Trending Now
Commercial

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Digital Event: Legal Tech and LitFin

On December 6th, 2023, Litigation Finance Journal produced its final event of the year: Legal Tech and LitFin: How Will Tech Impact Litigation Finance Globally?

Tets Ishikawa moderated an insightful and pertinent discussion on the use of legal tech in the litigation finance industry. Panelists included Nick Rowles-Davies (NRD), Founder of Lexolent, Isabel Yang (IY), Founder of Arbilex, and Joshua Masia (JM), Co-Founder and CEO of Dealbridge.ai.

Below are some key takeaways from the event (answers have been truncated for the purpose of this article):

Legal tech is quite a broad term.  What does the legal tech landscape mean to you, and how does it fit into your business?

IY: We’re in a very exciting time in legal tech. Where I sit, I primarily deal with the underlying technology being artificial intelligence (AI). The primary advances in advanced AI have primarily occurred out of language being the source data. A lot of these text-based AI advancements all hold great significance for the practice of law.

At Arbilex, we are taking advantage of large language modeling (LLM) to reduce the cost of data acquisition. When we take court briefings and unstructured data and try to turn that into structured data, the cost of that process has dramatically decreased, because of Chat GPT and the latest LLMs.

On the flipside, because AI has become so advanced, a lot of off-the-shelf solutions have tended towards a black box solution. So the model’s output has become a more challenging task. At Arbilex, we have always focused on building the most stable AI—so we focus on how we can explain a particular prediction to our clients. We are increasingly investing a lot of our time and human capital into building that bridge between AI and that use case.

How relevant has legal tech been, and will it be, in the growth of the litigation finance sector? 

JM: When we look at scaling operational processes, a lot of times we have to put our traditional computer science hat on and ask, ‘how have we historically solved these problems and what has changed in the past several years to evolve this landscape?’

A lot of the emphasis with technology has been about normalizing and standardizing how we look at these data sets. There’s a big issue when you look at this approach and what existing platforms have been doing—this is a very human business. Because of that, there’s a lot of ad hoc requests that get mixed in. So what gen-AI is doing, we’re getting to a point where you don’t have to over-structure your sales or diligence process. Maybe the first few dozen questions you’re asking of a given data set are the same, but eventually we want to be able to ask questions that are specific to this deal. So being able to call audibles and ad-hoc analysis of data sets was really hard to do before the addition of generative AI.

NRD: Legal tech is becoming increasingly relevant, but the real effect and usefulness has grown over time. It makes repetitive tasks easier, and provides insights that are not always readily apparent. But in terms of the specific use of AI to triage outcoming matters, we identify matters in different areas—is this something we simply aren’t going to assess, will it be sent back for further information, does it fit the bucket of something we would fund per our original mandate, or does it go on the platform for the purpose of others to look at and invest in that particular matter.

AI is having an increasing impact and is being used with more regularity by litigation funders who are funding they can increase efficiency and get to a ‘yes’ much more quickly.

A lot of lawyers would say, this is fascinating, but ultimately this is a human industry. Every circumstance will be different, because they will come down to the behaviors of human beings in that time. Is there a way that AI can capture behavioral dynamics?

IY: In general, we need to have realistic expectations of AI. That comes from, what humans are uniquely good at are not necessarily the things that AI is good at. AI is really good at pattern-spotting. Meaning, if I train the model to look for recurring features of particular cases—say, specific judges in specific jurisdictions, when coming up against a specific type of argument or case—then AI in general has a very good ability to assign the weighting to a particular attribute in a way that humans instinctively can come to the same place, you can’t really quantify the impact or magnitude of a specific attribute.

The other thing that we need to be realistic about, is that cases are decided not just on pattern, but on case-specific fact attributes (credibility of a witness, availability of key evidence). If you train AI to look for things that are so specific to one case, you end up overfitting the model, meaning your AI is so good at looking for one specific variable, that it loses it general predictive power over a large pool of cases.

What I would caution attorneys, is use AI to get a second opinion on things you believe are a pattern. In arbitration, attorneys might use AI on tribunal matters—tribunal composition. AI models are way better at honing in on patterns—but things like ‘do we want to produce this witness vs. another witness,’ that is not something we should expect AI to predict.

For the full panel discussion, please click here.

Commercial

View All
Commercial Law Firm Corner

Litigation Funding – Section 107 Needs Amending

By Ken Rosen |

The following was contributed by Ken Rosen Esq, Founder of Ken Rosen P.C. Ken is a frequent contributor to legal journals on current topics of interest to the bankruptcy and restructuring industry.

The necessity of disclosing litigation funding remains contentious. In October 2024, the federal judiciary’s rules committee decided to create a litigation finance subcommittee after 125 big companies argued that transparency of litigation funding is needed. 

