules explicitly permit such agreements. The report also rejected calls for mandatory disclosure of commercial litigation funding agreements in court proceedings. Join Validity's Chief Risk Officer, Dave Kerstein, Portfolio Counsel, Will Marra, along with litigation finance experts Brad Wendel, Ethics and Law Professor, Cornell Law School and Constantine Karides, Partner at Reed Smith for an upcoming webinar that will cover:
  • what does the NYC Bar report means to lawyers today;
  • what we can expect from other bar associations across the country; and
  • how lawyers can secure funding on behalf of clients during these uncertain economic times.
Register for this free webinar by clicking here.

How Applicable is Force Majeure in the Wake of COVID-19?

In less than two months, America has changed dramatically as we all pitch in to flatten the curve of COVID-19 infections. This has caused businesses to close or dramatically reduce hours, staff, and output. It has led to supply chain stoppage and the total disruption of life and business as usual. Schulte Roth & Zabel remind us that Force Majeure is an unforeseen event that's out of the control of parties, which prevents them from fulfilling a contractual obligation. Most contracts will contain some kind of Force Majeure clause, and some may mention pandemics specifically. Normally, a word like 'pandemic' would only warrant a glance in a standard contract. After all, how often do we actually have pandemics? But as of March 11, the world has been mired in the midst of a pandemic as declared by the World Health Organization. Is that enough to trigger a Force Majeure clause? If the clause specifies a pandemic specifically, then yes. If not, words like 'contagion' or 'epidemic' or 'viral outbreak' might be enough. Keep in mind that Force Majeure requires that the event in question objectively prevent parties from performing their duties. A researcher who works from home would not be excused from work over a shelter-in-place order.  But what if there is no Force Majeure clause? This situation is a little muddier, but not impossible to navigate. Because contracts also require parties to adhere to the law, orders to suspend business, or other public health orders, can activate Force Majeure even when it's not specifically outlined in a contract.

COVID-19 is Lengthening Time-to-Settlement, Which Impacts Litigation Funding

Court closures and the absence of many basic services have brought about a major slowdown in the way cases are settled or litigated. As we don't know how long COVID-19 isolation and quarantine will last, it's growing more and more difficult to assess the true cost of the increased time-to-settlement.   As Legal Examiner reports, it is vital to look at all relevant factors when determining how or when to develop a settlement. These should include attorney fees, the possibility of a qualified settlement account, litigation funding or pre-settlement funding, possible liens, and taxes as pertains to settlements. In particular, litigation funding and attorney fees can be the most relevant for clients. Because resolving cases takes more time than usual, the need for litigation funding is greater than ever. While funding rates may seem excessive to some, they're often needed to mitigate the risks inherent to funding individual cases or class actions. And with time-to-settlement growing, the risk to funders is compounding exponentially. Funders typically want to settle quickly and recoup their investment in as timely a manner as possible, which, thanks to the current COVID-19 crisis, is growing increasingly more difficult.  Another thing to consider is the involvement of third-parties, which is a typical aspect of many cases. This might include private or state-funded medical agencies, bankruptcy trustees, guardians, estate executors, lien holders and more.  Medical or other record companies, researchers, and others who are needed to settle or manage cases will be less available as they are needed on COVID-19 related matters.  It's been suggested that settlements will be fewer and further between in the coming months. As cases are delayed and trials postponed, reaching an agreement between parties grows less likely. With that in mind, the litigation funding industry may need to recalculate its investment parameters given the court delays and additional time-to-settlement.  

