LFJ Conversations is an original content series produced by the Legal Funding Journal editorial team, and featuring key thought leaders from throughout the global legal funding community.

I am often referred to as “The Mass Tort Whisperer®” which really means we are usually very early in hearing about early new torts, late-stage torts that may be settling soon, etc.

There are a limited number of injured victims in each tort, and we always need to be careful not to put more capital than we project we can spend, or costs of a case will drive higher pretty fast.

1. Historical Data: Past performance and outcomes of similar cases provide a baseline for expectations.
2. Targeting Data: We subscribe to very sophisticated targeting and demographic syndicated services such as Kantar and Neilson.  Once we have targeting details on who the injured victims are, these targeting services help is see which advertising mediums and channels index the highest to reach them.
3. Active Campaigns: We are typically running active campaigns for most of the more popular mass torts so building up recent cost details is something we are looking at every day to optimize the performance response data which keeps costs of origination lower by being very quick to move capital where response and quality of cases are best and stop the capital spend in areas that are not showing a response that makes sense to continue.  This is Moneyball for Marketing, and I speak about this often at conferences.
4. Market Conditions: Current trends in the legal market and any external factors that might affect the case.
5. Attrition or Fallout: This is key with modeling out costs of originating a real quality case.  We watch very close as the tort matures from early to mid to late stage how the fallout or attrition of the new signed case is trending.  Once a claimant is signed with a law firm, some of these will not turn into a case as all of things are verified.  Medical records for example will always have a percentage of cases where there are no medical records or the records show a different injury, etc.  These need to be projected into the modeling at the very beginning and they vary from tort to tort.
6. Intel from Leadership Firms: Our relationship with firms in leadership allow us to receive regular updates on the estimated timeline and estimated settlement values.

We are happy to collaborate with your existing law firm relationships, but we really try to stick to the requirements we think make for a great handling firm and we would want to see if the law firm you may want to use meets the standard.

• Are they in leadership in the MDL for the tort being discussed.
• Are they a real trial firm with a rich history of litigating cases and a threat to the defendants?
• Do they have the infrastructure to take on more cases from this program
• Will they agree to an equity split on the partnership that we think makes sense
• Are they good people to work with in general

Unlike commercial patent owners, universities are not unitary organizations with a hierarchically-defined command and control structure. Universities can comprise several constituencies and legal entities, not all of whom have completely aligned intellectual property interests. Successfully representing a university requires being actively aware of each facet of its make-up and serving as a facilitator between them. For example, a university’s president may not view patent litigation positively, whereas its research sponsor considers patent enforcement to be an essential right that must be exercised under its exclusive license. Successful counsel and funders of university patent owners patiently seek out all interested parties within the university umbrella to ensure a litigation strategy and funding arrangement satisfies as many interests as practicable.

How do you address the potential conflicts of interest that might arise when public institutions enter into litigation funding agreements? Are concerns here legitimate, or are they overblown?

Politics may require consideration when public universities are involved. For example, is approval from the state attorney general required? Can the litigation funder represent that no foreign investors are involved? Should the university be a party to a litigation funding agreement? If so, which part of the university should engage with a litigation funder? If not, how can the university’s public interests be protected in a law firm-facing litigation funding arrangement? These considerations are extraordinarily important and cannot be glossed over.

Protecting institutional reputation is always the primary concern. A university may have spent decades or even centuries building its academic reputation. But reputations are fragile. A university will not risk ruining its reputation by its trial lawyer’s misconduct or funder’s lack of transparency. Everyone working with a university, including its counsel and funders, are de facto arms of the university and must be willing to uphold its high standards of ethics.

I predict that more funders will become interested in acquiring university-originated patents rather than just funding litigation. This affords a university much-needed up-front monetization while simultaneously providing the funder more control over strategic decision-making. I also predict that a commercially-run version of the University Technology Licensing Program (UTLP) could be very successful in the funded patent litigation marketplace.

As an attorney and VP at Milestone, Sam Dolce provides in-depth, comprehensive consultations with attorneys about how to save their firms time and money. Sam is a regular speaker and presenter at academic and legal conferences across the country regarding post-settlement innovation.