Is there a problem in need of a fix?

Concerns include (a) Undisclosed funding may lead to unfair advantages in litigation. Allegedly if one party is backed by significant financial resources, it could affect the dynamics of the case. (b) Potential conflicts of interest may arise from litigation funding arrangements. Parties and the court may question whether funders could exert influence over the litigation process or settlement decisions, which could compromise the integrity of the judicial process. (c) The presence of litigation funding can alter the strategy of both parties in negotiations. Judges may be concerned that funders might push for excessive settlements or prolong litigation to maximize their returns. While litigation funding can enhance access to justice for under-resourced plaintiffs, judges may also be wary of the potential for exploitative practices where funders prioritize profit over the plaintiffs' best interests.

A litigant’s financial wherewithal is irrelevant. A litigant’s balance sheet also addresses financial resources and the strength of one’s balance sheet may affect the dynamics of the litigation but there is no rationale for a new rule that a litigant’s balance sheet be disclosed. What matters is the law and the facts. Disclosure of litigation funding is a basis on which to argue that anything offered in settlement by the funded litigant is unreasonable and to blame it on litigation funding. 

Ethics rules

The concerns about litigation funding are adequately dealt with by The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, as well as various state ethical rules and state bar associations. An attorney's obligation is to act in the best interests of their client. Among other things, attorneys must (a) adhere to the law and ethical standards, ensuring that their actions do not undermine the integrity of the legal system, (b)  avoid conflicts of interest and should not represent clients whose interests are directly adverse to those of another client without informed consent, (c) fully explain to clients potential risks and implications of various options and (d) explain matters to the extent necessary for clients to make informed decisions. 

These rules are designed to ensure that attorneys act in the best interests of their clients while maintaining the integrity of the legal profession and the justice system. Violations of these ethical obligations can result in disciplinary action, including disbarment, sanctions, or reprimand. Disclosure of litigation funding is unnecessary because the ethics rules adequately govern an attorney’s behavior and their obligations to the court. New rules to enforce existing rules are redundant and unnecessary. Plus, disclosure of litigation funding can be damaging to the value of a litigation claim.

Value maximization and preservation

Preserving and enhancing the value of the estate are critical considerations in a Chapter 11 case. Preservation and enhancement are fundamental to the successful reorganization, as they directly impact the recovery available to creditors and the feasibility of the debtor's reorganization efforts. Often, a litigation claim is a valuable estate asset. A Chapter 11 debtor may seek DIP financing in the form of litigation funding when it faces financial distress that could impede its ability to pursue valuable litigation. However, disclosure of litigation funding- like disclosure of a balance sheet in a non-bankruptcy case- can devalue the litigation asset if it impacts an adversary’s case strategy and dynamics.

The ”364” process

In bankruptcy there is an additional problem. Section 364 of the Bankruptcy Code sets forth the conditions under which litigation funding – a form of “DIP” financing- may be approved by the court. 

When a Chapter 11 debtor seeks DIP financing, several disclosures are made. Some key elements of DIP financing that customarily are disclosed include (a) Why DIP financing is necessary. (b) The specific terms of the DIP financing, including the amount, interest rate, fees, and repayment terms. (c) What assets will secure DIP financing and the priority of the DIP lender's claims. (d) How DIP financing will affect existing creditors. (e) How the proposed DIP financing complies with relevant provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. 

Litigation funding in a bankruptcy case requires full disclosure of all substantive terms and conditions of the funding- more than just whether litigation funding exists and whether the funder has control in the case. Parties being sued by the debtor seek to understand the terms of the debtor’s litigation funding to gauge the debtor’s capability to sustain litigation and to formulate their own case strategy.

Section 107 needs revision

Subsection (a) of section 107 provides that except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) and subject to section 112, a paper filed in a case and on the docket are public records. Subsection (b) (1) provides thaton request of a party in interest, the bankruptcy court shall protect an entity with respect to a trade secret or confidential research, development, or commercial information.Applications for relief that involve commercial information are candidates for sealing or redaction by the bankruptcy court. 

But the Bankruptcy Code does not explicitly define "commercial information." 

The interpretation of "commercial information" has been developed through case law. For instance, in In re Orion Pictures Corp., 21 F.3d at 27, the Second Circuit defined "commercial information" as information that would cause an unfair advantage to competitors.” This definition has been applied in various cases to include information that could harm or give competitors an unfair advantage, and it has been held to include information that, if publicly disclosed, would adversely affect the conduct of the bankruptcy case. (In re Purdue Pharma LP, SDNY 2021). In such instances allowing public disclosure also would diminish the value of the bankruptcy estate. (In re A.G. Financial Service Center, Inc.395 F.3d 410, 416 (7th Cir. 2005)). 

