The High Court has ruled in favour of shareholders in Walton & Anor v ACN 004 410 833 Ltd (formerly Arrium Limited) (in liq) & Ors. In a 3:2 decision, the majority permitted former shareholders of Arrium Ltd to examine the insolvent company’s officers under s 596A of the Corporations Act 2001 (‘CA’) for the purpose of potentially bringing a class action against the company’s managers.
Northleaf Capital Partners (Northleaf) today announced that it acted as the lead arranger of a A$250 million senior secured credit facility for Omni Bridgeway (ASX: OBL), a global leader in financing and managing legal risks, with expertise in civil and common law legal and recovery systems.
Nearing its fourth anniversary in June, leading litigation funder Validity Finance, announced the arrival of three senior members to its team including a new portfolio counsel for investment review, a new corporate counsel and a first-time marketing officer. Validity also reports the promotion of seven professionals in New York, Houston and Tel Aviv.
LFJ’s latest digital event featured Litigation Finance advisors Rebecca Berrebi (Founder and CEO, Avenue 33, LLC), Peter Petyt (Co-Founder, 4 Rivers Legal), Andrew Langhoff (Founder and Managing Director, Red Bridges Advisors), and moderator Ed Truant (Founder, Slingshot Capital). The panel discussed how they navigate between funders, law firms and claimants, as well as the challenges they face in this market, and the numerous benefits they provide each counter-party.
The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) today announced its new board of directors, executive committee members, and Chairman.
AmTrust Europe Limited, an insurance entity of AmTrust International, today announced the launch of a Fixed Limit ‘After the Event’ (fl.ATE) Insurance product for lower value commercial and civil legal claims.
The following is a contributed piece by Ed Truant, founder of Slingshot Capital, and Andrew Langhoff, founder of Red Bridges Advisors.
When we write about litigation finance, we often assume it is easily accessible and that plaintiffs undertake most of the ‘leg work’ to secure financing. In practice, litigation finance is often difficult to obtain, and plaintiffs typically rely quite heavily on their law firms to obtain it. This is a very different dynamic than one sees in other areas of financial services. And because law firms may not have the expertise and bandwidth to properly broker a litigation funding transaction, their involvement in the process may be unintentionally short-changing their clients. With some law firms now entering contractual “tie-up” or “best friends” arrangements with favored funders, we thought this an opportune time to consider the law firm’s proper role in the litigation funding process.
This article will explore common but unexamined efforts by law firms to deal with funders, the practical challenges posed and suggest a preferred approach for law firms and their clients.
While crypto-related fraud reached an all-time high in 2021, with illicit addresses receiving US$14bn over the course of the year*, up 79% on the previous year, matters brought before courts remain comparatively low, in large part due to a lack of funding options for otherwise meritorious lower-value claims.
More Americans than ever are living paycheck to paycheck. With inflation rising and a recession right around the corner—financial pressures on the average family are increasing. And lawsuits aren’t going anywhere, which is why Consumer Legal Funding is a vital and necessary option for average families seeking justice in a legal setting. Yet regulation threatens the availability and effectiveness of Consumer Legal Funding—with the potential to curtail justice for those of modest financial means.
Leading litigation funder Validity Finance announced it has expanded to Washington, DC, adding prominent international disputes lawyer Nicole Silver as investment manager. She was previously a shareholder with Greenberg Traurig in Washington, representing governments and corporate clients in international arbitration proceedings, as well as in complex civil litigation, white-collar defense and internal investigations.
The following piece was contributed by Eric Schuller, President of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC).
The opponents of consumer legal funding often say that consumers do not need this product. That they have several other options which they can tap into, and as such, are trying to put up barriers through the legislative process in limiting consumers’ ability to have access to this vital piece of financial stability.
The following article was contributed by Nikki Stever and Madison Smith of Australia-based commercial law firm, Piper Alderman.
In the third decision delivered in a shareholder class action in Australia,[1] Iluka Resources Limited (ASX: ILU), (Iluka) succeeded in its defence of a lawsuit[2] which failed to prove that the shareholders’ direct reliance on Iluka’s conduct caused their losses. However, the decision in favour of Iluka notably lacked any significant consideration of the second causation argument typically pleaded in shareholder class actions – market-based causation.
The following piece is a contribution by Charles W. Price, CEO of Capital Now Funding, LLC.
The pre-settlement legal funding industry is often viewed in a negative manner by those outside of the industry, because settlement advances charge higher interest rates than traditional lending methods. The truth is, that without pre-settlement legal funding, those personally injured in accidents that were no fault of their own often do not have the financial means to properly care for themselves following a personal injury accident. Therefore, pre-settlement legal funding plays a vital role by providing much-needed financial assistance for personal injury victims when they have no other options available to them.