Milestone is a high-touch settlement solutions firm on mission to bring efficiency, transparency, and education to law firms and their clients after settlement. An innovator in mass tort and multi-party litigation, Milestone has developed Pathway®, the leading tech solution in the post-settlement space. Milestone was founded in 2012 and is headquartered in Buffalo, New York.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with Sam Dolce:

Milestone has launched an innovative mass tort settlement administration platform. What are the main value-adds here? Why should users consider this product?

Milestone’s Pathway® platform shortens case duration in mass tort litigation by digitizing the post-settlement process.

In addition to providing a more streamlined, accommodating, and informed post-settlement process for claimants, Pathway also serves law firms’ bottom lines. The platform saves law firms time and money, relieving them of the administrative burden of managing post-settlement. Pathway is also the first solution to provide real-time visibility into the settlement process for both claimants and attorneys, fostering transparency and trust and ensuring all parties know where money is at any given time.

By engaging and implementing Pathway, law firms are able to allocate resources more effectively and focus on core competencies. The automation of time-consuming tasks frees attorneys and support staff up to handle more complex legal matters and provide higher-quality client service.

How would litigation funders benefit specifically from Milestone's new platform?

Pathway’s competencies serve the interests of litigation funders in impactful ways.

By speeding up the post-settlement process, Pathway can help litigation funders realize faster returns on their investments. Reduced operational costs through automation and efficiency also lead to higher profit margins. A streamlined post-settlement process can reduce the risk of errors, disputes, and delays.

Pathway’s backend, real-time dashboard is also a game changer for litigation funders, giving them the ability to check in on cash flow or case performance at any given time.

Additionally, law firms that use Pathway can position themselves as more efficient and technologically advanced, attracting top talent and more clients.

What are some of the current trends in settlement administration in the mass tort space, and how is Milestone addressing those?

As corporate negligence shows no signs of slowing down any time soon, we are seeing the number and scale of mass tort cases trending steadily upward across the board. Milestone’s Pathway virtually eliminates any strain that this increased workload could place on law firms by processing tens of thousands of claims in record time and getting full dockets paid in a matter of weeks or months.

Another trend is that with these expanding dockets, attorneys have less and less time to provide individualized attention and guidance to each claimant. With this, it is becoming more common for claimants to lose out on the opportunity to financially plan with their settlement monies, as many don’t become aware of this possibility until it is too late. Pathway ensures that education around settlement planning is baked into the administration process, meaning that claimants get an elevated, customized post-settlement experience, ultimately increasing overall client satisfaction for the law firm.

What have users been saying about the product?  Can you share any feedback?

Numerous law firms have praised Pathway for its efficiency, accuracy, and ease of use. Testimonials from both law firms and claimants highlight the positive impact of the platform on the post-settlement experience.

“All directions and steps were easy to follow regarding a payment, and the support team can be easily reached when having issues or need to get into contact with somebody.” - Claimant who went through Pathway

“What an incredible company! These folks CARE about their clients...I'm not an attorney, but if I were I would certainly be going through Milestone for any mass tort settlement planning!! On the side of customer service—WOW!! I am thoroughly impressed with the stark professionalism and friendliness I experienced throughout the process!” - Claimant who went through Pathway

“The work that Milestone does is absolutely vital to the success of multi-district litigation. Getting to a number in litigation is very hard, but that’s only part of the battle. How you then get that distributed to clients is the other. How do you communicate with 200,000 people and make sure they have access to the money and understand what’s going on with their cases?” - Attorney client

“Faster than AI, they're totally raising the bar.” - Claimant who went through Pathway

Litigation funding and mass torts are growing more interconnected. How do you see these two sectors evolving over the coming years?

Litigation funding and mass torts are both prominent forces in shaping the legal landscape today and into the future, so it makes sense that they’ll grow more interconnected as the years go on.

As more mass torts arise, more substantial financial backing will be needed for firms to be able to take on cases of such large scale. Litigation funders will also likely play a more active role in early case evaluation, helping law firms identify which mass torts to take on. The influx of litigation funding will likely also lead to more innovative fee arrangements between mass tort law firms and their clients. And with litigation funders providing financial backing, we’re likely to see more mass tort firms pursuing litigation rather than being swayed to settle early.

