News and analysis dedicated to the commercial litigation funding sector including regulatory issues, case developments, funding activities, and more.

On the afternoon of September 25, the “International Conference on the Third-Party Funding Industry” was successfully held in Beijingi. The Conference was hosted by the Beijing International Dispute Resolution Center (BIDRC), organized by Houzhu Capital, and co-organized by Dingsong Legal Capital.

The conference received support from the Beijing Arbitration Commission/Beijing International Arbitration Center (BAC/BIAC), China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), China Maritime Arbitration Commission (CMAC), Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). Other supporting organizations included the Chinese Society of International Law, China-Asia Economic Development Association, China-Africa Business Council, Queen Mary University of London, Burford, Omni Bridgeway, Hilco IP Merchant Banking, Nivalion, Dun & Bradstreet, Caijing, and Law Plus. The Conference attracted over 300 guests in person and more than 60,000 participants online.

Huang Jin, Chairman of the Beijing International Dispute Resolution Center and President of the Chinese Society of International Law, and Yu Jianlong, Vice President of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT) and Vice President of the China Chamber of International Commerce (CCOIC), delivered opening remarks. The Conference was moderated by Jiang Lili, Commissioner and Secretary-General of BAC/BIAC.

Huang Jin first warmly welcomed and sincerely thanked all participants and supporters on behalf of BIDRC. He stated that this Conference is the first international conference hosted by BIDRC, marking a significant milestone. As the operational entity of the Beijing International Commercial Arbitration Center, BIDRC plays a crucial role in supporting the establishment of the international commercial arbitration center and leading the high-quality development of arbitration in China. He emphasized the need to understand the key trends in the development of international commercial arbitration, including humanization, modernization, internationalization, localization, integration, and digitization. He also stressed the importance of improving a robust arbitration system, cultivating world-class international arbitration institutions, and creating a top-tier business environment characterized by market orientation, rule of law, and international standards. These efforts will enhance China’s foreign-related legal system and strengthen its capacity.

Yu Jianlong highlighted in his speech that, given the profound changes in the international situation and trade patterns in recent years, enhancing corporate competitiveness and strengthening corporate compliance are crucial for promoting high-level opening-up and facilitating the high-quality international expansion of Chinese enterprises. Third-party funding is an important tool for improving companies’ ability to address overseas disputes. With the accelerated pace of Chinese companies expanding abroad and the deepening integration of the domestic legal service market with international standards, third-party funding is gradually being accepted and utilized by more Chinese enterprises and legal professionals. He expressed that this conference provides an excellent platform for the industry to explore third-party funding. He hopes participants will strengthen collaboration between academia and practice, deepen their understanding of corporate needs, and continuously learn from international best practices. He also looks forward to fostering cooperation between third-party funding institutions and enterprises.

As a leading scholar in the field of third-party funding, Professor Mulheron from Queen Mary University of London was invited to deliver a keynote speech on the state of third-party funding in England and Wales. Full speech (recording and transcript) available at Houzhu Capital’s WeChat Official Account

In her address, Professor Mulheron examined the rise and evolution of third-party funding in the region, and talked about issues surrounding self-regulation and government oversight within the industry. She provided clear explanations of typical business models in third-party funding, the fee structures for funders, potential costs borne by funders, after-the-event (ATE) insurance, and protections for funded parties. She also offered in-depth insights into cutting-edge issues and perspectives within the field. Professor Mulheron concluded with five key takeaways about third-party funding in England: First, the market is very established and sophisticated, with many funders, brokers and ATE insurers in the market now; Second, third party funding features in both English litigation and arbitration;  Third, because of the criteria which funders apply to cases under their business models, only less than 10% of all cases pitched to the funders are funded; Fourth, third-party funding must comply with industry codes of conduct, which include minimum capital requirements for funders; Finally, while England possesses considerable experience in judicial practices concerning third-party funding, there have been debates and disagreements regarding the structure of funding and the validity of funding agreements, and the legislature is taking steps to address relevant issues to further support third-party funding, as it is indeed becoming a huge global market.

During Panel I, Professor Fu Yulin from Peking University Law School served as the moderator. The panelists included Zhang Haoliang, Head of the Business Development Division (International Cases Division) of the BAC/BIAC; Wei Ziping, Director of the Oversight and Coordination Office of CIETAC; Chen Bo, Deputy Secretary-General of CMAC; Yu Zijin, Consultant of HKIAC; Zhang Cunyuan, Director of the China Region of SIAC and Chief Representative of the Shanghai Representative Office; and Huang Zhijin, Director for North Asia and Shanghai Representative Office of ICC. The discussion centered on third-party funding and arbitration rules, drawing on the practices and experiences of the respective institutions. The panelists exchanged insights on recent updates to arbitration rules concerning third-party funding, disclosure requirements, measures to prevent conflicts of interest, and relevant cases processed by their organizations. The panelists concurred that third-party funding is evolving rapidly in practice, and arbitration institutions generally adopt a relatively open stance towards its use in arbitration. They also recognize the necessity for ongoing practice to fully understand the impact of third-party funding on arbitration procedures and rules, with the aim of maintaining the independence and justice of arbitration while better serving the parties.

During Panel II, the discussion was moderated by Fei Ning, Senior Consultant of Houzhu Capital. The panelists included Quentin Pak, Director at Burford; Fu Tong, Co-founder and CEO of Houzhu Capital; Michael D. Friedman, CEO of Hilco IP Merchant Banking; Lau chee chong, Senior legal counsel of Omni Bridgeway in Singapore; Falco Kreis, Senior Investment Manager and Head of the Munich Office at Nivalion; Zhang Zhi, Founder of Dingsong Legal Capital; and Zhu Zhen, Product Sales & Solutions Director of Dun Bradstreet. The panelists discussed third-party funding practices both domestically and internationally, sharing their institutions’ experiences across various jurisdictions. They explored a range of topics, including case selection processes and criteria, monetization and funding in the field of intellectual property, the interaction between arbitration rules and funding practices, and risk management for enterprises expanding into foreign markets. They noted that the client base and demand for litigation funding are becoming increasingly diversified, prompting third-party funding institutions to expand their product and service offerings. The panelists expressed optimism regarding the development of third-party funding in China while highlighting unique challenges that the Chinese market faces compared to the international landscape.

During Panel III, the discussion was moderated by Wang Jialu, Co-founder of Houzhu Capital. The panel featured Zachary Sharpe, Head of the Global Disputes Team at Jones Day’s Singapore office; Liu Xiao, Partner of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP; Zhong Li, Partner of Hui Zhong Law Firm; Wang Zheng, Partner of Hongqiao Zhenghan Law Firm; Li Zhiyong, General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer of CSCEC International; and Li Lu, Chief Compliance Officer of Essence Securities Asset Management Co., Ltd. The panelists discussed the application of third-party funding, sharing common challenges and solutions they encountered in their past practices, each informed by their specific business contexts. They addressed various issues, including how to set and manage reasonable expectations regarding case progress and outcomes, effectively handle confidentiality and privilege concerns, and navigate disclosures along with related conflicts of interest. In conclusion, the panelists agreed that third-party funding plays a unique role in promoting dispute resolution and accessing justice, especially in bridging the gap between law firms and enterprises in complex cross-border litigation and arbitration.

The successful convening of this conference has established a valuable channel for ongoing communication between domestic and international practitioners and scholars in the field of third-party funding. It has enhanced understanding and awareness of third-party funding within the domestic market and facilitated positive interactions and cooperation among third-party funding institutions, dispute resolution agencies, and relevant users. This will significantly advance the further development of third-party funding in China and make an indispensable contribution to helping Chinese enterprises effectively address cross-border disputes and achieve high-quality development.

The following article was contributed by Tom Webster, Chief Commercial Officer at Sentry Funding.

A Court of Appeal ruling last week is a very positive development for the many consumers currently seeking justice after discovering they were charged commissions that they were not properly told about when they took out motor finance.