Key Takeaways from Boeing Bankruptcy Discussion with Aerospace Experts

Boeing is one of the cornerstones of the global aerospace industry, yet the company is experiencing tumultuous times. The grounding of its 737 Max airplane in the wake of the Coronavirus outbreak caused the company to book over $20Bn in charges, and some are worried about liquidity issues, and even bankruptcy. On Thursday, LFJ hosted a panel discussion with a pair of experts on the Aerospace industry regarding the fate of Boeing, and the future of the industry. The experts included Scott Hamilton (SH), Managing Editor of Leeham News and Analysis, and Richard Aboulafia (RA), Vice President of Analysis at Teal Group. Both are experts in Aerospace, and frequently cited as Aviation experts by major media outlets. The panel was hosted by LFJ Founder, Jason Redlus (JR). Below are some key takeaways: JR: On a macro basis, what is your expectation regarding Boeing specifically, and the Aviation sector more generally?  RA: I think there is this impression that it's a bailout of Boeing, and I just don't see it as that. The overwhelming footprint in terms of jobs and even money for a jetliner are not in the supply chain. The question becomes 'do we keep that supply chain going or don't we, and face the consequences of mass layoffs and a real hit to the economy? If Boeing wants to save itself, it would take the expedient route by stopping all production." SH: I don't think Boeing will go into bankruptcy unless the capital markets completely dry up…which is what we saw to some degree after 9/11. The airlines just didn't have access to liquidity and that's why you had the Air Transportation Stabilization Bill created, which in its own right wound up picking winners and losers. My concern about the supply chain is deeper than my concern about Boeing at this point. I think that Boeing is probably correct that the supply chain is more at risk than Boeing is. RA: There is a liquidity crisis…but does this mean this is an instant bankruptcy? Far from it. It just means they have to watch themselves. The question of an aid package is whether terms and conditions can be applied that guarantee they'll keep paying people and suppliers...less about avoiding bankruptcy and more about avoiding an economic collapse in that sector.  JR: In the litigation finance community, who gets in trouble on something like this?  If the government just gives Boeing a check and lets them use it at their discretion, doesn't that create a kind of litigation through the supply chain? Where do you see litigation as the fallout from this crisis in the aviation industry? SH: Lawyers can find reasons to litigate about anything (laughter). Somebody somewhere would object to how the money is disbursed. Of course, we don't know what the bailout language would look like. How does the mom and pop supplier at risk of going out of business also get a piece of the pie? How do they afford a lawyer if they're already on the edge? How would Boeing determine who the winners and losers are? RA: How much litigation is needed depends upon how well the lawyers and legislators do their jobs upfront. If they construct an architecture to come up with something that lays out the framework for disbursing that aid, we probably won't have a litigation problem. The more likely scenario is that the money is provided to Boeing and a couple of others, and then they'll be in charge of letting that cash trickle down. Some suppliers will feel aggrieved. What do you do in the case where a vital Boeing supplier is based in France? Then you get people screaming that US funds are going abroad. In global businesses, will we be matched by a similar European program—so does this become a back door to subsidization? So let's make it targeted, equity should not be allowed. I absolutely believe that government help is justified...for the supply chain. But how do you distribute it and how does Boeing become the arbiter of that money? It's gonna be a real mess. JR: Where are you seeing points of stress or opportunity during this crisis? SH: I'd be looking for buying opportunities to strengthen my supply chain. Does it make sense for the government to give money to Boeing only to see that turn around; to spend $4.5 billion on a company with a market value of $1.2 billion? Is that deal in jeopardy? JR: Any final closing comments?  SH: Everything we've said in the last half hour will probably be out of date in five minutes (laughter).

Insiders Are Buying Shares at Burford Capital. What Does That Indicate?

It's no secret that insiders will buy up shares of companies they anticipate will outperform. It's also no secret that the economic havoc being wreaked on the global economy by COVID-19 is bound to have legal (and litigation funding) repercussions. Could Burford's insider share purchases foretell positive times ahead for the world's largest litigation funder?  According to Simply Wall St, Jonathan Molot, CIO of Burford, bought nearly GBP 3MM in shares.  He also bought them for well over the current price. While it's not advisable to buy shares based solely on what insiders are doing—it makes sense to think Burford is a great investment when an informed insider (the term insider here referring to someone who reports their stock transactions to regulators) makes a purchase of that size. Meanwhile, no Burford insiders were known to sell shares last year.  But does insider share buying at Burford align with that at other companies? Insiders own less than 10% of Burford shares, which is nowhere near as high as some other publicly-traded firms. Yet given the fact that insiders have made large investments above current pricing, it seems safe to say that Burford insiders are predicting a stock price increase. 

COVID-19 Fuels Legal Boom Times

The Coronavirus is having an impact on lawyers around the world. Right now, employers need advice on the best ways to react to employees who have contracted the virus, or those desperately trying to avoid it. From remote assignments to office closures, lawyers are needed to help companies navigate the uncharted waters of a modern pandemic.  As ABA Journal reports, firms are placing emphasis on risk management and flexibility to find ways to continue serving clients. This includes assembling crisis management teams to mitigate any potential fallout, as one prominent NY firm did after a partner tested positive for Coronavirus. Cloud-based tech is also of greater importance than ever as teams work remotely to avoid the spread of the virus. Aside from mitigating current virus-related woes, lawyers are looking ahead to the coming economic downturn. A full-on recession is possible as closures, event cancellations, and a spike in insurance claims impact industries across the board. Litigation funders are also prepping for a flurry of litigation disputes brought on by the impact of COVID-19.  One California lawyer, Kent Schmidt of Dorsey & Whitney, predicts a flood of new cases to emerge in the coming months. He has already heard from companies seeking advice on whether COVID-19 precautions are suitable grounds to void contractual obligations.   Alison Chock, CIO for Omni Bridgeway, predicts an uptick in insurance related cases, as agreements are scrutinized and payouts are questioned. Bankruptcies and insolvency cases are also likely to spike, given the economic downturn expected to continue even after the virus is contained. Chock goes on to explain that when the economy gets worse, legal cases become more plentiful. A rise in cases requiring arbitration or litigation is expected—which means lit fin firms will soon have more opportunities to fund cases and ensure access to justice for everyone. 