There are countless challenges that come along with this intertwined trajectory, but along with those come many opportunities. Milestone is dedicated to ensuring that ethical considerations and the good of the plaintiff remain at the heart of mass tort operations while simultaneously increasing revenue for litigation funders and law firms.

Australia has an adversarial legal system in which the Courts apply active case management discipline throughout the life cycle of each proceeding. This generally provides that civil and commercial cases have a timely and predictable trajectory to mediation and hearing. In addition, most jurisdictions operate in accordance with the ‘loser pays’ principle, meaning that the litigant who loses the case must pay the opponent’s legal costs; this provides a strong incentive for both sides to settle prior to hearing. Finally, the legality of third-party funding is well-established in Australia, and we have a mature class action jurisdiction with a strong thread of precedent legitimating funders’ entitlement to directly share in claim proceeds, subject to the Court’s satisfaction with the fairness of such arrangements on a case-by-case basis.

Some of the major trends in the industry involve an increased regulatory push, the inclusion of insurance products, funders getting more involved in arbitration and mass torts, etc. Which major global trends would you say are most salient in the Australian market, and which are less applicable? 

Regulation of litigation funding in Australia peaked in 2020-21, under the previous federal parliament. Reforms included extending the consumer protections available to investors in managed investment schemes (MIS) to participants in class actions, and a proposed minimum return to class members. Both reforms were in search of an actual systemic problem and proved redundant in practice, and were ultimately revoked by the successive parliament upon taking office in early 2022.

CASL’s due diligence process for potential investments doesn’t focus solely on the legal arguments of a claim, it also involves an assessment of whether the litigant and their legal team will be sufficiently aligned with CASL’s commercial objective to achieve a feasible resolution as quickly and as cheaply as possible.

With that in mind, claims that have sound legal merits may still represent an uncommercial proposition to CASL for three main reasons. Firstly, the amount of funding required for the legal costs estimated to run the matter may be disproportionate to the likely size of the claim; often this will be a factor in cases that involve many defendants. Secondly, there may be particular characteristics of a case that entail a substantial potential for delay in achieving resolution; this could include novel legal issues which increase appeal risk, or litigants prone to intractable rather than commercial conduct. Finally, we may be unable to reach an acceptable level of confidence in the defendant’s capacity to meet a settlement or judgment sum.

Generally speaking, CASL’s approach is to assess each claim on its own merits, as we don’t perceive certain types of claims as inherently riskier than others, and don’t target a particular composition of the portfolio by claim type.

Whilst class actions typically have a longer life cycle than other types of case, that of itself does not increase their relative risk profile; in any class action, as indeed any type of case, the level of risk will primarily arise from the underlying legal and factual questions the Court is being asked to determine. For that reason, we gauge concentration risk in the portfolio by reference to the existence of any overlap in the legal questions being litigated across existing investments, rather than by type of case.

The litigation finance industry is a reflection of the evolution of the civil justice system rather than a driver itself. The civil justice system is adapting and responding to a growth in disputes arising in areas such as privacy and data breaches, consumer claims including product liability, and climate including greenwashing. These types of claims are prominent or growing in other jurisdictions throughout the world, and Australia will benefit from these experiences or will lead the development of such claims given the strength of the legal system and its capacity to adapt.

As a result of the global relevance of certain claims, the law firms and funders are forging closer relationships across borders to ensure the efficient prosecution of claims.

Inevitably the law plays ‘catch-up’, but it is vitally important that law firms and funders continue to push legislators to design effective laws to require accountability, responsibility and high levels of governance within the social fabric to benefit society as a whole.

Genevievette Walker-Lightfoot brings extensive expertise in compliance, risk management, and regulatory affairs. As the Managing Member of The Law Offices of Genevievette Walker-Lightfoot, P.C., she ensures SEC-regulated entities adhere to compliance standards. With ties to FINRA and previous positions at the Federal Reserve Board and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, she has been listed among The Hedge Fund Journal's Top 50 Women in Hedge Funds.

