Content only for Premium Subscribers

As we turn the corner into 2020, Bloomberg Law analyzes the results of its own Litigation Finance Survey to account for the challenges and opportunities facing the industry at this pivotal moment. 

Ross Asset Management (RAM) investors are suing Australia and New Zealand Banking Group (ANZ), alleging that the bank breached its fiduciary duties to investors. The first legal hurdle has emerged, with ANZ filing a ‘strike-out’ application, asking the court to dismiss the motion entirely. 

A UK Court of Appeal has approved the enormous U.S.-style class action against Google in the now infamous ‘Safari workaround’ claim. 4 million claimants will be represented in an opt-out action brought by Mishcon de Reya and backed by Therium Capital Management. 

IMF Bentham is funding a shareholder class action against New Zealand-based CBL Corp., claiming the company failed to disclose that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand had been investigating its solvency for several years. CBL has since entered liquidation, leaving many shareholders out in the cold.

The judge in a product liability MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has rejected the defense’s motion to discover whether the plaintiff is using litigation funding. 

45 general counsel and chief legal officers have signed a letter which requests that the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure amend the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as pertains to three specific areas of MDL litigation: census of claims, interlocutory appellate review, and litigation funding. 

Couples save for weddings, not divorces. As a result, many are cash-strapped and taken aback by the high costs of divorce. This places undue burden on attorneys, who must often choose between working on contingency or turning away clients. Fortunately, divorce attorneys can leverage divorce funding options, which allow receivables to be covered as they emerge. 

The recent LF Dealmakers conference in NYC highlighted several key issues facing the funding industry. And there exists a clear overlap between litigation funding and IP, given that IP is the most-funded legal sector at the moment (additionally, the organizer of LF Dealmakers, Wendy Chou, hosts an annual IP Dealmakers event). So naturally, one of the topics discussed at LF Dealmakers is how IP lawyers should interact with the funding market. 

Burford Capital has commissioned a study by Joshua Mitts of Columbia Law School which found that there is indeed evidence to back the funder’s claim that it was the victim of market manipulation in the wake of the Muddy Waters attack which shed 50% of the stock’s valuation in a single day. Burford is presenting the study in court to compel the London Stock Exchange to release the names of the short-seller sho it says manipulated the trading. 

Third party funding is taking off in India, thanks in part to a robust construction and infrastructure sector that is asset and debt-heavy, yet encumbered with the prospect of litigation. 

New Zealand government insurer Southern Response wants to eschew a Court of Appeals order that  a portion of its settlement go to litigation funder Claims Funding Australia. Maurice Blackburn and Claims Funding took over representation for 3,000 claimants after a New Zealand court allowed an opt-out class action for only the second time in history. Southern Response is weighing an appeal to the decision, preferring to deal with the claimant pool directly. 

Defunct New Zealand firm Felted Carpets – which collapsed just two years after its IPO – is being sued on behalf of over 3,000 investors. Harbour Litigation Funding had funded the claim up through 2015, with ‘Stage 2 Funding’ coming from a group of investors including Joint Action Funding. Now, the Supreme Court has ordered a $1.65MM security for costs order, which the plaintiffs are contesting. 

The latest issue of Harvard Law School’s Center on the Legal Profession’s ‘The Practice’ magazine features a robust examination of the litigation finance industry, including how the industry operates, who the major players are, how deals get done, and what law students should do to secure a career in legal finance. 

Well, how often does this happen? A government agency officially declares itself unconstitutional. That’s what the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) just did, as director Kraninger sent letters to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, stating in no uncertain terms that the agency is unconstitutional given the single-director-removable-only-by-POTUS structure. 

LCM has been funding a class action against the Gladstone Ports Corporation (GPC) on behalf of local fisheries and fishermen, who claim that GPCs port expansion project led to the collapse of the fishing market there. GPC had been arguing that LCMs funding agreement is unenforceable on the basis of champerty and maintenance, but the court just upheld the agreement as not champertous. 

Legalist, the San Francisco-based AI-driven litigation funding platform, has landed a $100MM funding round. The firm will deploy the capital into 100-200 cases of at most $1MM each. 

Insurance Australia Group (IAG) is estimating that a class action being waged against it could be worth as much as $1B. Global funder Balance REV is financing the claim, which alleges that customers were sold ‘add-on’ insurance products that had little-to-no financial value. 

