
The growing influence of litigation finance in the global legal environment has led to increased regulation and certain ethical concerns. That said, funders, clients, and legal professionals are all feeling optimistic about the impact of lit fin in the future. In addition, new markets are opening up in Asia-Pacific and elsewhere.
Staggering data has emerged in the class action suit against Southern Response, showing that the liability of the New Zealand federal government could surpass $400MM. This estimate is based on the nearly 3,000 plaintiffs subjected to unlawful behavior by Southern Response—who had assumed responsibility for claims sold by private insurer AMI, which was liquidated in 2012.
A new report from Wolverhampton University Professor Peter Walton shows a 50% increase in the UK insolvency litigation market over the last four years. Given the financial stress caused by COVID-19, we can only assume that the increase in insolvency litigation will continue apace.
Burford Capital, a worldwide leader in legal finance, has announced the development of a global association for commercial legal finance. Expectations are that it will be finalized before summer is out.
It’s rare to see rulings that specifically address the finer points of litigation funding and remuneration therein. In February of this year, however, a pair of separate rulings have garnered mass attention.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.