Hedonova, established in 2020, specializes in alternative investments, encompassing a diverse range of assets such as startups, real estate, fine art, carbon credits, and more. Hedonova offers a single fund structure that allows shareholders to invest without the burden of managing the day-to-day distribution of their investments. Hedonova's mission is to make alternative investments accessible to all.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with Genevievette Walker-Lightfoot:

1. Hedonova has a unique business model. Can you explain how the fund works?

Certainly, the Hedonova fund operates on a single fund structure, which means that instead of offering multiple funds with different risk profiles, we consolidate various alternative investments into one accessible option for investors. This simplifies decision-making for our clients, as they don't have to navigate multiple investment choices. Within this single fund, we strategically diversify across different asset classes, such as startups, real estate, art, litigation finance, and more. By spreading investments across diverse assets, we aim to manage risk effectively and potentially enhance returns for our investors.

2. How do you make it possible for investors worldwide to access alternative investments?

We prioritize global access to alternative investments through several means. Firstly, we leverage user-friendly online platforms, making it easy for investors worldwide to explore and invest in our fund. Hedonova has established and operates four feeder funds within its international framework across various jurisdictions, each meticulously structured under the relevant local laws. Additionally, we establish strategic partnerships with financial institutions across different regions, enabling us to reach a wider audience. Through these partnerships, we ensure that investors from various parts of the world can seamlessly participate in our fund, tapping into the opportunities offered by alternative investments. 

3. How are you adapting your business to the new regulatory requirements of the SEC’s Private Adviser Rule?

Adapting to the new regulatory requirements of the SEC’s Private Adviser Rule is a key focus for us. We're enhancing our compliance measures and transparency practices to align with the regulatory framework. This involves thorough reviews of our operations and investment processes to ensure compliance. Additionally, we're strengthening our communication channels with investors, providing them with clear and transparent information about our fund and its compliance with regulatory requirements. We aim to maintain trust and confidence in our operations by prioritizing investor protection and regulatory compliance.

4. Are there unique challenges in the Litigation Funding space for Hedonova?

Yes, the Litigation Funding space presents its own set of unique challenges. One significant challenge is assessing the financial viability of litigation cases. We carefully evaluate factors such as potential costs associated with litigation, the likelihood of successful resolution, and the estimated timeline for outcomes. Maintaining transparent communication with all parties involved, including law firms and plaintiffs, is crucial. We navigate these challenges by implementing rigorous evaluation processes and fostering open dialogue with our partners, ensuring alignment of interests and effective management of risks.

5. What are the advantages for investors in litigation finance?

Investors stand to gain several advantages from investing in litigation finance. Firstly, it offers the potential for high returns, as successful litigation cases can result in significant settlements or awards. Additionally, litigation finance typically involves shorter investment horizons than traditional investments, allowing investors to realize returns within a shorter timeframe. Moreover, litigation finance often exhibits a low correlation with traditional markets, providing diversification benefits to investors. By incorporating litigation finance into their portfolios, investors can access alternative sources of income and enhance overall portfolio resilience.

6. What are the types of litigation finance cases that Hedonova has invested in?

Hedonova has invested in various types of litigation cases across different sectors. These include commercial lawsuits, intellectual property disputes, class action lawsuits, and more. Each case undergoes a thorough evaluation process, where we assess its financial viability, the strength of legal arguments, and the expertise of the legal team involved. By diversifying across different litigation cases, we aim to spread risk and maximize potential returns for our investors.

7. How can investors use litigation finance to diversify their portfolios?

Investors can utilize litigation finance to diversify their portfolios by capitalizing on its non-correlation with traditional assets, as returns from legal cases are often unaffected by economic fluctuations. Diversification within the litigation finance asset class itself spreads risk across various cases with different risk profiles, mitigating the impact of any single case's outcome. With the potential for high returns and exposure to alternative assets beyond stocks and bonds, litigation finance offers a unique avenue for portfolio diversification. Additionally, investors gain access to specialized legal expertise and thorough due diligence processes conducted by litigation finance firms, enhancing their investment decisions. As the litigation finance industry matures, it presents opportunities for long-term growth, making it an attractive option for investors seeking to broaden their investment horizons.

Jonathan Stroud is General Counsel at Unified Patents, where he
manages a growing team of talented, diverse attorneys and oversees a
docket of administrative challenges, appeals, licensing, pooling, and
district court work in addition to trademark, copyright,
administrative, amicus, policy, marketing, and corporate matters.