With a large number of such claims being brought in the County Courts, the Court of Appeal heard three cases jointly in order to deal with some key issues that commonly arise.

In Johnson v Firstrand Bank Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 1282, Wrench v Firstrand Bank Ltd and Hopcraft v Close Brothers, the Court of Appeal foundin favour of all three claimants, allowing their appeals.

The cases concerned the common scenario in which a dealer asks the consumer if they want finance; and if so, the dealer gathers their financial details and takes this information to a lender or panel of lenders.

The dealer then presents the finance offer to the consumer on the basis that they have selected an offer that is competitive and suitable. If the consumer accepts it, the dealer sells the car to the lender, and the lender enters into a credit agreement with the consumer.

The consumer will be aware of the price for the car, the sum of any downpayment, the rate of interest on the loan element of the arrangement, and how much they will have to pay the lender in instalments over the period of the credit agreement. They would expect the dealer to make a profit on the sale of the car. But – at least until the Financial Conduct Authority introduced new rules with effect from 28 January 2021 – the consumer might be surprised to discover that the dealer who arranged the finance on their behalf also received a commission from the lender for introducing the business to them; which was financed by the interest charged under the credit agreement.

In this situation, the dealer is essentially fulfilling two different commercial roles – a seller of cars, and also a credit broker – in what the consumer is likely to see as a single transaction. The commission is paid in a side arrangement between lender and dealer, to which the consumer is not party. Sometimes there might be some reference to that arrangement in the body of the credit agreement, in the lender’s standard terms and conditions, or in one of the other documents presented to the consumer. But even if there is, and even if the consumer were to read the small print, it would not necessarily reveal the full details – including the amount of the commission and how it is calculated.

Turning specifically to the three cases before the Court of Appeal, in one of these, Hopcraft, there was no dispute that the commission was kept secret from the claimant. In the other two, Wrench and Johnson, the claimant did not know and was not told that a commission was to be paid. However, the lender’s standard terms and conditions referred to the fact that ‘a commission may be payable by us [ie. the lender] to the broker who introduced the transaction to us.’

In Johnson alone, the dealer / broker supplied the claimant with a document called ‘Suitability Document Proposed for Mr Marcus Johnson’, which he signed. This said, near the beginning, ‘…we may receive a commission from the product provider’.

Each of the claimants brought proceedings in the County Court against the defendant lenders seeking, among other things, the return of the commission paid to the credit brokers. All three claims failed in the County Courts, but in March this year, Birss LJ accepted their transfer up to the Court of Appeal, directing that the three appeals should be heard together – and acknowledging that a large number of such claims were coming through the County Court, and an authoritative ruling on the issues was needed.

After considering the issues in detail, the Court of Appeal allowed all three appeals. It found the dealers were also acting as credit brokers and owed a ‘disinterested duty’ to the claimants, as well as a fiduciary one. The court found a conflict of interest, and no informed consumer consent to the receipt of the commission, in all three cases. But it held that that in itself was not enough to make the lender a primary wrongdoer. For this, the commission must be secret. If there is partial disclosure that suffices to negate secrecy, the lender can only be held liable in equity as an accessory to the broker’s breach of fiduciary duty.

The appeal court found there was no disclosure in Hopcraft, and insufficient disclosure in Wrench to negate secrecy. The payment of the commission in those cases was secret, and so the lenders were liable as primary wrongdoers. In Johnson, the appeal court heldthat the lenders were liable as accessories for procuring the brokers’ breach of fiduciary duty by making the commission payment.

This ruling will prove hugely significant to the large number of similar claims currently being brought in the lower courts; and Sentry Funding is supporting many cases in which consumers were not aware of the commissions they were being charged when they bought a car on finance.

We can now expect many more such claims to start progressing through the County Courts.

Heather Collins is Chief Investment Officer at Court House Capital and a member of the Investment Committee and is responsible for assessing and overseeing investment opportunities across Australia and New Zealand, as well as identifying and managing a portfolio of funded claims through to resolution.

Heather brings over twenty years’ expertise in legal funding, commercial legal practice and in-house corporate counsel roles. In litigation funding, Heather has underwritten significant disputes. She is a veteran commercial litigator with significant experience advising clients on insolvency, banking and finance, property, construction, Corporations law, trade practices and employment matters. Her client base has spanned industry sectors including property, construction, infrastructure, finance and retail and she has acted for leading consumer brands such as Tiffany & Co, Ralph Lauren, Valentino, Aldi and Sephora.

Heather holds a Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Laws (Honours) from the University of Adelaide and is a graduate of the Australian Institute of Company Directors course (GAICD). Heather is the former President of the Women’s Insolvency Network Association NSW branch (WINA) and a Professional Member of the Australian Restructuring & Insolvency Association (ARITA) and the Turnaround Management Association Australia (TMA). She is recognised in Chambers and Partners Litigation Support (2024) and Lawdragon Global 100 Leaders in Litigation Finance (2021-2024).

Company Name and Description: Court House Capital is a leading litigation funder focused on cases in Australia and New Zealand. Court House Capital was established with a mission to provide financial and strategic support to parties seeking capital, risk management and access to justice. Our team is led by industry founders, with Australian based capital, and is renowned for expertise, agility and collaboration.

Company Website: courthousecapital.com.au

Year Founded: 2019

Headquarters: Sydney

Area of Focus: Litigation Finance

Member Quote: We offer cost and risk mitigation strategies for commercial clients and ‘a level playing field’ for those who cannot afford to pursue justice themselves. It is an honour to be co-founders of an industry that provides access to justice for so many, and to be the funder of choice for claimants and professional advisers. Our financial resources, industry network and knowledge has helped many claimants achieve successful outcomes.

Sarama Resources Ltd. (“Sarama” or the “Company”) (ASX:SRR)(TSXV:SWA) is pleased to advise that it has entered into a Litigation Funding Agreement (“LFA”) with Locke Capital II LLC, an arm’s length party that specializes in providing funding for dispute resolution (the “Funder”) to commence international arbitration proceedings in relation to its investment dispute (the “Dispute”) with the Government of Burkina Faso (the “Government”).

The Dispute pertains to the illegal withdrawal of the Company’s rights to the Tankoro 2 Exploration Permit (the “Permit”) (refer news release 5 September 2023). The Permit covered the Tankoro Deposit which was the focal point of the Company’s Sanutura Project (the “Project”) which featured a multi-million ounce gold resource.

Litigation Funding Agreement

The LFA provides a four-year non-recourse loan facility (“Facility”) of US$4.4 million to the Company to cover all fees and expenses related to its Claim to Arbitration (the “Claim”).

Security of the Facility is limited to the Claim, associated potential proceeds and all benefits arising from the property and assets of the subsidiary companies comprising the ownership chain (the “Chain”) pertaining to the Project (refer Annual Information Form, 2 April 2024). The Facility has been structured to enable the Company to continue to operate and consolidate its business outside the Chain without encumbrance or lien from the LFA.

All monies advanced through the Facility are non-recourse and repayable only in the event of a successful Claim or settlement of the Dispute that results in the receipt of Proceeds (“Proceeds”) by the Company or in the event of a default by Sarama under the LFA. In the event of the occurrence of a material adverse change under the LFA, the Funder shall be entitled to recover only those funds which were advanced but remain unspent. The Funder’s return is directly tied to the successful award and settlement of the Claim, with the total amount payable being a function of time and total Proceeds receipted. The priorities for distribution of receipted Proceeds are set out in the LFA and where commercially and legally sensitive, shall remain confidential.

If there is no settlement or award (or no default by Sarama under the LFA), the Company does not have an obligation to repay the loan. A detailed budget has been approved as part of the LFA, which covers all expected legal and ancillary costs associated with the arbitration process.