According to a recent Burford Capital survey, more than half of in-house lawyers say their company has awards and judgements that have remained uncollected—often to the tune of $20 million or more. That’s a staggering number of successful cases that go unfulfilled, from a collectability standpoint.
Burford Capital Limited, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, today announces that it has raised a new $360 million private investment fund, the Burford Advantage Master Fund LP (“Advantage Fund”).
Burford Capital Limited, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, today announces its financial results for the year ended December 31, 2021.(1)
LITFINCON’s inaugural conference kicked off last week at the Post Oak Hotel in Houston, Texas, with attendees flying in from all over the globe. Guests had a front-row seat to several thought-provoking conversations about the growing asset class from a variety of industry experts.
This week marks the sixth anniversary of Terry Bollea (AKA professional wrestler Hulk Hogan) suing Gawker media for publishing a sex tape of him with a married woman. The suit made national news not just for its salacious nature—but because of the questions it raised regarding privacy versus journalistic freedom. Once news emerged that billionaire and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel was funding Hogan’s claim, the case became even more sensational.
In this piece, we’ll take a look at exactly what happened in the case, and how it impacted (or hasn’t impacted) Litigation Finance.
Omni Bridgeway (formerly known in the US as Bentham IMF) is pleased to announce the launch of its US Judgment Enforcement business.
The following article was contributed by Valerie Blacker and Jon Na, of Piper Alderman.
Applicants often confront the proposition, which respondents typically use in their defense, that terms in consumer contracts will effectively exclude or restrict the claims that have been brought. The High Court of Australia recently weighed in on this issue, deciding that a mortgage contained an enforceable promise by the borrowers not to raise a statutory limitation defense in relation to a claim by the lenders, which was commenced out of time.
Litigation Capital Management Limited (AIM:LIT), a leading international alternative asset manager of disputes financing solutions, is pleased to announce its unaudited interim results for the half year ended 31 December 2021, delivering a significant improvement on the prior year.
The following article is part of an ongoing column titled ‘Investor Insights.’
Brought to you by Ed Truant, founder and content manager of Slingshot Capital, ‘Investor Insights’ will provide thoughtful and engaging perspectives on all aspects of investing in litigation finance.
The following article was contributed by Mikolaj Burzec, a litigation finance advisor and broker. He is also a content writer for Sentry Funding.
The Competition Appeal Tribunal, London’s specialist competition court, has confirmed that a special purpose company led by Mark McLaren, formerly of The Consumers’ Association, will act as the Class Representation. McLaren represents millions of motorists and businesses who bought or leased a new car between October 2006 and September 2015 against five shipping companies that imported cars into Europe.
The European Commission has already found that the car carriers fixed prices, manipulated bids, and divided the market for roll-on roll-off transport by sea. According to the Commission, the carriers had agreed to maintain the status quo in the market and to respect each other’s ongoing business on certain routes, or with certain customers by offering artificially high prices or not bidding at all in tenders for vehicle manufacturers.
The class action follows the EC decision. It is one of the first actions of its kind in the UK and damages for car buyers are estimated at around £150 million.
The class representative
Mark McLaren has set up a non-for-profit company – Mark McLaren Class Representative Limited – specifically to bring this claim. Mark is the sole director and only member of the company and therefore has full control over it.
In a collective action, the class representative is responsible for conducting the action on behalf of the class. His duties include:
An independent advisory committee will be appointed to assist in the decision-making process.
The claim
From 2006 to 2012, five major shipping companies were involved in a cartel that affected prices for the sea transport of new motor vehicles, including cars and vans. During the period of the cartel, the shipping companies exchanged confidential information, manipulated tenders and prices, and reduced overall capacity in the market for the carriage of cars and vans.
The cartel resulted in car manufacturers paying too much to transport new vehicles from their factories around the world to the UK and Europe. Customers who bought a new car or van between 18 October 2006 and 6 September 2015 probably also paid too much for the delivery.
This is because when a manufacturer sets the price of its new cars or vans, it takes into account the total cost of delivery, including shipping costs. For simplicity, car manufacturers usually divide their total delivery costs equally among all the cars and/or vans they sell. When a customer buys a new car or van, he pays for “delivery”, either separately or as part of the on-road price.
Although the car manufacturers themselves have done nothing wrong, customers who bought a new car or van between 18 October 2006 and 6 September 2015 are likely to have paid an increased delivery charge.