The hits just keep on coming for Burford Capital. First there was the Muddy Waters short, then accusations of a sex tape swap, and now allegations the world’s largest litigation funder spent loads of money on its four non-executive directors (whose responsibility is to keep management in check).

Well, not everyone is buying Muddy Waters’ claims that Burford Capital mis-represented its accounting. Investor Caro-Kann Capital is long Burford shares, and has released a lengthy and detailed report outlining the firm’s point-by-point rebuttal of Muddy Waters’ allegations. 

The case of 9354-9186 Québec inc., et al. v. Callidus Capital Corporation 2018 QCCA 632 is making its way to the Canadian Supreme Court, and with it will come an examination of litigation funding in the insolvency context. 

The case against Burford Capital has been made, and Burford’s response has subsequently been laid out. We’ve from heard from both sides on the issue, and it seems the market has spoken (said market can be fickle, however, so we’ll see what it’s saying six months or a year from now). That said, Muddy Waters’ allegations of Burford’s accounting impropriety cast a very long shadow over the industry, as illustrated by one prominent institutional investor’s decision to sell its holdings in Burford Capital. 

One of Muddy Waters’ chief allegations against Burford Capital is that the funder manipulates its financial reporting. The short-seller used the Napo Pharmaceuticals example to illustrate how Burford misreports earnings. Now, after a deluge of investor concern, Burford has released a 7-page explanation of its Napo accounting. 

In the case of WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Multi Media LLC, Civil Action No. 2-14-cv-02340, a New Jersey court has reaffirmed that the pursuit of litigation funding by a plaintiff – in this case a partnership with Woodsford Litigation Funding – does not harm standing. 

Study after study shows that General Counsel are growing more and more interested in the product of litigation finance, yet the adoption rates remain low. There are numerous hurdles, not the least of which is cultural: many GCs simply retract from the idea that their role and responsibility should transform from cost container to revenue producer. That said, given the shifting economic climate, it’s worth taking another look at how litigation funding can benefit GCs and the balance sheets they are entrusted to safeguard. 

The average IRS whistleblower claim takes more than eight years to pay out, if they pay out at all. That’s a huge gamble, but one that isn’t stopping one new litigation funder, whose brand new fund is solely devoted to funding IRS whistleblower claims.

New questions have arisen over payouts to top Burford executives, including CEO Christopher Bogart and co-foudner Jonathan Molot. Despite founding the company, the pair were not actually employees of Burford Capital until 2012. Prior to that, they formed an advisory firm – Burford Group Limited – and charged Burford Capital fees for their advisory work. In the wake of the Muddy Waters allegations, the pair are facing questions about the complex financial structure, as well as their current salaries which remain undisclosed, given the fact that neither is on the company’s board. 

In what could be the largest class action in Australian history, Regency Funding is bankrolling a claim against several car makers over faulty airbags which led to at least one fatality and multiple injuries. However one of the car makers, BMW, is challenging the common fund order that allows Regency to collect 25% of any payout, even from those who have not formally joined the class. 

Burford Capital CEO Christopher Bogart and co-founder Jonathan Molot have shot back at US-based hedge fund Muddy Waters’ claims that Burford misreports its earnings, and is ‘arguably insolvent.’ In a call to investors earlier today, Bogart characterized the allegations as ‘false and misleading,’ and sought to assure investors by stating that both he and Molot had personally invested $4MM into Burford’s stock after the Muddy Waters announcement was made. 

There’s been much talk about litigation funding and legal fees, and whether the existence of funding generates an inherent conflict of interest. While there are some legitimate concerns here, the anxiety is mostly overblown. In an increasingly-commoditized industry, litigation funders aren’t likely to risk repetitional harm by directing or even influencing case management and strategy. 

All of that said, legal fees are only one side of the coin. Funders also cover case expenses, and here is an area where conflict of interest may actually arise. 

Tom Girardi, of the eponymous law firm Girardi Keese, has been ordered to deliver to his financials to the court after he failed to pay $6MM of a $16MM settlement with Law Finance Group. Law Finance sued Girardi for failure to repay a $15MM loan, and eventually settled on the $16MM figure, only to claim that Girardi skipped out on the final $6MM payment.