LCM is pleased to announce its interim (HY20) results for the six-month period ending 31 December 2019.

Litigation Capital Management Limited (AIM:LIT), a leading international provider of disputes financing solutions, announces its interim results for the six months ended 31 December 2019 (“HY20”). Highlights
  • Delivering sustained growth across a diversified portfolio by investment activity and geography
  • First close of a new third-party fund of US$150 million (post-period)
  • Cumulative 139% ROIC and 79% IRR over the last 8.5 years*
  •  Total cash generated of A$18.9 million (post-period cash receipt totalling A$9.7 million)
  • Four single-case investments in APAC generated a combined revenue of approximately A$14.9 million and contribution to gross profit of approximately A$7.8 million
  • Significant traction in key growth area of corporate portfolio funding:
  • Construction portfolio: resolved two disputes out of seven matters; generated revenue of A$8.6 million and provided a contribution to gross profit of A$4.3 million
  •  First matter resolution in the aviation portfolio; generated revenue of A$0.6 million and provided a contribution to gross profit of A$0.2 million
  • Strategic Alliance with international law firm delivered material opportunities and over 30 applications, including both single case and corporate portfolio. Second Alliance initiated with an international law firm which has already generated corporate portfolio applications
*FY12 to HY20, including losses. The Company reports performance over the last 8.5 years since FY12 as the Board deems it the period most representative of the current business Summary of financials
Figures in A$ million unless otherwise statedSix months ended 31 December 2019Six months ended 31 December 2018
Gross revenue24.111.7
Gross profit12.25.7
Adjusted profit before tax6.92.7
Adjusted basic EPS (cents per share)6.614.31
Statutory profit before tax6.71.0
Net cash34.752.6
Capital deployed on litigation investments18.412.8
Litigation investments34.020.7
Total equity80.470.3
Cash receipts from the completion of litigation investments9.211.0
Post-period events
  • First close of US$150 million LCM Global Alternative Returns Fund (the Fund) – US$140 million committed investments from global blue-chip investors with balance of US$10 million which LCM expects to be subscribed in the near term
  • Fund will supplement the deployment of capital from LCM’s balance sheet, significantly increasing the Group’s ability to invest in new opportunities.
  • Transitions LCM into an alternate asset manager specialising in investments relating to the global disputes market
  • Post period cash received on projects resolved – A$9.7 million, as a result of resolutions occurring close to the end of the financial period
Current trading and outlook LCM moves forward as an alternate asset manager specialising in investments relating to the global disputes market with two complementary business models: direct investment from the Company’s balance sheet and asset management following the first close of the US$150m fund. In the second half, we will continue to execute our strategy of growing and diversifying our portfolio by investment activity and geography, taking advantage of the numerous and exciting growthopportunities available to us in a measured and disciplined way. With a burgeoning global infrastructure in place, an increasingly diversified portfolio and a strong pipeline supported by a robust balance sheet, third-party funds and growing pool of the best talent in the industry, while the nature of LCM’s business model means that returns will not always result in a linear growth pattern, the Board is confident the Company will continue to grow and deliver strong returns. Patrick Moloney, CEO of LCM, commented: In the first half, LCM has continued to strengthen its market position in all of the geographies we operate. The development of our corporate portfolio strategy is gaining significant traction and already paying dividends in an area where we are a global leader in the provision of portfolio financing to corporate clients. With the first close of LCM’s US$150 million fund we are well placed to significantly increase the portfolio of investments under management, enabling LCM to expand its business in all of the geographies in which we operate. The launch of the fund in parallel with direct balance sheet investments signals the transition of the business into a global alternate asset manager.” Nick Rowles-Davies, Executive Vice Chairman of LCM, added: “Momentum in corporate portfolio opportunities has increased in the first half with the Fund now enabling LCM to invest in larger corporate portfolio transactions which have previously been beyond the capacity of our balance sheet. This provides an important catalyst for the ongoing development of LCM’s corporate portfolio strategy.” LCM Contact Angela Bilbow Global Head of Communications abilbow@lcmfinance.com +44 (0)20 3955 5271

Longford Capital Adds Andrew A. Stulce as Vice President

CHICAGO – March 16, 2020 – Longford Capital today announced that Andrew A. Stulce joined the firm as Vice President. Mr. Stulce will assist with investment sourcing, due diligence, and monitoring of portfolio investments.

