The COVID pandemic has led to the need for creativity, quick thinking, and adaptability for many legal firms. Roughly half of all firms and in-house counsel alike are expecting drops in revenues (and consequently, budgets) within the next year. But this doesn’t have to be dire news.
Even before the pandemic gained a foothold, European courts felt the impact of COVID. Litigation over insurance, safety precautions, employment, and business interruption was rampant. Such litigation is only expected to grow—even after COVID is under control.
As Litigation Finance permeates the mainstream and regulation catches up, the issue of disclosure remains contentious. At the time that a funding deal is created, there’s no real way to know whether or not courts will require disclosure of the agreement.
As 2020 nears its end, firms are straining to reduce the impact of Coronavirus on earnings—which for some means cutting staff even as they ensure that their best players won’t be recruited by other firms. Given that, it makes sense that firms holding strong litigation portfolios would want to consider dispute financing.
It could be argued that Burford Capital is handling the pandemic better than most. The company transitioned to a remote working platform early on, and have adapted to what’s being called “the new normal” with aplomb. In the months that followed, courts, businesses, and even schools shifted to remote operations—meaning court cases could finally continue.
One of the most attractive aspects of Litigation Finance as an investment is that it’s uncorrelated with the rest of the market. Even as the Coronavirus pandemic became increasingly impactful, funders assured investors that returns would remain high.
A claim of over $115 million in damages, filed by Russian oligarch Farkhad Akhmedov (along with owner Straight Establishment) has been dismissed by the high court of Dubai. The claim revolved around a 115-meter superyacht, the MV Luna, which had been held as part of a divorce settlement.
When Litigation Finance was still making a name for itself, the American Bar Association was among the first organizations to write researched commentary on it. The white paper published by the ACA Commission on Ethics remains influential today.
On Wednesday October 7th, Litigation Finance Journal hosted a quarterly roundup on the major issues impacting the commercial litigation funding industry. The 45-minute panel discussion was moderated by Ed Truant, founder of Slingshot Capital. Panelists included Jim Batson, Senior Investment Manager of Omni Bridgeway, Nick Pontt, Managing Director of Affiniti Finance, Mick Smith, founder of Almatura, and Paul Haskel, partner at Richards, Kibbe & Orbe, LLP.
The rise in bankruptcies and business insolvencies due to COVID cannot be denied. One side effect of this involves the exploration of how best to facilitate recovery and refinancing. Ultimately, legal funding may provide the best risk/reward ratio.
A settlement in the IAG class action is currently under review after preliminary hearings. The proposed $138 million settlement comes after the company was ordered by ASIC to refund customers for add-on products that were essentially without value.
It’s no secret that when the economy is tough, litigation increases. As the CEO of LexShares, Jay Greenberg, explains–even those who don’t normally use litigation funding are reaching out. Businesses are more anxious than ever to collateralize existing lawsuits and take steps to ensure that any impending claims can be litigated effectively.
Litigation Finance has been slowly growing since it first gained acceptance during the last financial crisis. In addition to a funding model that pairs funders with a single case, litigation funding can also come in the form of claims monetization.
Litigation funding is growing in popularity all over the world. The practice of third parties funding cases in exchange for a share of the rewards is a lucrative business model. Better still, it increases access to justice for those who couldn’t otherwise afford it. So why are insurers in Canada speaking out against the practice?
A new report from Burford Capital reveals that profits were down 15% during the first half of this year, as it reported to the London Stock Exchange. Much of this is due to fallout from Coronavirus, which led to group-wide commitments ending down a startling 74% to roughly GBP 152 million.
Questions about litigation funding led to a stay of proceedings during the liquidation of Stonewood Homes. That stay has been lifted by Associate Judge Owen Paulsen on September 25th. In August, a ruling stated that the liquidators, Rhys Cain and Rees Logan, could submit a request to lift the stay once concerns regarding the funding arrangement could be addressed.
While COVID takes a toll on businesses around the globe, Litigation Finance is experiencing boom times. As the number of insolvencies increases, funders are readying for an influx of new requests. In preparation, Litigation Capital Management has created an asset management division.
Litigation regarding intellectual property is undergoing a transformation. Judicial and legislative reform has led to changes that have made IP cases more complex and time-consuming, and therefore even more expensive to see to completion. Interestingly, companies based in Asia are looking toward US monetization strategies despite the inherent challenges of doing so.
Tax disputes are common, yet notoriously difficult to complete. They’re also expensive, complex, can take years to fully resolve and even longer to complete structured payments. When large businesses and corporations are involved, existing rules make the situation even more complicated. Litigation Finance is commonly sought in class actions and other large litigation. But now some suggest that there’s a place for litigation funding in the world of tax disputes.
A trade group comprised of Litigation Finance entities was a long time coming. Over the last decade, the industry has evolved from a niche service used in very specific circumstances to a multi-billion-dollar industry spanning the globe. The formation of the International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) is a welcome addition to the litigation funding landscape.
As the Litigation Finance industry has grown, some parts of the world have met the practice with suspicion. Some countries have suggested or enacted legislation designed to encumber and restrict the process of third-party funding in litigation. In the wake of COVID-19, however, the need for the practice has been affirmed.
Unless you are new to the world at large, you know that corporate misconduct happens. And sadly, it’s not always appropriately consequenced. In Australia alone, over a billion dollars has been paid or offered to customers as part of awards or settlements for misconduct.
Understanding how to assess the value of claims is an essential part of Litigation Finance. Any reputable funder will have their own in-house team of analysts and experts in a variety of disciplines. One way to better understand the process, is with case studies.
As Litigation Finance has grown, so has industry suspicion over the practice. Some groups are obsessed with the idea that lit fin requires greater oversight and even reform. In August of this year, the ABA distributed its Best Practices for Third-Party Litigation guidelines. This document is the first time the ABA has formally addressed Litigation Finance since 2012.