Plans for Arbitration

On 29 November 2023, the Company issued a Notice of Intent to Submit Claims to Arbitration under a bilateral investment treaty between Canada and Burkina Faso. The Government of Burkina Faso did not respond substantively to the Company’s efforts to reach an amicable resolution of the dispute. With funding to support legal costs secured, the Company is now preparing to lodge a Request for Arbitration with the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”). The Company will seek full compensation for the loss suffered which may include, but will not be limited to, the value of the Permit, the value of the Company’s historic investments in the Project, the value of the Project at the time the Permit was withdrawn and damages the Company has suffered as a direct result of the Government’s actions. The Project hosted a multi-million-ounce gold resource which was the subject of a substantially complete Preliminary Economic Assessment and fast-tracked development study at the time of the Government’s illegal actions.

The Company has engaged Boies Schiller Flexner (UK) LLP (“BSF”), a leading international law firm, to assist with legal matters pertaining to the dispute (refer news release 17 October 2023). BSF is an internationally recognised dispute resolution law firm with extensive experience representing investors in international investment arbitrations in the mining and natural resources sectors worldwide.

Background to Claim

On 31 August 2023, the Company received notification from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Quarries of Burkina Faso (the “Minister”) that the Company’s application for the Permit, received in August 2021 and granted to Sarama in November 2021 had been purportedly “rejected”, even though the previous Minister had approved the Permit in accordance with the applicable laws nearly two years prior.

On 6 September 2023, during his public presentation at the Africa Down Under Mining Conference in Perth, the Minister, Simon-Pierre Boussim, stated that the Permit was available for purchase. Based on the notification from the Minister and his subsequent actions, the Company was forced to interpret the Minister’s letter of 25 August 2023 as withdrawing the Company’s rights to the Permit. The Minister did not respond to subsequent correspondence from the Company on the matter.

The unlawful withdrawal of the Permit by the Minister, resulting in the removal of the rights to the land conferred thereunder, has rendered the Project valueless to Sarama, consequently destroying the value of the Company’s investment in the Project.

Sarama’s President, CEO & MD, Andrew Dinning, commented:

“The establishment of a non-recourse funding facility to cover all expenses related to the Company’s arbitration case represents a major step forward in its pursuit of redress for the substantial damages suffered as a result of the Government of Burkina Faso’s illegal actions.

Sarama’s legal representatives, Boies Schiller Flexner, are highly experienced and have a very successful track record in international investment disputes, including an arbitration claim brought by Indiana Resources (ASX:IDA) against Tanzania which saw the company recently receive the first tranche of a US$90M settlement.

The Company will now proceed with filing a Request for Arbitration and intends to prosecute its case to the fullest extent possible.”

CAUTION REGARDING FORWARD LOOKING INFORMATION

Information in this news release that is not a statement of historical fact constitutes forward-looking information. Such forward looking information includes, but is not limited to: the sufficiency and continued availability of funding for arbitration; statements regarding the possibility of initiating international arbitration proceedings in accordance with the bilateral investment treaty between Canada and Burkina Faso; the impact, if any, of the actions of the Government on the Company’s investments in mineral projects in Burkina Faso; the ability for the Company to successfully recover proceeds of an award or settlement from Burkina Faso; the filing of the material change report; the occurrence of an event of default or material adverse change under the LFA; and providing further information in due course. Actual results may vary from the forward-looking information due to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors. Such factors include, among others, risks related to the uncertainty as to the outcome of arbitration; the success of the Claim; foreign country and political risks, including risks relating to foreign operations and expropriation or nationalization of mining operations; delays in obtaining or failure to obtain governmental permits, or non-compliance with permits; as well as those factors disclosed in the Company’s publicly filed documents. Readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking information.

Sarama does not undertake to update any forward-looking information, except as required by applicable laws.

Earlier this week, Legal Funding Journal attended IMN’s 3rd Annual International Litigation Finance Forum in London, which brought together senior executives and thought leaders from across the legal sector to discuss the industry’s most pressing issues and developments. The one-day conference featured a wide array of discussions covering everything from the broader state of the funding market and external attitudes towards it, to nuances around the evolving relationships between funders, insurers, law firms and claimants.

An overarching point of discussion across the day was whether the market is still growing and if it is still heading in a broadly positive direction, or if there are warning signs on the horizon such as potential regulatory expansion. 

Rose Ioannou, managing director at Fortress Investment Group, made the important point of defining what is meant by ‘growth’, noting that in terms of the number of market participants and wider understanding of litigation funding there is certainly growth, whilst she also cautioned that it was less clear if there would still be continued growth in the volume of available capital. Across these categories, Ioannou emphasised that the most exciting area of growth is in the broader acceptance of funding in the dispute resolution community and that despite the industry’s “naysayers”, there was an increased “sophistication and understanding” of funding participants.

Looking at the near-future for the European funding market, an audience question prompted a discussion about whether we would continue to see gradual growth across the continent or if there was an explosion of activity around the corner. Iain McKenny, founding director of Profile Investment, offered the boldest prediction and suggested that whilst European funding has been “slow and steady for a long time”, renewed activity in individual jurisdictions could indicate that “we may be approaching a tipping point”. Other speakers were more hesitant in predicting a major increase in funding activity across the region, with Paul de Servigny from IVO Capital Partners explaining that it will continue to vary between European countries, with the Netherlands being an example of a jurisdiction where there has been a tangible market boom.

Outside of the European mainland, the issues facing the UK funding market were another hot topic, with speakers reflecting on how the industry has adapted to living in a post-PACCAR world and speculating on how the new government will approach litigation funding. 

Woodsford’s Steven Friel acknowledged that whilst it was disappointing that the election and change in government had resulted in the Litigation Funding Agreements bill being forced down the agenda, it is encouraging that Kier Starmer’s legal background means that the new Prime Minister “intrinsically understands” the issues at play. When asked to speculate on whether we would see legislation to solve PACCAR be introduced in 2025, the panellists were split down the middle, with half agreeing that it would follow the CJC review next year and the other speakers suggesting it would likely get delayed until 2026.

On the subject of future regulations, the recommendations outlined in the recent European Law Institute report were discussed, with the issue of disclosure as one of the key topics. Lerika Le Grange, partner at Taylor Wessing, highlighted that whilst there was a general openness to some level of disclosure, an attempt to mandate the disclosure of the source of investment funds could create a sense of nervousness among investors.

The dynamics of the relationships between funders, insurers and law firms was another frequently discussed area at the conference, with one of the primary questions being: are funders and insurers increasingly competing against one another? Most speakers at the event shied away from describing the two business models as being in direct competition, with Verity Jackson-Grant from Simmons & Simmons describing them aptly as businesses that serve different purposes whilst still supporting and facilitating cases between them. In a similar vein of thought, Kerberos Capital Management’s CEO Joseph Siprut acknowledged that whilst there can be “some tension” between funders and insurers, he highlighted that from a funder’s perspective “the ability to layer in insurance is value additive”.

Overall, IMN’s International Litigation Finance Forum once again succeeded in delivering a full day of informative and engaging discussions, whilst providing the opportunity for key stakeholders to network and exchange ideas as they continue to try and shape the best path forward for the industry.

The following article was contributed by Richard Culberson, CEO of Moneypenny & VoiceNation, North America.

Every leader knows the importance of maximizing the potential of their people, clients, and business. It’s about recognizing the value of your resources and optimizing their efficiency. This can be achieved by streamlining, leveraging technology, and investing in people, however, one solution that is gaining momentum in the legal world is outsourcing.  

Traditionally, businesses used outsourcing to save money by obtaining help with non-essential administrative tasks, thereby avoiding the costs of hiring and training employees and purchasing equipment and it’s been proven to be an effective way to control expenses. 

However, today, Outsourcing 2.0 is more than just a cost-saving measure. It is about collaborating to grow, thrive and maximize value.  

Take the humble phone call as an example. Whether it is a new inquiry or an existing client, every call is important and ensuring that they are answered, and opportunities are never missed is particularly crucial for law firms, whatever their size. On average one in 10 calls to a law firm is from someone making a new inquiry. If they go unanswered that is business lost, or worse, it is business that goes to the competition.  