 Mr. Stulce was a member of the litigation department at some of the most prestigious law firms in the country. Prior to joining Longford Capital, Mr. Stulce was with McGuireWoods LLP; prior to McGuireWoods, he was with Hunton & Williams LLP (now Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP).

 

Mr. Stulce has significant experience litigating complex antitrust and insurance recovery cases. He has also represented corporate clients in a range of commercial litigation matters, including fraud, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty matters.

 

Before entering private practice, Mr. Stulce clerked for the Honorable Charles A. Pannell, Jr., of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

 

“Andrew has joined our team of experienced litigators and trial lawyers to assist in addressing the growing demand for litigation finance from leading law firms and corporate claimants,” said William P. Farrell, Jr., Managing Director and General Counsel of Longford Capital. “Andrew is an experienced litigator and trial lawyer. His work at two fine law firms and experience clerking in the federal trial court has prepared him to make an important contribution to Longford Capital. We are excited to welcome Andrew to the firm.”

 

Mr. Stulce is a member of the state bars of Illinois, Georgia, and Tennessee. He is admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

 

He graduated, cum laude, from the University of Georgia School of Law and earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration and Romance Languages from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

 

About Longford Capital

Longford Capital is a leading private investment company that provides capital to leading law firms, public and private companies, universities, government agencies, and other entities involved in large-scale, commercial legal disputes.  Typically, Longford Capital funds attorneys' fees and other costs necessary to pursue meritorious legal claims in return for a share of a favorable settlement or award. The firm manages a diversified portfolio, and considers investments in subject matter areas where it has developed considerable expertise, including, business-to-business contract claims, antitrust and trade regulation claims, intellectual property claims (including patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret), fiduciary duty claims, fraud claims, claims in bankruptcy and liquidation, domestic and international arbitrations, and a variety of others. For additional information about Longford Capital, please visit www.longfordcapital.com.

The world’s largest dispute resolution finance team continues expansion with senior appointments

SYDNEY, 16 March 2020: Omni Bridgeway Limited, (formerly known as IMF Bentham ASX:IMF), has welcomed talented new colleagues to the team as the company continues its international expansion. The appointments include global leadership positions following the merger of IMF and Omni Bridgeway in November 2019 and important roles in Australia in response to increased appetite for dispute finance solutions. Omni Bridgeway can also announce it is expanding its footprint into New Zealand, where the firm is already active in several actions. OMNI BRIDGEWAY WELCOMES: Leanne Meyer | Investment Manager, Sydney Leanne is a former in-house counsel and joins the Australian Investment Management team to identify and assess investment opportunities and manage funded claims with a focus on finance solutions for corporates. [Read more.] Heather Collins | Investment Manager, Sydney Heather augments the Australian Investment Management team to identify and assess investment opportunities with a particular specialisation in financing in the insolvency sector. [Read more.] Niall Watson-Dunne | Associate Investment Manager, Sydney Niall joins the Australian Investment Management team to manage due diligence and assist with the management of funded claims. [Read more.] Gracey Campbell | Associate Investment Manager, Melbourne Gracey will undertake due diligence and assistance with managing funded claims for the Australian Investment Management team. [Read more.] Siobhan Hannon | Global Head of Compliance and Risk Sydney-based Siobhan is a seasoned compliance and risk specialist who will lead the design and management of the Group’s global compliance framework, encompassing risk management reporting, policies and procedures. [Read more.] Elizabeth Beacham | Global General Manager People & Culture Elizabeth is based in Sydney and will lead the company’s global People & Culture strategy and initiatives. [Read more.] Alistair Morgan | General Counsel – Australia and Asia Perth-based Alistair will advise the company on transactional and regulatory matters across the Asia Pacific region. [Read more.] NEW ZEALAND EXPANSION: In addition to the above new appointments, Omni Bridgeway’s geographic footprint is expanding to New Zealand where the company is already funding proposed combustible cladding class actions. Sydney-based Investment Manager and Head of New Zealand, Gavin Beardsell, is leading the company’s expansion into New Zealand in response to increasing financing inquiries from that market. In New Zealand, Gavin already manages the company’s investments in one of the CBL Corporation shareholder class actions and the proposed combustible cladding class actions involving product liability claims against certain manufacturers of Alucobond and Vitrabond PE core cladding products. [Read more here and here.]
ABOUT OMNI BRIDGEWAY
Omni Bridgeway is a global leader in dispute resolution finance, with expertise in civil and common law legal and recovery systems, and operations spanning Asia, Australia, Canada, Europe, the Middle East, the UK and the US. Omni Bridgeway offers dispute finance from case inception through to post-judgment enforcement and recovery. It has a proud 34-year record of funding disputes and enforcement proceedings around the world. Omni Bridgeway is listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX:IMF) 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 imf.com.au or omnibridgeway.com to learn more.

