Content only for Premium Subscribers

An update to an arbitration relating to the Ntaka Hill Nickel Project against the Republic of Tanzania was recently released by Indiana Resources.

If the old adage that “time is money” is true, then the length of time it takes to file a case, see it to completion and actually receive the award, can be unpredictable at best.

Funders and risk specialist Erso Capital has released its Q1 statement, and it seems largely positive. The funders report high demand for single-case funding. It also boasts a strong portfolio of completed transactions in several jurisdictions.

RBG Holdings has recently published its pre-close trading update. This comes ahead of its six-month financial report—expected in September of this year. RBG Group includes several profitable divisions, including those providing commercial and dispute-related legal services, and litigation funding.

The story of Lionheart Capital begins with John Ruiz and Ophir Sternberg (real estate developer and founder of Lionheart). Sternberg joined forces with hedge fund Elliott Management, turning Heart Hospital into a spate of luxury villas. This past May, Ruiz and Sternberg bought Cigarette Racing Team together.

The financial uncertainties brought about by COVID are one driver for the increased use of third-party legal finance. Businesses are becoming insolvent in record numbers. Even those with strong cash reserves are burning through them at unprecedented rates. How does legal funding help?

It’s been said that non-pharma-related patent litigation tends to focus on a few big companies. Most are consumer-facing brands with their own retail outlets, though certainly not all. Those who make a career out of being a non-practicing entity (NPE) know who they are and how to target them.

An important precedent was set recently, involving a decision in LCM Operations Pty Ltd in the matter of 316 Group Pty Ltd (in liquidation) 2021, and the use of documents produced in an examination. What exactly happened?

We tend to think of legal funding as a tool used by the ‘Davids’ in a David v Goliath matchup. Increasingly, however, litigation funding is being used in divorce cases.

It’s no secret that litigation funding has its share of detractors. Some are still suspicious of the increasingly regulated practice, despite evidence that it’s a net gain for clients, legal teams, investors, and those who have been harmed by a well-monied entity.

Singapore’s Ministry of Law announced last month an extension to its existing framework of laws impacting litigation funding. The extended framework will expand the types of proceedings that may utilize third-party funding.

It’s estimated that a class action in Australia may assist developers with their restoration and replacement costs. This case is expected to be the largest in the nation in 2021, as it involves more than 3400 apartment buildings now deemed unsafe.

Complaints against third-party litigation funding tend to focus on a few oft-repeated points. Increased litigation, class actions in particular, ostensibly cause insurance rates to rise. Funders aren’t always required to disclose their funding agreements, ostensibly hiding a potential conflict of interest. Finally, funders are blamed for a supposed increase in frivolous actions—even though no funder wants to take on a case without merit.

Litigation Capital Management maintains that its team has performed admirably in what has been a difficult and unusual year. On that note, LCM announced its second specialist litigation fund is on track to close this quarter, owing to explosive investor interest.

The divorce settlement between Farkhad Akhmedov and Tatiana Akhmedova has been in contention since it was first ruled on in 2016. London’s High Court determined that Akhmedova should receive over GBP 453 million of his more than GBP one billion estate. According to her, that judgment was not enforced.

A recent study into the future of legal funding resulted in several interesting insights. These include potential market growth, use of funding by corporates, expense, and strategic input into cases.

Seth Lovis, former managing director of Seth Lovis & Co, has been struck after admitting to failing to meet his obligations to various lenders. An investigation by the SRA determined that the personal injury lawyer accepted funding from multiple lenders for the same case more than a dozen times.

As litigation funding expands and adapts to the needs of consumers, it is becoming known by an increasing array of names: lawsuit loans, car accident loans, pre-settlement funding, etc. That’s because third-party funders are always developing new ways for non-recourse legal funding to help those in need.

Not all companies are enthusiastic about filing an IP lawsuit—even a highly meritorious one. Such cases are costly, complicated, and may not resolve for years. At the same time, the potential for a large recovery is high.

Banks like Barclays, JP Morgan, and Citigroup may believe that the fines levied against them in 2019 mark the end of a long road, yet that may turn out to be far from the truth. 

Prominent third-party litigation funder LCM (Litigation Capital Management) has secured a trio of major legal funding agreements in the last seven weeks. These include cases against rail services giant Govia, French electrical retailer Darty, and former Carillion auditor KPMG. As expected, investors have noticed LCM’s success; share prices rose 25%. Many analysts, including Simon Thompson, are lauding the stock and calling it a ‘buy.’

A newly formed SPAC (special purpose acquisitions corporation) unveiled a plan to take MSP Recovery public. Lionheart Acquisition Corp II is valuing MSP at around $32 billion, or roughly 10.5 times the anticipated 2023 revenues. Some are calling this a new high in financial wizardry. If the market jibes with Lionheart’s predictions, CEO John Ruiz would hold a stake worth more than $20 billion, with Frank Quesada (Ruiz’s partner) holding a $7 billion stake.

The Supreme Court case of Collins v Yellen has the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on alert, largely because it addressed the scope of agency powers–left unresolved after Seila Law v CFPB.

A new government proposal has been met with strenuous objections from litigation funders, lawyers and company directors alike. The proposal would mandate that at least 70% of any payout in a class action must go to the members of that action. Some find it telling that the Law Council of Australia stated that such a limit would make claims financially untenable for litigation funders.

Litigation Finance has experienced tremendous growth in recent months—owing to the pandemic among other factors. It’s increasingly popular among investors seeking an uncorrelated asset class. However, few mechanisms exist to allow investors to select the cases they fund directly—one of those, is AxiaFunder.

Australian Federal Court has established that liquidators may assign the right to examine relevant parties and to acquire documents.

It’s been fascinating to watch the progression of litigation funding happening around the world. Territories each develop their own regulations based on specific goals, when welcoming the practice. Some are positioning themselves as litigation destinations, while others seek ways for the practice to benefit citizens with the greatest need.

Thanks to the global financial upheaval caused by the COVID pandemic, companies around the world fear a financial shortfall. Litigation funding is one way that corporates alleviate financial pressure.

Two recent court rulings are being touted as a death knell for a controversial litigation funding model involving whistleblowers. The Justice Department has never downplayed its opposition to investors profiting from government lawsuits. Whether the practice is an innovation in identifying wrongdoing while profiting financially, or heretical to the idea of whistleblower protections—it does seem that the involvement of litigation funders in whistleblower cases may be on its way out.

The legal services industry in the UK is one of the largest on Earth. One side effect is that commercial courts are often used in cases involving no British citizens. The super-rich are largely coming from the Soviet Union. Some may be avoiding taxes or political persecution, while others have kept their ties to the Kremlin.