Outsourcing your calls could help you never miss a call, avoid interruptions, and support business continuity. For example, it can allow your firm to operate seamlessly, whether it is a busy day in court, meetings, an office move, or a holiday. Furthermore, it should be able to work as a faultless extension of your business, so that no one knows you have a partner to answer your calls, for example.  

The same goes for other functions. Marketing and IT tasks can take away time that attorneys could be spending on billable hours. Just like you would hire an expert in a field that is out of your legal realm, outsourcing can support law firms to save valuable time, manage overflow, reduce costs, improve the litigation process, and allow employees to focus on key tasks. 

As a business leader, you understand your business’s strengths and areas where it needs support better than anyone else, so it is logical to look at ways you can focus on these strengths and seek assistance for other aspects.  Especially when you consider the tangible benefits that outsourcing can deliver to businesses, all while making financial sense. The key is finding the right partner. 

So, how can you ensure that outsourcing works for your business? 

Outsourcing will only work in the long term if both parties approach it as a partnership. It’s all about collaboration. With commitment and effective communication from both sides, long-term success can be achieved, however, it does require investment of time to get it right; treating it as a one-time deal will limit its potential. 

So, it’s all about finding your perfect partner, one that aligns well with your business, not only in terms of skills and experience, but also in terms of culture and values. This requires thorough research and careful evaluation. 

There is no doubt that outsourcing can help you to unleash your law firm’s potential by allowing you to focus on your core competencies while delegating other activities to external experts. This can lead to increased efficiency, cost savings, and access to specialized skills and resources that may not be available in-house freeing up time and resources to drive growth and also provide the flexibility to scale operations up or down based on business needs, making it a powerful tool for unlocking and maximizing a company’s potential. 

But you must approach it with the right attitude if you want to unleash the potential of your people and your business. Getting the right partnership and outsourcing can serve as a strategic tool to help law firms reach new heights of success in 2025 and beyond. 

Richard Culberson, CEO of Moneypenny & VoiceNation, North America, a global leader in outsourced call answering, live chat, receptionist teams and customer service solutions for business large and small, handling over 20 million calls and chats for thousands of organizations. Moneypenny has an award-winning culture, with over 1,250 people across the US and UK. At the centre of this culture is a vision that if you combine awesome people with leading-edge technology, you will supercharge your people and your business, delivering gold standard customer experience and service. Richard is passionate about building teams that leverage new business models and technologies, driving growth and scaling business.

A long-time litigation funding professional and former trial lawyer, Ronit Cohen is considered among the most experienced legal finance underwriting counsel in the U.S. After working as a litigator at Simpson Thacher and O’Melveny and Myers, she joined the burgeoning funding industry in 2012, first at Bentham IMF, now Omni Bridgeway, where she helped launch their first office, and then at Validity Finance, where in addition to serving as a member of the Risk Monitoring Team, she headed up a pro bono effort to provide capital to wrongfully accused individuals during the pendency of their civil actions. She co-founded Arcadia Finance in June of 2024, and serves as Managing Director along with co-founders David Kerstein and Joshua Libling.

Company Name and Description: At Arcadia Finance, we go beyond traditional litigation finance to provide frictionless funding, empowering clients and partners to achieve their legal goals through customized financial solutions and unparalleled support. Our seamless collaboration, clear deal terms, and broad mandate empower clients to navigate challenges, make informed decisions, and secure capital – fast. Led by industry veterans with over $400 million invested across 80+ deals, Arcadia Finance offers adaptable solutions for all–from litigation boutiques to AmLaw firms and corporations. Arcadia Finance’s mission is to invest in meritorious litigation, and with backing from multiple and flexible capital providers, we find new ways to help clients and law firms finance, monetize, and share risk on their legal assets. Our solutions include everything from traditional single-case funding and law firms portfolios, to purchasing companies or patent portfolios whose primary value is litigation. At every stage from pre-litigation to appeal and enforcement, Arcadia has the experience, flexibility, and capital to assist.

Company Website: arcadiafin.com

Year Founded: 2024

Headquarters: New York, New York

Area of Focus: With a focus on U.S.-based commercial and patent litigation and domestic and international arbitration, Arcadia Finance is open to the full spectrum of litigation-based assets, from mass torts to law firm lending to patent acquisition, including cross-border and offshore matters. We consider cases in all federal and state courts, as well domestic and international arbitrations.    

Member Quote: “I believe litigation funding is essential for a balanced legal system. It empowers clients with valid claims to seek justice, even when facing well-resourced opponents.”

Moneypenny and VoiceNation have an excellent service offering to help legal clients drive new business by responding quickly to new inquiries on their behalf.

The service means that VoiceNation’s team of professional US-based call handlers will help improve the conversion rate of new inquiries, by responding to them quickly on the phone, and qualifying them by asking a series of screening questions provided by, and tailored to, the client. As a result, legal firms’ own teams can focus on converting qualified leads, saving their teams time and effort.

VoiceNation’s highly trained professional call handlers know the importance of making a good first impression and the new Intake Service is backed by full CRM and Zapier integration.

How it Works

• When a new completed web form arrives at a client’s CRM, this alerts VoiceNation’s OpenAnswer platform
• OpenAnswer immediately flags to a VoiceNation agent about the lead
• Using the completed web form details, the lead is qualified by phone, or any other required channel
• All information requested by the client is then fed back into the client’s CRM for immediate conversion
• The service integrates with all CRM platforms and contracts can be completed via Docusign

Eric Schurke, VP of Moneypenny and  VoiceNation said: ‘This service enables legal companies to respond to new leads before their competitors do. We’re doing the heavy lifting of sifting through new opportunities, efficiently and cost-effectively, by qualifying new leads, so in-house sales teams can then convert hot leads faster.  Our clients should see benefits of the new service really quickly, achieving faster new business growth.’ 

On Wednesday October 16th (Thursday the 17th, in Australia), LFJ hosted a virtual town hall titled ‘Spotlight on Australia.’ The event featured Michelle Silvers (MS), CEO at Court House Capital, Stuart Price (SP), CEO and Managing Director of CASL, Maurice Thompson (MT), Global Head of Litigation Funding at HFW, and Jason Geisker (JG), Head of Claims Funding Australia. The event was moderated by Ed Truant, Founder of Slingshot Capital.

Unfortunately, Jason Geisker was unable to join the panel due to technical difficulties. However, the other three panelists covered a broad range of topics relating to litigation funding in Australia. Below are key takeaways from the event:

ET: Australia is a pioneer in the use of litigation finance. Can you provide an overview of the Australian market?

MS: Australia has been involved in litigation funding for over 20 years, since the late 1990s. At the moment it’s an interesting environment, we have listed and private funders, hedge funds, law firms and private insurers. Our market is dominated by litigation funders, not necessarily alternative capital sources, which is what tends to happen overseas. We’ve witnessed the market globalizing with offshore funders entering, and local funders expanding abroad, but a lot of the offshore funders have withdrawn from the market in recent years.

The market is small – Australia’s population is 25-28 million, so you can imagine that the way we operate here is quite different than overseas. We have about 10 players operating in the Australian market at the moment. Our environment is quite different than overseas, it’s smaller and well-knit. We all know each other quite well, we compete for the same cases. It’s fierce competition, and an exciting environment.

ET: In terms of return profile, I ‘ve been privy to a lot of litigation finance resolutions on a global basis, and in my review of the data, it strikes me that Australian funders are some of the best in terms of producing consistent returns, albeit the quantum of financing is a little bit smaller than what you might find in the US. Generally speaking, do you agree with that? And to what would you attribute the performance of Australian funders?

SP: I attribute that to the predictability of outcomes, and that really comes from the jurisdiction being established for a long time. Some of the growing pains that other jurisdictions are having, are dealing with new issues and new laws. Most of our bench that deals with litigation funding and new actions, they were senior and junior lawyers, partners, barristers, and now have become judges. So there is an ingrained knowledge of the system, and an appreciation of the importance of litigation funding to provide access to justice.