Prior to Unified, he was a patent litigator, and prior to that, he was
a patent examiner at the USPTO. He earned his J.D. with honors from
the American University Washington College of Law; his B.S. in
Biomedical Engineering from Tulane University; and his M.A. in Print
Journalism from the University of Southern California. He enjoys
teaching, writing, and speaking on patent and administrative law and
litigation finance.

Unified is a 350+ international membership organization that seeks to
improve patent quality and deter unsubstantiated or invalid patent
assertions in defined technology sectors (Zones) through its
activities. Its actions are focused broadly in Zones with substantial
assertions by Standards Essential Patents (SEP) holders and/or
Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs). These actions may include analytics,
prior art, invalidity contests, patentability analysis, administrative
patent review (IPR/reexam), amicus briefs, economic surveys, and
essentiality studies. Unified works independently of its members to
achieve its deterrence goals. Small members join for free while larger
ones pay modest annual fees.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with Jonathan Stroud:

1)   Unified Patents describes itself as an "anti-troll." You claim to
be the only entity that deters abusive NPEs and never pays. Can you
elaborate?

In the patent risk management space, Unified is the only entity that
works to deter and disincentivize NPE assertions.  Because of the
expense and economics of patent litigation, parties often settle for
money damages less than the cost of defending themselves, paying the
entity, often for non-meritorious assertions. This allows them to
remain profitable, thus fueling and incentivizing future assertions,
regardless of merit. Unified is the only solution designed to counter
that dynamic.  That is why Unified never pays NPEs. This ensures that
Unified never incentivizes further NPE activity. By focusing on
deterrence, Unified never acts as a middleman, facilitating licensing
deals between NPEs and implementors.

2) How does Unified Patents work with litigation funders, specifically?

As many NPE suits are funded or controlled by third parties, we are
often called to consult on and seek to understand litigation funding
and the economics of assertion.  Among other things, we provide filing
data, funding information, reports, and other work related to funding
and also run a consulting business related to negotiations and aspects
of dealmaking affected by litigation funding.  For example, we have
helped identify that at least 30% of all U.S. patent litigation filed
in recent years has been funded (up through 2020), through one
mechanism or another.  We will continue to work to understand the
marketplace and transactions, and endeavor to provide the best insight
into the marketplace that our data affords.

3)  With Judge Connolly's recent ruling, disclosure has become a hot
topic in the US. How do you see this ruling impacting IP litigation
going forward?

Well before Chief Judge Connolly's actions, litigation funding
disclosure has been a topic of discussion at the judicial conference,
among other judges, and amongst those implementing and revising the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, not to mention Congress and the SEC.
The Judicial Conference has been called to revise the disclosure rules
for over a decade.  Similar disclosure orders or rules applied in New
Jersey, California, Michigan, and another dozen district courts
nationwide, in addition to numerous rulings on admissibility and
relevance in Federal and state courts stretching back decades.  Chief
Judge Connolly's order has attracted outsized interest in the patent
community in particular.  It quickly exposed some of the 500 or so
cases filed annually by IP Edge as funded, as well as the high number
of patent plaintiffs in Delaware.   Calls for disclosure did not begin
with Judge Connolly; has been a continuing ongoing debate stretching
back decades. Insurance disclosures go back to the early 70s, and
other types of loans or financial instruments are already subject to
certain disclosure rules, in court, governmentally, or by regulators.
Moving forward, the increasing prevalence of litigation funding and
the rising awareness among the judiciary and bar will mean fitful
district-specific under- and over-disclosure until a national rule is
put in place through the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  It's
inevitable.  It's just a matter of time.

4) Insurers seem to be shying away from judgment preservation
insurance at the moment--is this a trend you see continuing, and how
might this impact IP litigation?

Insurance markets are often dominated by sales-side pressures and so
are susceptible to irrational exuberance and overpromotion of certain
policies.  Couple that with competition amongst brokers to offer
attractive terms for a "new" product, and you have pressures that have
driven down offered rates, a trend that seems to be reversing itself
now. To be sure, judgment preservation has existed in some form for
many years through other funding and insurance sources, and you've
always been able to buy and sell claims and judgments on appeal.