Disagreements Continue Over Ethics of Litigation Funding

Legal minds Paul Haskel and Jim Walker have kept a close eye on how litigation funding is impacting legal ethics. Like many lawyers and judges, they have grave concerns and feel that some tweaks in the Code of Ethics should be considered. But how to get everyone on the same page about what needs to change?  Value Walk reports that the first hurdle in addressing concerns over litigation funding is to refrain from making sweeping generalizations about the practice. Finding practical ways to address ethical concerns without painting with too broad a brush is a concern on all sides.   The goal, then, is to devise ethical guidelines that allow lawyers and funders to develop their own funding agreements that work with the specifics of a given case. The thinking is that broad, rigid ethics rules would limit lawyers, clients, and funders unnecessarily. But reaching these goals effectively requires compromise.   It's vital to keep in mind that the committee has made recommendations, not laws or binding precedents.  While the opinions expressed are influential and widely read, they fall short of fixing what some believe are growing problems within litigation funding. The hope is that a compromise can be reached and enforceable guidelines can be enacted to protect clients and firms. 

Working Group Counters NYC Bar Opinion on Litigation Funding Ethics

While not legally binding, the recent NYC Bar Association opinion on litigation funding is a powerful statement on the ethics of funding and what regulations are needed. In response to this, a 25-person working group on litigation funding was assembled.  As Bloomberg News explains, the working group came away with two main recommendations to amend existing ethics rules. First, that funding agreements between lawyers and funding entities should be expressly allowed. This is contrary to what the NYC Bar recommended. Opinions are divided on how this impacts the appearance of coercion, manipulation, or undue influence on a case. The working group asserts that clients and the lawyers who serve them can both benefit from more fluid funding options and fewer restrictions. As one would expect, third party litigation funders are in agreement here. Second, the working group opposed the mandatory disclosure of funding agreements to the courts. This opinion applies to both state and federal courts, regardless of the amounts or percentages being funded. Instead of automatic disclosure, the working group asserts that disclosure on a case-by-case basis makes more sense. At the same time, some jurists find lack of funding agreement disclosure acceptable, as it rarely impacts the material facts of a case.  As the NYC Bar pointed out, Rule 5.4 of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct disallows fee sharing between case lawyers and those without a license to practice law under some circumstances. But this rule applies to very specific types of litigation funding, not all of it.  It's likely that ethics rules will be reexamined and amended in the near future, and again as litigation funding becomes more commonplace, and future industry innovations come into conflict with long-standing ethical norms.

Five Qualities that Litigation Funders Look for in a Lawyer

As litigation funding increases in popularity, funders find that they can take their pick of lawyers and cases to back. While on the other hand, securing the funding needed to successfully litigate a case can be a challenge. Aside from the usual considerations—potential recovery amount and time, overall merits of the case, etc.—funders look closely at the lawyer(s) involved.   According to Westfleet Advisors, there are five things most litigation funders look for in a bankable lawyer:
  1. Demonstrated skill. This is especially important in cases that require specialized legal expertise, like international arbitration or IP disputes, where proof that the lawyer has a strong knowledge base in the subject matter is critical.
  2.  No hard sells. When a lawyer is seeking funding, it makes sense for them to paint a rosy picture of the case, but litigation funders are practical realists. If they feel that something is being hidden or minimized, chances of successfully securing funding drop significantly.
  3. Skin in the game. The litigation funder doesn't want to assume 100% of the financial risk. Agreeing to work on contingency or partial contingency lets the funder know that the lawyer believes in the case.
  4. Running the numbers. Experience in contingency case management is something most litigation funders look for. Lawyers must watch expenses, while managing budgets, time, and the case itself cleanly and effectively.
  5. Knowing the game. Experience minimizes errors and miscommunication, and ensures that everyone understands their risks and responsibilities from the outset.