The European Commission has already decided to impose fines of several hundred million euros on the shipping companies. The lawsuit seeks to recover these extra costs from the shipping companies who were involved in the cartel.
The Competition Appeal Tribunal’s decision
The Tribunal has authorised the claims to proceed as a class action. This means that millions of motorists and businesses could be entitled to compensation and these individuals and companies will now automatically be represented in court unless they choose to leave (opt-out) the claim.
McLaren is the first Collective Proceeding Order judgment in which the Tribunal has explicitly considered the position of larger corporates within an opt-out class with the defendants having argued that big businesses should be removed and treated on an opt-in basis. The Tribunal’s refusal to treat larger businesses in the class differently to smaller corporates and consumers is noteworthy, and these aspects of the judgment will no doubt be of interest for the future proposed collective actions which feature businesses.
McLaren further explored the appropriate legal test applied to the methodology in order to establish a class-wide loss at the certification stage.
The Tribunal denied the defendants’ strike out request, which was based on purported inadequacies in the claimant’s methodology. The Tribunal concluded that its job at the certification stage is not to analyse the expert methodology’s merits and robustness; rather, the Tribunal will determine whether the methodology provides a “realistic chance of evaluating loss on a class-wide basis.” It further stressed that this does not imply that the Tribunal must be convinced that the approach will work, or that the methodology must be proven to work.
The Tribunal emphasized the critical role of third-party funding in collective actions, as well as confirmed that the potential take-up rate by the class is not the only measure of benefit derived from the proceedings, with another benefit being the role of collective claims in deterring wrongful conduct. Despite the fact that the sums involved per class member may be little, the Tribunal focused on the fact that the total claim value is significant and that the majority of class members would be able to retrieve information about vehicle purchases.
In the end, the Tribunal managed two issues that have been discussed in earlier decisions: inclusion of deceased consumers in the class and compound interest. Corresponding to the previous, McLaren was not allowed to change his case to incorporate potential class individuals who had died before procedures being given, because of the expiry of the limitation period. Regarding the latter, in contrast to the judgment in Merricks last year, the Tribunal was ready to certify compound interest as a standard issue even though it is common just to a part of the class who had bought vehicles using finance agreements.
The Tribunal’s decision is conditional upon McLaren making adjustments to his methodology to account for the ruling on these points, and any determination as to the need for sub-classes.
Case name and number: 1339/7/7/20 Mark McLaren Class Representative Limited v MOL (Europe Africa) Ltd and Others
The whole judgment is available here: https://www.catribunal.org.uk/judgments/13397720-mark-mclaren-class-representative-limited-v-mol-europe-africa-ltd-and-others
The following article was contributed by Mikolaj Burzec, a litigation finance advisor and broker. He is also a content writer for Sentry Funding.
The Competition Appeal Tribunal, London’s specialist competition court, has confirmed that a special purpose company led by Mark McLaren, formerly of The Consumers’ Association, will act as the Class Representation. McLaren represents millions of motorists and businesses who bought or leased a new car between October 2006 and September 2015 against five shipping companies that imported cars into Europe.
Burford Capital—the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law—today announces that it has crossed a significant milestone in its groundbreaking initiative designed to increase diversity in the business of law, with more than $100 million in cumulative Equity Project commitments made to back commercial litigation and arbitration led by female and racially diverse lawyers.
The following article is part of an ongoing column titled ‘Investor Insights.’
Brought to you by Ed Truant, founder and content manager of Slingshot Capital, ‘Investor Insights’ will provide thoughtful and engaging perspectives on all aspects of investing in litigation finance.
Oasis Financial announced today the change of its parent company name to Libra Solutions. The change was filed on January 10, 2022, and the company formally launched the new name February 23, 2022.
The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has certified a collective action against multiple maritime car carriers who operated an illegal cartel to manipulate car shipping prices. Certification clears the way for the class action filed by consumer rights champion Mark McLaren, who has instructed has instructed Scott+Scott UK LLP as solicitors on behalf of consumers and businesses who purchased or leased new cars or vans, to proceed to trial.
The leading trade association for the consumer legal funding industry, Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC), a nonprofit organization, announces the relaunch ARCFinanciallyFit.com (Financially Fit), a website providing consumers with tools to achieve financial wellness, bolster emergency savings, and better prepare for a rainy day.
London’s specialist competition court, the Competition Appeal Tribunal, has today given the green light to a class action on behalf of millions of motorists and businesses, who bought or leased a new car between October 2006 and September 2015, to claim against 5 shipping companies that imported cars into Europe.