That in itself also goes with the Australian civil justice system, which is an absolute Rolls Royce. It is gold-plated, it is costly, so you need to be able to navigate that in a way where duration risk doesn’t become an issue to you. So when you talk about performance, I absolutely agree Australia is up there as one of the better performing markets in the world. We select our cases well and we settle cases before trial (about 95% of cases settle before trial – that brings duration risk down). That combination of factors are all a reflection of the 25 years-plus of existing in this market.

ET: Up until recently, outside of the class action space, lawyers have not been able to engage in contingent fee arrangements, but jurisdictions like Victoria have changed this dynamic. Can you discuss the current state of contingent fee arrangements and its likely trajectory, and the implications for the litigation funding market?

MT: Everything Stuart mentioned about this being an isolated part of the world, and the impacts that has on doing business here, is absolutely correct. A flip on that though, is that degree of isolation that we’ve had as a nation has always had us looking closely outside of our borders. So we observe what’s happening in other parts of the world and that influences how we think.

Some of the comments you’ve heard might suggest that we’re a slightly immature legal market, in the sense that politics have impacted the courts and there has been some degree of uncertainty since 2020. But I’d flip that and say that this is a case of us looking hard at what we need moving forward and what will suit Australia. The largest differential between us and the United States, for instance, is that we never want to see a situation in Australia where the overweight child might sue the fast food chain because some lawyer provides contingent fee arrangements, all those sorts of things. We’ve laughed at that scenario overseas, and we don’t want that here. So the whole idea of contingent fees stirs up all sorts of feelings in our legal environment, and in having to deal with those negative perceptions, we have to think very carefully about how we structure things moving forward.

In the period between 2020 and now, there’s been a proliferation of class actions in Victoria to take advantage of the contingent fee arrangements. Not all law firms have done that – my law firm, for instance, we’re running three large plaintiff class actions at the moment, we’ve got a few others in the pipeline. We’re currently not fixated on Victoria, because among other things, the way it’s been dealt with – generally if you want to take full advantage of a contingent arrangement sanction by the court and legislation, you have to bear all the risk of the costs and a security for costs order against the law firm. And most law firms won’t stomach that at all (because this is so new). But other law firms see this as an opportunity – particularly large national firms like Maurice Blackburn for instance. Large firms like that will take advantage because they can finance the risk. If I’m going to sell that to my partners in London, Asia or elsewhere, it’s a different proposition.

So we are inching closer to a wider opportunity for law firms to take on contingent risk, but we’re not there yet. I don’t think it’s going to be the free for all that people have been concerned about. That’s not to say there hasn’t been class actions flooding into Victoria as opposed to other states, but I think that will slow down. And so a firm like us is looking beyond the Victoria borders.

To view the entire 1-hour discussion, please click here.

Top legal finance firm, Nera Capital, is expanding its presence in Holland by opening a new office in Amsterdam, due to its involvement in several high-profile legal claims in the WAMCA. 

The strategic move into innovative and renowned offices in the prestigious Zuidas district is largely driven by significant legal actions that will proceed through the Holland court system.

In January 2020 the Netherlands introduced a new piece of legislation known as the Wet Afwikkeling Massaschade in Collectieve Actie (WAMCA) which translates to the Settlement of Mass Damages in Collective Action Act.

It allows for collective legal actions, enabling multiple claimants to combine similar cases into a single lawsuit, and is a key factor in Nera Capital’s decision to increase its presence in the region.

Firm Director, Aisling Byrne, explained that this approach not only streamlines the legal process but also increases the efficiency and impact of group claims. 

Ms Byrne added: “For Nera Capital, this system means a more robust and coordinated effort in legal pursuits, ensuring clients benefit from a comprehensive and streamlined legal strategy.

“Our expansion into Amsterdam reinforces Nera Capital’s desire to establish a stronger foothold in a key European financial and legal hub, positioning us at the centre of key industry developments and opportunities. 

“Leveraging our cutting-edge technology and embracing legal frameworks like the WAMCA reflects Nera’s dedication to ensuring that we remain at the forefront of the industry.

“The move marks more than just a new office – it’s another strategic step in our expansion, giving us the platform we need to further scale our operations and continue delivering top-tier service for our clients and partners.”

The change comes at a fruitful time for the legal funder, which is undergoing a period of heavy growth.

In recent months Nera Capital has continued to build its success through acquiring positions in a number of cartel and anti-trust claims in various jurisdictions, including the USA whilst also onboarding several new prominent funding partners. 

Reflecting on Nera’s recent success, Ms. Byrne noted that the expansion into Amsterdam aligns with the company’s core priorities of fostering collaboration and expanding strategic networks.

Viren is a Partner in Milbank’s New York office where he leads the international arbitration practice in the US.  He specializes in international arbitration (construction, commercial, and investment arbitration) as well as enforcement of awards and judgments in U.S. courts. 

He has nearly two decades of experience acting as counsel for parties in a broad range of industries, with a particular focus on energy and mining disputes. His investment treaty experience includes representing investors in disputes against Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bolivia, Ecuador, India, Italy, Mexico, Nigeria, Peru, the Philippines, the Russian Federation, Timor-Leste, Uruguay, and Venezuela.  He has advised litigation funders on whether to underwrite prospective matters and also obtained litigation funding for his clients.  He sits as arbitrator in commercial arbitrations and teaches international arbitration at Columbia Law School. 

Viren has been recognized for his accomplishments in international arbitration by Chambers Global, Chambers USA, Legal 500, Who’s Who Legal: Arbitration, The Best Lawyers in America:  International Arbitration, Euromoney (commercial arbitration), Latinvex (disputes in Latin America), Law360 (energy disputes), Lawdragon (500 Leading Global Litigators, 2021, 2023, 2024), The New York Law Journal, Crain’s Business New York,The LGBT Bar Association, the South Asian Bar Association, and the American Bar Association.  His client reviews in Chambers include, “Viren is talented, smart, and quick on his feet.  He is a lawyer you want in your corner”; “His attention to detail and commitment made him stand out – he was always thinking of next steps and briefing us often”; “Viren is bright, capable and a really strong advocate.”  Legal 500 identified Milbank as one of three firms to watch in the international arbitration space, noting, “Milbank continues to grow its profile in international arbitration since the late 2022 arrival of Viren Mascarenhas.  The team is particularly noted for its activity in the energy and infrastructure areas.”

Company Name and Description:  Milbank LLP is an international law firm headquartered in New York with offices in Washington, DC, Los Angeles, Beijing, London, Frankfurt, Munich, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Sao Paulo, Seoul, and Singapore.  Chambers USA ranks Milbank in Band 1 for a range of practices, including Bankruptcy/Restructuring, Capital Markets, Metals & Mining, Projects, and Transportation.

Company Website: www.milbank.com

Year Founded:  1866.  Company rebranded to Milbank in 2019.

Headquarters:  New York

Area of Focus: Milbank is a full services international law firm.  Viren is a member of the Litigation & Arbitration Practice Group.

Member Quote:  “Litigation funders want lawyers who can chart a course of action from filing a claim to collecting on the award/judgment, and then engage with the wide variety of players involved (client, opposing counsel, co-counsel, witnesses, experts, investigators, the adjudicators, and the funders themselves!) to make it happen.”

Westbrooke Associates announces its expansion into the burgeoning litigation funding sector, marking a new chapter in its legacy of connecting investors with high-growth, socially impactful opportunities.

As a brokerage known for identifying innovative investment vehicles, Westbrooke Associates is now expanding into litigation funding, a niche asset class that has seen rapid growth in the UK and globally. Litigation funding provides financial backing to individuals and small businesses that would otherwise be unable to afford legal representation. This growing financial tool has proven essential in levelling the playing field in the legal system, enabling claimants to pursue justice against larger, well-funded opponents.

With rising litigation costs and increasingly complex cases, the demand for litigation funding has surged, particularly in markets such as the UK, which boasts one of the most advanced regulatory environments for this asset class. The global litigation funding market is experiencing extraordinary growth, with revenues projected to reach $43 billion by 2033, up from $17.1 billion in 2023.

