Trending Now
Commercial Deals

CIO Roundtable: Art of the Deal from Terms to Returns

By John Freund |

A panel consisting of Sarah Johnson, Senior VP and Co-Head of Litigation Finance at D.E. Shaw, Aaron Katz, Co-Founder and CIO of Parabellum Capital, David Kerstein, Managing Director and Senior Investment Officer at Validity Finance, and Joe Siprut, CEO and CIO of Kerberos Capital Management, discussed the various investment aspects of litigation funding as an asset class. The panel was moderated by Steven Molo, Founding Partner of MoloLamken.

The conversation began with new trends in the industry. Price compression came up early. Joe Siprut of Kerberos Capital Management noted he has witnessed price comparison over the past couple of years, including having seen multiple term sheets that were mis-priced. Litigation finance has always been about attractive risk-adjusted opportunities, yet if the risk remains the same and price compression remains, that reduces the attraction of the asset class. Moderator Steven Molo was surprised there hasn’t been more fallout in this regard.

Aaron Katz of Parabellum pointed out how things are opening up after COVID, and that helps a lot, given that a pipeline of cases awaiting trial quickly burns through ROI. Katz countered the price compression argument, stating that he hasn’t witnessed real price compression and hasn’t found his firm to be competing on raw price. Of course this depends on which segment of the market you are looking at.

The conversation then steered toward ESG, and David Kerstein of Validity noted how there are green shoots of funders getting involved in impact litigation. Yet for most commercial funders, ESG would maintain the same type of analysis as any other case–that said, funders like to have a ‘good story’ for the case, and ESG can bring that to the table. Aaron Katz mentioned Parabellum is very cautious about ESG in particular. “We think people need to be careful about labelling things incorrectly,” said Katz. There are real impact players out there, and litigation funders should be careful about loosely claiming the mantle.

The next question was pretty blunt: Is there a secondary market right now? Aaron Katz thinks not “I pray for it daily.” There is a network of well-resourced institutional players who like to look at claims, but the transactions are laborious (DD challenges, information asymmetry). The secondary participant is not going to be in a direct conversation with the counter-party, and that could cause complications.

One final point: Joe Siprut noted that the evolution of a secondary market is one of the main things that can really unlock a lot of investment for the industry. One of the main barriers to investment is the long lockup period investors are staring at, and if a secondary market were to materialize, that would make fundraising a much easier sell.

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

View all Posts by John Freund

Commercial

View All
Announcements Commercial People Moves

ALFA Welcomes Mackay Chapman as Newest Associate Member

By Harry Moran |

In a post on LinkedIn, The Association of Litigation Funders of Australia (ALFA) announced that it is welcoming Mackay Chapman as its newest Associate Member. Mackay Chapman becomes the 12th Associate Member of ALFA, following the inclusion of Litica in April of this year.

Mackay Chapman is a boutique legal and advisory firm, specialising in high-stakes regulatory, financial services and insolvency disputes. The Melbourne-based law firm was founded in 2016 by Dan Maclay and Michael Chapman, who bring 25 years of experience in complex disputes to the business.More information about Mackay Chapman can be found on its website.

Read More
Case Developments Commercial

Deminor Announces Settlement in Danish OW Bunker Case

By Harry Moran |

An announcement from Deminor Litigation Funding revealed that a settlement has been reached in the OW Bunker action in Demark, which Deminor funded litigation brought by a group of 20 institutional investors against the investment banks Carnegie and Morgan Stanley.

This is part of a wider group of actions originating from OW Bunker’s 2014 bankruptcy, which led to significant financial losses for both company creditors and shareholders who had invested in the company. These other cases were brought against several defendants, including OW Bunker and its former management and Board of Directors, Altor Fund II, and the aforementioned investment banks.

The settlement provides compensation for plaintiffs across the four legal actions, with a total value of approximately 645 million DKK, including legal costs. The settlement agreement requires the parties to ‘waive any further claims against each other relating to OW Bunker’. Deminor’s announcement makes clear that ‘none of the defendants have acknowledged any legal responsibility in the group of linked cases in connection with the settlement.’

Charles Demoulin, Chief Investment Officer of Deminor, said that “the settlement makes it possible for our clients to benefit from a reasonable compensation for their losses”, and that they were advising the client “to accept this solution which represents a better alternative to continuing the litigation with the resulting uncertainties.” Joeri Klein, General Counsel Netherlands and Co-head Investment Recovery of Deminor, said that the settlement had demonstrated that “in Denmark it has now proven to be possible to find a balanced solution to redress investor related claims.”

Case Developments Commercial

Burford German Funding Sued Over Hausfeld Ownership Stake

By Harry Moran |

The ownership or funding of law firms by litigation funders continues to be a hot topic in the world of legal funding, with models such as alternative business structures (ABS) gaining momentum in places like Arizona. However, a complaint filed by a client in Delaware reveals a falling out due to the reverse funding model, where a law firm maintained an ownership stake in the funder.

Reporting by Bloomberg Law covers a new lawsuit brought against Burford German Funding (BGF), an affiliate of Burford Capital, by a client who claims that the funder failed to disclose the fact that BGF was partly owned by the same law firm it nominated to lead the client’s antitrust cases. Financialright Claims GMBH (FRC) alleges that when it negotiated the funding agreement with BGF for its antitrust litigation against the trucks cartel, it had no knowledge “that Hausfeld  was  also  a  part  owner  of  BGF  through  an  entity  called German Litigation Solutions LLC (“GLS”) or that one of the lead German partners at Hausfeld responsible for the firm’s representation of FRC had a personal stake.”

The complaint, filed by FRC in the Delaware Superior Court, explains that as Hausfeld is part-owner of BGF, and the funding agreement “provides for a share of FRC’s recoveries in the Trucks Litigations to flow to FRC’s lawyers”, this constitutes a contingency fee arrangement which are illegal under German law.  FRC had filed a lawsuit against Hausfeld in a German court and then applied for discovery from BGF, Burford and GLS in the Delaware District Court, which was followed by an assertion by these parties that the application for discovery “is subject to mandatory arbitration” under the terms of the funding agreement.

FRC argues that “as  a  direct  result  of  BGF’s  fraud  on  FRC,  FRC  did  agree  to  the Arbitration Agreement that—according to BGF—subsumes disputes between FRC and GLS.” However, FRC claims that it “would  never  have  agreed  to  an  arbitration  clause  requiring  it  to arbitrate claims against Hausfeld”, were it not for the concealment of Hausfeld’s ownership stake in BGF. FRC is therefore asking the Superior Court to declare that “BGF fraudulently induced  FRC  into  agreeing  to  the  Arbitration  Agreement”, and that the agreement should be declared both invalid and unenforceable.

Lisa Sharrow, spokesperson at Hausfeld LLP, provided the following statement:  “The US-based Hausfeld LLP and the UK-based Hausfeld & Co LLP hold indirect economic minority interests in Burford German Funding. These are separate legal entities from Hausfeld Rechtsanwälte LLP that do not practice law in Germany. Burford German Funding was of course developed and set up in a way that was fully compliant with all relevant regulations.”

David Helfenbein, spokesperson at Burford, also provided a response to Bloomberg via email: “There is a dispute in Germany between a client Burford has funded and its lawyers. Burford is not a party to that dispute and its outcome has no impact on us. This Delaware proceeding is a third-party discovery request to Burford for material for the German litigation, which Burford believes should be adjudicated in arbitration and not in the Delaware courts.”

The full complaint filed by FRC can be read here.

Read More