" />Boris Ziser is a partner and co-head of Schulte Roth & Zabel’s Finance Group, where he advises on a diverse range of asset classes and transactions such as asset-backed lending and securitization, warehouse facilities, secured financings, specialty finance lending and esoteric finance transactions. Boris manages the London finance practice and the global litigation funding and law firm finance practice.
With almost 30 years of experience, Boris works on a variety of asset classes, including life settlements, litigation funding, equipment leases, structured settlements, lottery receivables, timeshare loans, merchant cash advances and cell towers, in addition to other esoteric asset classes such as intellectual property, various insurance-related cash flows and other cash flow producing assets. He also represents investors, lenders, hedge funds, private equity funds and finance companies in acquisitions and dispositions of portfolios of assets and financings secured by those portfolios.
Company Name and Description: With a firm focus on private capital, Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP is comprised of legal advisers and commercial problem-solvers who combine exceptional experience, industry insight, integrated intelligence and commercial creativity to help clients raise and invest assets and protect and expand their businesses. The firm has offices in New York, Washington, DC and London, and advises clients on investment management, corporate and transactional matters, and provides counsel on securities regulatory compliance, enforcement and investigative issues.
Company Website: https://www.srz.com/
Year Founded: 1969
Headquarters: New York, New York, U.S.A.
Area of Focus: Finance, Litigation Finance, Private Credit, Structured Finance
Member Quote: “With its uncorrelated investment opportunity and plethora of rules that vary by jurisdiction (State-by-State and international), litigation funding is a complicated asset class that is rewarding at the same time, as it enables those with meritorious claims, but without the necessary resources, to pursue justice.”
CAT Hearing for £200m Mastercard Settlement Highlights Divide Between Funder and Class Representative
Whilst the successes of collective proceedings supported by litigation funders are regularly highlighted by the legal funding industry, an ongoing dispute at the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) between a class representative and funder over a proposed settlement shows that it is not always a relationship in which both parties see eye to eye.
An article in The Law Society Gazette provides a summary of the ongoing hearing at the CAT, as the tribunal hears arguments as to whether the £200 million settlement in the Mastercard hearing should be approved or not. The hearing, which is scheduled to last until the end of the week, saw counsel for the claimant, defendant and funder each offer their arguments on whether the judges should proceed with the collective settlement approval order (CSAO).
Mark Brealey KC, counsel for class representative Walter Merricks CBE, stated that it was the position of both Merricks and Mastercard that the value of the settlement was “in a range that was fair and reasonable.” Responding to the intervention of Innsworth Capital, the litigation funder opposing the settlement, Brealey argued that “the funder should be respectful of the way that Mr Merricks has conducted the proceedings”.
Charles Bear KC, representing Innsworth as the intervener, highlighted the cost of the funder’s support for the case and argued that approval would mean that “the class does not get a fair return on this settlement on any view of distribution.” Bear went further and emphatically stated that Innsworth’s view is that “it is completely clear the settlement prescribes zero value to the case, not little value, but nothing.”
Sonia Tolaney KC, counsel for Mastercard, suggested that it was the views of the class representative and defendant that should hold the most weight, arguing that “There is no doubt that in this case the parties themselves are best placed to assess the merits [of the settlement].” Tolaney also targeted Innsworth’s questioning of whether the £200 million settlement was the best possible outcome for the class representative, declaring that in Mastercard’s view, “that is the wrong question.”