As one of the most compelling alternative investment opportunities today, litigation funding offers investors a low-risk, high-return asset class that remains largely uncorrelated with traditional financial markets. This makes it an attractive option for portfolio diversification, especially during times of market volatility.

A report by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP highlights that the top 15 litigation funders in the UK saw assets grow to a record £2.2 billion in 2020/21, an 11% increase from the previous year. With such exponential growth, Westbrooke Associates is poised to help investors capitalise on the robust potential of this asset class.

Westbrooke Associates’ expertise in sourcing profitable investments that align with strong ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) standards makes this a natural step forward. The firm has already established a successful collaboration with Addlington-West Legal Limited, offering investors access to litigation funding opportunities that prioritise both financial returns and social impact.

Litigation funding not only delivers strong returns but also plays a pivotal role in supporting justice. Westbrooke’s unique investment model ensures a rigorous due diligence process, with cases thoroughly vetted to back only those with strong chances of success. Investors benefit from fixed returns—typically generated within 18 months—while also supporting businesses that face significant financial barriers due to litigation costs.

Moreover, Westbrooke Associates’ commitment to protecting investor capital is evident via the surety bond offered by Addlington-West Legal. This guarantees 100% capital protection in the event of unsuccessful claims, ensuring investor security and peace of mind. This level of risk mitigation, combined with relevant regulatory compliance, makes litigation funding a particularly attractive opportunity for Westbrooke Associates’ clients.

For investors seeking a safe, high-potential asset class, litigation funding through Westbrooke Associates represents an ideal investment opportunity. The firm’s longstanding reputation for identifying forward-thinking ventures is further bolstered by this new foray into the litigation funding space. Westbrooke Associates continues to demonstrate its ability to deliver innovative and socially responsible investment opportunities that align with the evolving needs of its investor base.

As the litigation funding market continues to grow, Westbrooke Associates is at the forefront of offering investors access to this dynamic and impactful sector. Whether you’re a seasoned investor or looking to diversify your portfolio, Westbrooke Associates ensures that every investment opportunity provides both profitability and a positive societal impact.

For more information about how to invest in litigation funding through Westbrooke Associates or to request the Investment Memorandum, please visit www.westbrookeassociates.com or call 0203 745 0294.

Treviso – FiDeAL®, a leader in litigation finance consulting, is pleased to announce a new strategic partnership with Outmatch, a renowned French financial boutique specializing in M&A operations and in legal disputes resolution.

This collaboration marks a significant step in further strengthening FiDeAL’s litigation finance consulting services and in expanding its operations into the French legal market, one of the main European markets for complex legal disputes.

FiDeAL and Outmatch will combine their respective expertise to provide tailored solutions to French law firms and companies, supporting them with access to innovative financial tools and optimizing their legal strategies in high-profile litigation.

This partnership represents a milestone for both companies, opening new opportunities in the French market and offering a broader range of services to companies involved in complex disputes.

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA), the global voice of commercial legal finance, has welcomed the findings of the newly published European Law Institute (ELI) report ‘Principles governing the third-party funding of litigation’. 

The report, authored by UK High Court Judge Dame Sarah Cockerill and Professor Susanne Augenhofer, is the product of more than two years of investigative work to develop principles and guidance for the TPLF market, and represents a new, independent contribution to the legitimate and effective use of TPLF. 

Following the publication of the report, Neil Purslow, Chairman of the Executive Committee of ILFA, commented:

‘This new report, authored by seasoned legal observers, recognises that commercial legal finance increases access to justice for European businesses and consumers and provides ‘vital improvement in access to justice’ (pg.19) when made available. Contrary to the repeated claims of big business, funding helps level the playing field for those exercising their rights against multinationals with almost unlimited resources’. 

The report also cautions against imposing new regulations on the TPLF market. Instead, it advances a ‘complementary approach’ involving guidance to funders on issues to be taken into account before entering into a TPLF agreement, together with publishing a new Appendix drawing together the recommended minimum content of a funding agreement.

Purslow commented: 

‘ILFA agrees with the report’s conclusion that proscriptive one-size-fits-all regulation isn’t appropriate for a sector like ours. It risks funders ceasing to offer funding, inevitably leading to what the authors rightly identify as ‘serious access to justice issues’.’

The full report from ELI can be read online here. 

About ILFA

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) represents the global commercial legal finance community, and its mission is to engage, educate and influence legislative, regulatory and judicial landscapes as the global voice of the commercial legal finance industry. It is the only global association of commercial legal finance companies and is an independent, non-profit trade association promoting the highest standards of operation and service for the commercial legal finance sector. ILFA has local chapter representation around the world. For more information, visit www.ilfa.com and like us on LinkedIn and X @ILFA_Official. 

About ELI 

The European Law Institute (ELI) is an independent non-profit organisation established to initiate, conduct and facilitate research, make recommendations and provide practical guidance in the field of European legal development. The ELI secretariat is hosted by the University of Vienna, Austria.

The report team was led by Susanne Augenhofer (Professor of Law, Austria), Dame Sara Cockerill (High Court Judge, UK), and Henrik Rothe (Professor of Law, Denmark) (until July 2022). 

With federal lawmakers following in the wake of some state legislatures in introducing draft legislation to impose new regulations on litigation funding, it is perhaps no surprise that the US judiciary has now seen fit to take a more proactive approach in examining the role of third-party legal funding in the country.

An article in Reuters covers the news that the U.S. Judicial Conference’s Advisory Committee on Civil Rules agreed last week to begin a study into litigation finance, to ascertain whether a federal rule governing disclosure of third-party funding was necessary. The decision followed a panel meeting last Thursday in Washington, D.C., and notably comes shortly after over 100 companies signed a letter calling on the judiciary to introduce greater transparency measures for litigation funding. 

The chair of the Advisory Committee, U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg, said that the debate over third-party legal funding “is an important issue” and that it “is not going away.” Following the committee’s decision, a subcommittee will be created to study the issue but as the Reuters article highlights, this does not provide a timeline on when, or even if, a new rule governing disclosure would be introduced. U.S. District Judge John Bates, chair of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, seemed to make a distinction between the “theoretical problem” that litigation finance could pose, and the study’s purpose to uncover whether there were “actual problems”.

In response to the committee’s decision, Page Faulk, senior vice president of legal reform initiatives at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, called on the judiciary “to move forward swiftly in adopting mandatory disclosure requirements.” In contrast, the International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) said that it welcomed “the opportunity to be a part of the conversation to demonstrate how legal finance is a valuable part of the legal economy and has not resulted in any of the negative outcomes that the U.S. Chamber has cut from whole cloth.”

Andi Mandell is a partner and co-head of Schulte Roth & Zabel’s Tax Group, where she advises on the tax aspects relating to structured finance, securitization and fund formation. Her practice is focused on esoteric assets, including litigation funding, structured settlements, lottery receivables, secured and unsecured consumer loans and timeshare loans.

Andi has over 30 years of experience providing skilled tax advice to the securitization industry. In addition to her work in the esoteric space, Andi is recognized as an authority in the securitization of residential and commercial mortgage-backed securities and real estate structured finance, including the structuring of REO-to-rental financings, servicer advance facilities, debt re-packaging, securitization of non-performing and re-performing mortgage loans, re-securitizations, distressed asset funds and MSR purchases and sales.

Andi works with other industry leaders who are shaping the securitization industry as a member of the Board of Directors of the Structured Finance Association (SFA), and is serving her fifth year as the co-chair of the Tax Policy Committee.

Company Name and Description: With a firm focus on private capital, Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP is comprised of legal advisers and commercial problem-solvers who combine exceptional experience, industry insight, integrated intelligence and commercial creativity to help clients raise and invest assets and protect and expand their businesses. The firm has offices in New York, Washington, DC and London, and advises clients on investment management, corporate and transactional matters, and provides counsel on securities regulatory compliance, enforcement and investigative issues.    

