Content only for Premium Subscribers

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.

US-based hedge fund Muddy Waters has caused some serious ripples with its allegations against Burford Capital. In a recently released video, Muddy Waters CEO contends that Burford’s largest shareholder – Invesco – essentially bailed out Napo Pharmaceuticals, a company whose legal claim Burford was financing. 

A new survey by Validity Finance and ALM has yielded some impressive results for litigation funders to harp onto. A full 98% of attorneys surveyed who had used litigation finance at least once in the past said they would do so again, and 93% found their experience to be positive. 

London, 5th August 2019, Augusta, the UK’s largest litigation and dispute funding institution by case volume – today announces the appointment ofAnna Malek as Head of HR, based in London. Anna joins from software and services group Editec where, as Global Head of HR, she managed the full range of people related functions.

As litigation funding gains mainstream acceptance, there have been more and more headline-making allegations which are casting a shadow over the industry. Despite the funding community’s best efforts to assuage such ethical concerns, they persist and continue to plague the nascent market. 

Legal Tech is slowly-but-surely permeating all aspects of the Legal Services industry. And one fast-moving sector of Legal Tech is billing software, which seeks to scrape data on legal costs to better predict how much lawyers will end up charging on a given claim. 

With no automatic enforcement mechanism in place and only 60% of awards under £10,000 being fully enforced, the UK is experiencing a crisis of enforcement. Given that litigation funders must take collection risk into account when proposing an investment thesis, it’s worth examining the current enforcement climate in the UK in greater detail.

Last year, the New York City Bar Association issued an advisory opinion suggesting that funding agreements between lawyers and third party funders violates ABA Model Rule 5.4(a), which prohibits fee sharing with non-lawyers. The opinion has sparked furious debate (and much consternation) in the litigation funding community ever since. But practically speaking, how has the NYC Bar’s opinion impacted law firm funding? 

Recently, law firm Kirkland & Ellis announced a ten-fold increase in investment dollars towards contingency-fee plaintiff-side claims. Alternative fee arrangements have been the most profitable component of the law firm thus far, so management figures ‘why not roll the dice’ on what’s already been working? The question now is: is Kirkland’s approach a harbinger of things to come? And if so, how will this impact litigation funders down the road? 

Dividex, the international securities class action broker and case manager, wanted in on a Novo Nordisk class action after the stock shed over $50B in the wake of fraud allegations. The only problem? No litigation funders would bite, given that the Danish Pharma company would have to face the scales of justice on its home turf (international securities actions can no longer be tried in the U.S., pursuant to a 2010 Supreme Court decision). And since funding is needed to get an international securities action off the ground, the deal was dead in the water. Until, that is, Dividex packaged the deal into its own version of a portfolio funding arrangement. 

GoFundMe recently cancelled an Australian rugby player’s crowdfunded legal campaign, and the story made international headlines. Now some experts are scrutinizing the ethical and practical concerns of crowdfunding litigation; some of which will sound very familiar to litigation funders, yet others are unique to the crowdfunding niche.