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.
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.
Court closures and the absence of many basic services have brought about a major slowdown in the way cases are settled or litigated. As we don’t know how long COVID-19 isolation and quarantine will last, it’s growing more and more difficult to assess the true cost of the increased time-to-settlement.
Boeing is one of the cornerstones of the global aerospace industry, yet the company is experiencing tumultuous times. The grounding of its 737 Max airplane in the wake of the Coronavirus outbreak caused the company to book over $20Bn in charges, and some are worried about liquidity issues, and even bankruptcy.
On Thursday, LFJ hosted a panel discussion with a pair of experts on the Aerospace industry regarding the fate of Boeing, and the future of the industry.
It’s no secret that insiders will buy up shares of companies they anticipate will outperform. It’s also no secret that the economic havoc being wreaked on the global economy by COVID-19 is bound to have legal (and litigation funding) repercussions. Could Burford’s insider share purchases foretell positive times ahead for the world’s largest litigation funder?
The Coronavirus is having an impact on lawyers around the world. Right now, employers need advice on the best ways to react to employees who have contracted the virus, or those desperately trying to avoid it. From remote assignments to office closures, lawyers are needed to help companies navigate the uncharted waters of a modern pandemic.
Legal minds Paul Haskel and Jim Walker have kept a close eye on how litigation funding is impacting legal ethics. Like many lawyers and judges, they have grave concerns and feel that some tweaks in the Code of Ethics should be considered. But how to get everyone on the same page about what needs to change?
While not legally binding, the recent NYC Bar Association opinion on litigation funding is a powerful statement on the ethics of funding and what regulations are needed. In response to this, a 25-person working group on litigation funding was assembled.
As litigation funding increases in popularity, funders find that they can take their pick of lawyers and cases to back. While on the other hand, securing the funding needed to successfully litigate a case can be a challenge. Aside from the usual considerations—potential recovery amount and time, overall merits of the case, etc.—funders look closely at the lawyer(s) involved.
A UK case involving the post office, buggy accounting software, and widespread accusations of theft was big news across the pond. After numerous sub-postmasters were accused of theft, many endured firing, public shaming, loss of property, and even jail time. The real culprit was bad accounting software made by a company called Horizon. Now, the plaintiffs are alleging that the bulk of their payout will go to the firm that financed the legal case—and not to the people who were actually hurt.
International Women’s Day has come and gone. But the issues women face in the workplace—and in law firms in particular—are still present. With that in mind, Buford Capital has set aside a roughly $50 million funding pool to help balance the gender gap in litigation funding.
In 2018, the NYC Bar surprised a lot of folks by issuing a formal opinion declaring litigation funding in conflict with the Bar’s rules on fee-sharing with non-lawyers, as outlined in Rule 5.4 of the professional conduct code. The reaction within the funding community was swift, however no formal response has been delivered… until now.
No one will ever accuse Aussie law firm Maurice Blackburn of not being proactive. The class action king (Maurice has filed the most in Australia) is pursuing a class action claim against banking giant NAB, and plans to use a contingency-fee model. There’s just one wrinkle here: contingency-fee arrangements aren’t legal in Australia. The state of Victoria is mulling legislation that would legalize such arrangements, but hasn’t passed the final bill yet.
“Lawyer-Directed” litigation finance, whereby a funder forms a partnership with contingency counsel, provides an opportunity to work around some of the issues that exist in client-directed funding – most notably issues that arise when creditors or lienholders are awaiting recoupment from the client, pending successful litigation. Many funders are averse to partnering with a client that is encumbered by senior lienholders, hence many such claims go unfunded, despite the merits of the underlying case. Lawyer-directed funding provides an attractive solution.
New Zealand has been far slower to adopt litigation funding than neighboring Australia, where the practice originated. However, the funding market is surging in kiwi-land, thanks in part to local funder LPF Group, which has bankrolled some sizable claims.
Last week, Utah became the latest state to introduce a litigation funding bill, as state senator James A. Dunnigan filed House Bill 312, which would force litigation funders to register with the Department of Commerce, and also aims to regulate how they operate. Many lawmakers are blaming litigation funding for the rising cost of insurance, which is an argument that is being made by Big Insurance and the Chamber of Commerce against the industry.
Deputy Associate Attorney General Stephen Cox of the Justice Department gave a speech on Monday to False Claims Act (FCA) attorneys, and Cox expressed concern that DOJ doesn’t know the extent to which FCA attorneys are using litigation funding. Cox mentioned that Justice is considering mandating disclosure of litigation funding agreements for FCA whistleblowers.
Consumer Legal Funding has been a hot-button issue in Missouri for some time. There has been some concern from industry participants that Missouri may go the way of West Virginia and effectively ban the industry, but it is doubtful the legislature will take up the issue of capping rates on funding transactions in the next legislative session.
In List Interactive, Ltd. v. Knights of Columbus, Judge R. Brooke Jackson denied a motion to restrict public access to litigation funding agreements, finding that the content of the agreements are in the public interest. Judge Jackson confirmed that dollar amounts and specific terms may constitute trade secrets, but ruled that restricting access to the entire agreement is ‘grossly overbroad.’
According to the Amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (Order XXV Rule 3), litigation funding in India is permissible, in that non-lawyers are not restricted from accepting remuneration upon a completed claim. With recent litigation funding partnerships in the engineering and construction sectors, it seems litigation funding in India is poised for growth.