Company Website: https://www.srz.com/

Year Founded: 1969  

Headquarters: New York, New York, U.S.A.  

Area of Focus: Tax, Finance, Structured Finance  

Member Quote: “Navigating the intricacies of litigation funding requires a deep understanding of both the financial and the legal landscape. As a tax lawyer, my role is to ensure that funding arrangements are properly structured to allow a broad range of investors to participate as funders in this asset class in a tax efficient manner. Litigation funding presents unique tax challenges to non-US investors and tax exempts and having the tax expertise to help guide our clients allows for greater participation in this space.”

Today, EvenUp, the market leader in personal injury AI and document generation, announced it has raised a $135 million Series D round of funding and significantly expanded its AI workflow and product suite. The round was led by Bain Capital Ventures, with participation from Premji Invest, Lightspeed Venture Partners, Bessemer Venture Partners, SignalFire, and B Capital Group. This brings the company’s total funding to $235 million, with $220 million raised over the last 18 months. One of the largest funding rounds in legal AI history, it puts EvenUp’s valuation at over $1 billion.

“At EvenUp, our mission is to close the justice gap through the power of technology and AI,” said Rami Karabibar, CEO and co-founder of EvenUp. “We empower personal injury firms to deliver higher standards of representation, with the goal of ultimately helping the 20 million injury victims in the U.S. achieve fairer outcomes each year. With our latest products, funding, and proprietary data, we’re now better equipped to serve our customers. We’re also excited to continue investing in our talent, expanding our world-class leadership team with recent executive leaders from public companies.”

Over 1,000 law firms use EvenUp, which has helped them claim over $1.5 billion in damages. EvenUp has flagged $200 million in missing documents, leading to settlement increases of up to 30% – putting more money back in plaintiffs’ pockets faster. Based on internal data analysis, EvenUp’s flagship product, Demands, is 69% more likely than non-EvenUp demand letters to achieve a policy limit settlement.

EvenUp’s all-in-one Claims Intelligence Platform™ is powered by its AI model known as Piai™, which is trained on hundreds of thousands of injury cases, millions of medical records and visits, and internal legal expertise. The company’s new suite of products span across the personal injury case lifecycle and include:

Equip case managers and attorneys with the tools for successful representation 

• Case Preparation: Law firm staff manage large volumes of cases and engage in painstaking document review tasks. Despite this, an alarming rate of claims are submitted with missing supporting documents. Case Preparation is the first product of its kind to proactively help case managers make the best decisions across the lifecycle of their cases, including identifying missing documents early and simplifying the review of records, improving the quality of case preparation, and reducing time to settlement.
• Negotiation Preparation: Negotiation Preparation helps injury professionals ensure they’re never caught off guard in negotiations with insights on strengths, weaknesses, and key facts. Attorneys are then empowered with Case Companion, a state-of-the-art AI case assistant for real-time answers to complex questions, to quickly navigate their documents and return sourced-based answers.

Enable firms to reach new levels of performance

• Executive Analytics: Executive Analytics makes rich insights and powerful benchmarks from EvenUp’s proprietary dataset easily accessible. AI insights across key case metrics like treatment continuity, demand delays, and more ensure executives have the data they need at their fingertips to unlock new best-in-class performance.

Equip attorneys with new visibility into their historical settlements

• Settlement Repository: With over 95% of cases settled privately, firms have lacked clean internal data to evaluate potential offers or inform negotiations on behalf of their clients. Settlement Repository solves this challenge.

EvenUp’s engineering and product teams, which span 100+ people, have shipped 50+ releases this year alone. Twenty percent of its customers are already multi-product users, and EvenUp drafts 1,000+ documents per week for its customers, positioning EvenUp as the largest AI-document drafting platform in the U.S. Revenue has grown over 100% year-over-year, and EvenUp has also more than doubled its workforce in the U.S. and Canada in the past 12 months.

“Everyone is looking for ways that Gen AI can help people in the real world, and EvenUp’s multi-product approach is the perfect example of that,” said Aaref Hilaly, partner at Bain Capital Ventures. “The work Rami and his team are doing in the legal technology space is unmatched, especially given the quality of data they provide to customers and their new workflow products. We are excited to double down and invest again in EvenUp as they embark on this new chapter.”

“We are beyond excited to partner with EvenUp, which is streamlining the day-to-day tasks of attorneys and case managers. The product velocity here is like no other – EvenUp will soon serve as the singular technology platform addressing nearly every pain point personal injury attorneys face,” said Sandesh Patnam, Managing Partner at Premji Invest.

“EvenUp’s powerful insights have reshaped how we make decisions,” said Steve Mehr, founder & partner at Sweet James. “Access to this type of business intelligence solidifies our position as the market leader. Their platform enables us to stay ahead of the competition while scaling with precision and confidence.”

“With first-of-its-kind transparency into case settlement outcomes, EvenUp truly lives up to its name by empowering advocates with accurate data, ensuring injured victims receive fair and full compensation,” said Bob Simon, co-founder of The Simon Law Group.

Find out more about EvenUp’s new products here: https://www.evenuplaw.com/

About EvenUp

EvenUp is on a mission to level the playing field in personal injury cases. EvenUp applies machine learning and its AI model known as Piai™ to reduce manual effort and maximize case outcomes across the personal injury value chain. Combining in-house human legal expertise with proprietary AI and software to analyze records. The Claims Intelligence Platform™ provides rich business insights, AI workflow automation, and best-in-class document creation for injury law firms. EvenUp is the trusted partner of personal injury law firms. Backed by top VCs, including Bessemer Venture Partners, Bain Capital Ventures (BCV), SignalFire, NFX, DCM, and more, EvenUp’s customers range from top trial attorneys to America’s largest personal injury firms. EvenUp was founded in late 2019 and is headquartered in San Francisco. Learn more at www.evenuplaw.com.

About Bain Capital VenturesBain Capital Ventures (BCV) is a multi-stage VC firm with over $10B under management investing across seven core domains—AI applications, AI infrastructure, commerce, fintech, healthcare, industrials and security. Leveraging the unique resources of Bain Capital, BCV deploys targeted support at every stage of the company-building journey. For over 20 years, BCV has helped launch and commercialize more than 400 companies including Attentive, Apollo.io, Bloomreach, Clari, Docusign, Flywire, LinkedIn, Moveworks, Redis and ShipBob. For more information, visit www.baincapitalventures.com.

Renovus Capital Partners (“Renovus”), a private equity firm based in the Philadelphia area, announced today that it has acquired a majority stake in class action case management solutions provider Angeion Group, LLC (“Angeion”). Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Steven Weisbrot, and senior members of the management team have maintained a significant ownership stake in the Company and will continue to drive the growth of the platform in partnership with Renovus. Marks Baughan Securities LLC served as the exclusive financial advisor to Angeion Group in the transaction.

Angeion, which is also headquartered in Philadelphia, is the leading innovator in the class action settlement industry. As a global provider of notice and claims administration services, the company has built a technology platform that enables its legal experts to manage the largest and most complex class action settlements.

The Renovus partnership will enable Angeion to accelerate the buildout of its management, client service, and delivery teams and increase investment in its proprietary class action technology solutions. Angeion plans to grow its leadership position in the US market and continue to develop its international business through a combination of key hires, new solutions, and strategic acquisitions.

Angeion was founded in 2013 by Steve Weisbrot, Esq. and Christopher Chimicles, with a mission to modernize the class action settlements industry. With over 160 team members, the Company provides high-quality service and innovative technology solutions in settlement administration, adapting to the constantly evolving legal services ecosystem. To date, its team has managed more than 2,000 class action settlements and distributed over $10 billion to class members.

“This partnership marks a major milestone in Angeion’s growth journey,” said Weisbrot. “The investment from Renovus is a testament to the dynamic team that has propelled Angeion into the great company that it is today and that will continue to drive its growth into the future. I am extremely proud of what we have accomplished, and I am even more energized for the years ahead.”

