The following article was contributed by Michael Lohrer, Chief Technology Officer of Segue Cloud Services. When it comes to technology for the legal finance community, more often than not market solutions have been designed as pre-set software, produced to function in one particular fashion to address organizational processes or workflows. End-users are often encouraged to give feedback on desired changes and customization, but revisions to the finished product are difficult for developers to fulfill after-the-fact. A pre-determined GUI and set functionality doesn’t always accommodate the ongoing needs of the customer—particularly for those who hope to grow their practices.

The Following sponsored post was contributed by Segue Cloud Services. The Challenge Multi Funding USA is a pre-settlement finance provider that serves attorneys and their plaintiffs. The company has been serving clients for nearly a decade, providing millions of dollars in financial support in jurisdictions like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Vermont, Texas, California, Florida, and Washington. Through its pre-settlement funding services, plaintiffs can access much needed funds during the often lengthy settlement process as they wait for their cases to be resolved. When a case concludes in favor of the plaintiff, Multi Funding recoups its investment at a preferred rate of return.

This article was contributed by Eric Schuller, President of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding.  Montani semper liberi; “Mountaineers are Always Free” is the motto of the State of West Virginia, but apparently the motto only applies to a select group of Mountaineers. The Legislature of West Virginia passed – and the Governor signed into law – Senate Bill 360 which sets out to regulate Consumer Legal Funding in the state. Unfortunately, SB 360 is a set of meaningless regulations, given that the legislation implements rate restrictions on the Consumer Legal Funding Industry which restrict the product from even being offered to the citizens of the state. So in essence, SB 360 bans the product altogether.

The following post was submitted by Dean Lipson, Partner of Covered Bridge Capital. Ever hear of the psychological experiment known as the Invisible Gorilla?[1]  It goes like this: You’re asked to watch a brief video of a group of people moving randomly about in a pack. Several of these people are wearing white shirts and passing a ball amongst themselves. You’re asked to count the number of passes that occur. During the video, a person dressed as a gorilla enters the middle of the pack and, while facing the camera, thumps his chest for a few seconds then exits. The video ends and you’re asked to give the number of times the ball was passed. Most likely, you get that right. You’re then asked if you saw the gorilla. Huh, what gorilla? Yes, despite being on-screen for 9 seconds, half of all participants in the experiment never see the gorilla.

Loewinsohn Flegle Deary Simon is prosecuting a claim valued at $31m. We are raising $2.3m for return within 12 months, possible additional upside. $450k to close, balance on run rate 30 days net to trial. The claimant is a single individual plaintiff who is a very credible former investment banker. Claimant is very knowledgeable and is committed to conclusion of the claim. One defendant is a large international financial institution and the second defendant is a highly liquid mortgage loan originator. Case documents are structured finance and real estate. Defendant’s counsel is a national general practice firm, lead defense counsel is 4-year partner. This is a complex financial claim, fact intensive, document case. Documents we hold support an opinion letter from a legal 500 firm at 80% chance of recovery. Damages are supported by preliminary economic expert and other case documents.

The following is a contributed article by Steven D. Schroeder, Esq., General Counsel/Sr. Vice President at Inheritance Funding Company, Inc. since 2004.  There have been a few recent articles written on the topic of Probate Advances.[i] Probate Advances are available because a handful of companies are willing to assume a risk and provide funding in return for a partial assignment of a beneficiary’s interest in an Estate, and to a lesser extent Trust Proceedings. One critic has conflated Assignments to Loans without a fair analysis of the many differences between the two legal maxims.[ii] This 4-part series expands upon those differences and provides a legal and practical perspective as to why Probate Advances are a useful option for so many.

The following is Part 4 of our 4-Part series on Probate Funding by Steven D. Schroeder, Esq., General Counsel/Sr. Vice President at Inheritance Funding Company, Inc. since 2004. Parts 1, 2 & 3 can be found here, here and here. What are the Risks in Probate Funding? Similar to California Probate Code 11604, (formerly Cal. Probate Code 1021.1), the Legislature, in enacting Probate Code 11604.5, has specifically indicated that Assignments relative to Probate Advances will not be set aside unless it is clear that the consideration paid is “grossly unreasonable”, at the time the transaction was executed. In fact, the Probate Court can presume the validity of an Assignment, in the absence of any objection raised or evidence submitted to the contrary. See Lynch v. Cox. (1978) 83 Cal. App. 3^rd 296, 147 Cal. Rptr. 861.

The following is Part 3 of our 4-Part series on Probate Funding by Steven D. Schroeder, Esq., General Counsel/Sr. Vice President at Inheritance Funding Company, Inc. since 2004. You can find Parts 1 & 2 here and here. Probate Assignments are Adequately Regulated in California In California, it is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Probate Court to determine entitlement for distribution, Cal. Probate Code §§11700-11705. Probate Courts may also apply equitable principles in fashioning remedies and granting relief in proceedings otherwise within its jurisdiction. Estate of Kraus (2010) 184 Cal. App 4^th 103, 114, 108 Cal. Rptr. 3d 760, 768. Thus, even without a specific statute addressing assignments, Probate Courts in California, as well as other jurisdictions, have conducted oversight over the propriety of Assignments in Probate.  See In Re: Michels’s Estate 63 P. 2d 333, 334 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1936).

The following is Part 2 of our 4-Part series on Probate Funding by Steven D. Schroeder, Esq., General Counsel/Sr. Vice President at Inheritance Funding Company, Inc. since 2004. Part 1 can be found here. Comparing Assignments with Loans: Apples Are Not Oranges As previously stated, there has been some recent criticism of the companies engaged in Probate funding.[1] An Article entitled: “Probate Lending” started and ended with the premise that Probate Assignments are in fact disguised loans and should be regulated as such. Despite the predetermined conclusion by one author, in fact, the law treats Assignments and Loans quite differently and those distinctions are significant.[2]

The following is a contributed article by Steven D. Schroeder, Esq., General Counsel/Sr. Vice President at Inheritance Funding Company, Inc. since 2004.  There have been a few recent articles written on the topic of Probate Advances.[i] Probate Advances are available because a handful of companies are willing to assume a risk and provide funding in return for a partial assignment of a beneficiary’s interest in an Estate, and to a lesser extent Trust Proceedings. One critic has conflated Assignments to Loans without a fair analysis of the many differences between the two legal maxims.[ii] This 4-part series expands upon those differences and provides a legal and practical perspective as to why Probate Advances are a useful option for so many.