Additionally, courts have held that "commercial information" need not rise to the level of a trade secret to qualify for protection under section 107(b), but it must be so critical to the operations of the entity seeking the protective order that its disclosure will unfairly benefit the entity's competitors. (In re Barney’s, Inc., 201 B.R. 703, 708–09 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1996) (citing In re Orion Pictures Corp., 21 F.3d at 28)). 

Knowledge of litigation funding and, especially, the terms and conditions of the funding can give an adversary a distinct advantage. In effect the adverse party is a “competitor” of the debtor. They pull at opposite ends of the same rope. Furthermore, disclosure would adversely affect the conduct of the case- which should be defined to include diminution of the value of the litigation claim. 

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure should be amended to clarify that information in an application for litigation funding may, subject to approval by the bankruptcy court, be deemed “confidential information” subject to sealing or redaction if the court authorizes it.

Conclusion

A new rule requiring disclosure of litigation funding is unnecessary and can damage the value of a litigation claim. If the rules committee nevertheless recommend disclosure there should be a carve out for bankruptcy cases specifically enabling bankruptcy judges to authorize redaction or sealing pleadings related to litigation funding. 

Commercial Deals

Hedge Funds and Private Equity Avoiding the Legal Funding Limelight

By Harry Moran |

There are household names in the litigation funding world that are well-known throughout the industry and beyond. However, some financial institutions seek to benefit from the lucrative returns available from litigation finance whilst trying to avoid the public spotlight on these activities.

Reporting by Bloomberg Law offers fresh insights into the involvement of non-traditional litigation funders in the market, with investments from hedge funds and private equity firms in high-value cases and deals only coming to light through court documents and filings. 

The article highlights the role of Davidson Kempner in funding patent claims brought by Audio Pod IP LLC against Audible Inc., which was revealed through a countersuit by Audible in a Manhattan federal court. Notably, Bloomberg’s investigation of public filings also found that this was not an isolated example of Davidson Kempner’s ties to patent holders engaged in lawsuits against large technology firms including ByteDance, Hulu, Samsung and SAP America. 

Other examples of these non-traditional funders' engagement with the legal sector include BlackRock’s use of its credit fund to lend to law firms and plaintiffs, and Cliffwater’s $14 million involvement in the funding deal between Gramercy Funds and Pogust Goodhead.

The extent to which these companies do not want to be publicly associated with litigation finance was strikingly demonstrated in the article. Beyond the number of firms who declined to comment on the reporting, when Bloomberg Law reached out to Soros Fund Management about one of their analysts whose LinkedIn revealed a focus on litigation finance, the analyst quickly removed the reference to legal funding from their profile.

More detail on the specific cases these hedge funds and private equity firms are backing can be found in Bloomberg Law’s full article here.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Arizona Legislature’s Two Litigation Funding Bills Divided on Disclosure Rules

By Harry Moran |

As LFJ reported at the end of February, Arizona’s legislature appears set on moving forward with some form of enhanced regulation for litigation funding in the state. However, a recent development in the House has demonstrated that there is not yet consensus on the final scope and focus of these new rules.

An article in the Arizona Capitol Times provides an update from the state legislature on the progression of two competing bills, each offering a different approach to the regulation of third-party litigation funding in Arizona. Whilst both bills successfully passed through votes in the House Judiciary Committee, it is not yet clear which bill will be the preferred candidate in an eventual floor vote, with the differences in disclosure rules between the bills being a key factor.

Senate Bill 1215, sponsored by Senator Leach, was passed by the Senate on March 13 and contained the oft-seen provisions of mandating disclosure of funding agreements, limiting funder control over legislation and some prohibitions against foreign funders. SB 1215, which Leach described as a “consumer protection bill”, retains the backing of chambers of commerce, insurance companies, and business associations.

Senate Bill 1542 was introduced in response to Leach’s proposal by Rep. Alexander Kolodin, seeking to limit the disclosure provisions to only include foreign funders or civil cases involving the state. Furthermore, disclosure of third-party funding would only be made to the attorney general rather than to the court itself. Kolodin suggested that existing court mechanisms for discovery are sufficient and questioned the potential for malign use of mandatory disclosure, arguing that “you shouldn’t be able to deprive somebody of the ability to pursue a case by threatening their source of funding.”

While Kolodin joined the rest of the committee in unanimously voting in favour of SB 1215 at the committee stage, he said that he would likely vote against it in a floor vote. Kolodin’s alternative bill passed comfortably at the committee vote, but did receive two no votes from Rep. Selina Bliss and Rep. Lupe Contreras.

The full text of SB 1215, as well as information on the passage of the bill, can be found here.

The full text of SB 1542, as well as information on the passage of the bill, can be found here.