“Angeion is one of the most differentiated and fastest growing players in class action services,” said Renovus Managing Director Lee Minkoff. “Renovus has a track record of identifying unique tech-enabled legal services companies, aligning with management on a growth thesis, and making investments to execute that thesis. This is the exact opportunity we have with Angeion, and we could not be more excited to partner with Steve and the management team.”

Marks Baughan served as exclusive financial advisor to Angeion Group.

About Angeion Group

Angeion Group stands at the forefront of settlement administration and legal noticing services. Leveraging advanced technology, proven best practices, and expert consulting, Angeion specializes in managing class actions and other types of mass litigation. Angeion’s dedication to efficiency, accountability, and excellence instills confidence in counsel and the court alike. 

About Renovus Capital PartnersFounded in 2010, Renovus Capital Partners is a lower middle-market private equity firm specializing in the Knowledge and Talent industries. From its base in the Philadelphia area, Renovus manages over $2 billion of assets across its several sector focused funds. The firm’s current portfolio includes over 30 U.S. based businesses specializing in education and workforce development and services companies in the technology, healthcare and professional services markets. Renovus typically makes control buyout investments in founder owned businesses, leveraging its industry expertise and operator network to make operational improvements, recruit top talent and pursue add-on acquisitions. Visit us at www.renovuscapital.com and follow us on LinkedIn.

Clients trust Phillip Goter to enforce and manage their valuable intellectual property. Phil counsels organizations – ranging from startups to Fortune 100 companies – around the world, managing litigation through trial and appeal, thoughtfully obtaining patents and trademarks, conducting pre-suit investigations, advising on regulatory issues, conducting due diligence and freedom to operate analyses, and resolving complex disputes.

Phil leverages his business and industry experience when working with his clients, and they value his strategic thinking and trust his counsel regarding IP strategies that protect R&D investment and product markets.

Phil, who practices in the firm’s Minneapolis office, frequently works with high-tech clients in the computer software and hardware space. His keen familiarity with computer hardware, standards-essential cellular infrastructure, 5G, GPS, mobile apps, autonomous vehicles, artificial intelligence, machine learning, computer and network security, VoIP, wireless networking, home automation, medical devices, and cloud computing aid him in providing successful outcomes for his clients.

He has deep experience providing counsel to international businesses on U.S. intellectual property matters, including representing European and Asian consumer electronics, networking and telecommunications, and pharmaceutical companies in global IP disputes. His practice includes patent litigation in U.S. district courts around the country and before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, with the majority in key patent litigation venues such as Texas, Delaware, and California.

Phil also has significant experience with complex economic matters and his cases have included competition law issues, such as monopolization, attempted monopolization, and Walker Process and sham litigation claims. He has successfully obtained lost profits verdicts in pharmaceutical cases and has commissioned and used numerous expert surveys in litigation to prove infringement, indirect infringement, rates of infringement, apportionment, lost profits, and value of the invention.

He also has in-house counsel experience. Prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg, Phil was an investment manager and legal counsel for a global, publicly traded litigation finance and legal risk management company. He advanced the company’s IP initiatives globally and handled U.S. litigation matters through the entire life cycle of the litigation funding relationship, including sourcing, evaluating, and monitoring IP and commercial investments through to resolution.

Outside of his legal practice, Phil teaches intellectual property at the University of Minnesota Law School and can often be found at the hockey rink, coaching his three children’s youth hockey teams.

Company Name and Description: With more than 800 attorneys and other legal professionals, Barnes & Thornburg is one of the largest law firms in the country. We serve clients worldwide from offices in Atlanta, Boston, California, Chicago, Delaware, Indiana, Michigan, Minneapolis, Nashville, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Philadelphia, Raleigh, Salt Lake City, South Florida, Texas and Washington, D.C. We provide guidance in more than 50 dedicated practice areas, including litigation, intellectual property, labor and employment and corporate law. We are where you need us. Find out more at btlaw.com.

Company Website: btlaw.com

Year Founded: 1982

Headquarters: Largest office is in Indianapolis

Area of Focus: Intellectual property

Member Quote: Litigation finance has become an increasingly important financial tool for IP owners, who often find themselves disadvantaged by large, well-capitalized competitors. In this lopsided dynamic, non-recourse capital from trusted legal funders gives me the ability to right the harms inflicted upon my clients.

Litigation Capital Management Limited (AIM:LIT), an alternative asset manager specialising in dispute financing solutions internationally, announces a positive development on an investment within its Fund I portfolio.

LCM has funded a claim advanced in respect of an international arbitration claim brought against the Republic of Poland under the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Rules. The Tribunal has unanimously held in favour of the funded party that the Republic of Poland breached its obligations under the Australia-Poland Bilateral Investment Treaty and the Energy Charter Treaty.  

The quantum of the award entered in favour of LCM’s funded party totals A$490 million plus interest.

LCM’s funded party has therefore been successful in the claim. If the award is not subject to challenge and is not satisfied the dispute will move to an enforcement stage. We will assess any further funding requirements once the enforcement strategy has been finalised.

The total investment into the case to date is A$16.6 million (US$11.3 million). This investment comprises A$4.2 million (US$2.8 million) from LCM’s own balance sheet and A$12.4 million (US$8.5 million) of third party capital from Fund I. In line with our usual practice LCM’s returns are calculated as a rising multiple of invested capital over time.  

This investment is no longer attended with liability and quantum risk as that has been decided. Final performance will be announced to the market after conclusion of the investment. However, if the award is satisfied within a reasonable period without the need for enforcement, then based upon the contractual terms with the funded party as at the date of this announcement, LCM would be entitled to a multiple of 6 times its own invested capital plus significant performance fees on third party capital invested. 

Patrick Moloney, CEO of LCM, commented: “This announcement represents a very significant milestone in this investment. Subject to any challenge to the very favourable and unanimous award we now move to an enforcement stage. This investment is part of Fund I and therefore stands to benefit from significant performance fees giving it the potential to be the most successful investment in LCM’s history.”

About LCM

Litigation Capital Management (LCM) is an alternative asset manager specialising in disputes financing solutions internationally, which operates two business models. The first is direct investments made from LCM’s permanent balance sheet capital and the second is third party fund management. Under those two business models, LCM currently pursues three investment strategies: Single-case funding, Portfolio funding and Acquisitions of claims. LCM generates its income from both its direct investments and also performance fees through asset management.

LCM has an unparalleled track record driven by disciplined project selection and robust risk management. Currently headquartered in Sydney, with offices in London, Singapore, Brisbane and Melbourne, LCM listed on AIM in December 2018, trading under the ticker LIT.

www.lcmfinance.com

An investment vehicle advised by Tactical Management has successfully acquired Avyana Litigation Funding, further expanding its strategic portfolio in the legal financing sector.

Tactical Management, a globally active turnaround investor, specializes in unlocking the potential of underperforming companies, distressed real estate, and non-performing loans. The firm’s expertise lies in driving value and growth through strategic and operational support across a range of sectors and asset types.

Avyana Litigation Funding is dedicated to democratizing justice by providing financial support for complex legal disputes. As a trusted partner to minority shareholders, investors, and businesses, Avyana not only funds their fight to pursue rightful claims but also helps them monetize these claims, turning legal challenges into financial opportunities.

The acquisition aligns with Tactical Management’s strategic focus on supporting businesses with high-growth potential through innovative solutions. The acquisition of Avyana allows Tactical Management to strengthen its presence in the legal financing market, offering comprehensive services such as:

• Shareholder Disputes: Funding legal battles over shareholder rights, corporate governance, and mismanagement.
• Investor Claims: Supporting claims related to corporate misconduct, fraud, or breach of fiduciary duty.
• Bankruptcy Litigation: Financing litigation to recover debts or protect interests during bankruptcy proceedings.
• Individual or Collective Legal Actions: Providing funding for both individual and group legal actions.

Through this acquisition, Tactical Management enhances its ability to generate value for investors and stakeholders by tapping into the rapidly growing litigation funding market.