The increased emphasis on judgment preservation insurance seems driven
by a handful of brokers successfully selling rather large policies,
coupled with a glut of interest; my understanding is that some of the
recent (and predictable) remand on appeal have dampened
the enthusiasm of that market a tad, but that really just means rates
returning to reasonable levels (or at least growing resistant to
sales-side pressure).  The small JPI market should stabilize,
affording successful plaintiffs the option, and in turn extending
appellate timelines and recovery timelines, especially in
higher-profile damages award cases.  It will generally prevent
settlements below the insured threshold. It should also provide some
incentive to sue and to chase large damages awards in the first place,
if it becomes clear that JPI will be available after a judgment,
allowing for less well-capitalized plaintiffs to recover earlier and
avoid binary all-or-nothing outcomes.

Additionally, the Federal Circuit and other appellate courts will
eventually grapple with the "disclosure gap." That is, the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure insurance policies since the 1970s must be
disclosed at the trial level, but not yet at the appellate level; but
the same concerns that animated the 1970 amendments to the FRCP now
apply on appeal, with the rise of JPI.  Circuits will have to
grapple with adopting disclosure rules for insurance policies
contingent upon appeal.

5)   What trends are you seeing in the IP space that is relevant to
litigation funders, and how does Unified Patents' service fit into
those trends?

Early funding stories were dominated by larger cases and portfolios,
but we are now seeing a trend of much smaller cases being funded, and,
in the case of both IP Edge and AiPi Solutions, with certain patent
aggregators getting creative and funding entire suites of very small
nuisance cases.  We see funding now at all levels, from the IP Edges
of the world to the Burfords, and there is a trend toward investing in
pharmaceutical ANDA litigation and ITC cases.  Both should continue,
which should extend cases, increase the duration and expense of
litigation, and should drive more licensing.  Unified will continue to
seek to deter baseless assertions and will continue to identify,
discuss, and detail the structures, funding arrangements, and suits
related to litigation funding, and continue to show how much funding
is now dominating U.S. patent litigation, to the extent it is knowable.

What drew you to the world of litigation funding?

Can you provide an overview of small ticket litigation funding and its significance in the UK legal landscape?

How does this subset of litigation funding attract investors?

How has Fenchurch emerged and established itself in this market, and what key strategies contributed to its growth?

How have you seen the landscape of small ticket litigation funding evolve, and what trends do you anticipate for the future?

What sets Fenchurch Legal apart from other funders? What are your unique value propositions?

Could you elaborate on your approach to case selection and investment criteria?

The recent PACCAR ruling in the UK has sparked discussions about the future of litigation funding. What are your thoughts on its implications and potential impact on the industry?

Could you share your vision for Fenchurch Legal's future growth and expansion plans?

Lastly, for investors considering small ticket litigation funding, what key factors should they take into account, and how can Fenchurch Legal add value to their investment strategies?

Geoffrey White is General Counsel, Chief IP Counsel, and on the Board of Directors at SilcoTek, a high-tech materials science manufacturing company in the United States. At SilcoTek, Geoffrey balances his role as an attorney, an IP strategist, and a manufacturing executive. He also separately launched Innovative Product (IP) Manufacturing to help commercialize and monetize more innovative ideas (see www.IP-mfg.com).

Geoffrey has a true passion for value-enhancement, applying his experience and education, including a Cambridge MBA, a George Washington IP-LLM, a Widener JD, and a Chemistry BS from the University of Pittsburgh. He is collaborating with Cambridge’s Institute for Manufacturing, Innovation and Intellectual Property Management on patent strategy research, volunteers for the Penn State Start-Up Leadership Network on several Boards of Advisors, and is always open to discussing the intersection of law (especially patent law) and corporate strategy.

Just a few years ago, we at SilcoTek were totally unaware of the growing litigation finance community. I attended an intellectual property conference in New York and heard Sarah Tsou of Omni Bridgeway describe how it works. She discussed the waterfall in many agreements, their initial terms sheet, the due diligence that follows, and how it is an investment with aligned interests. After that, I started reaching out to several funders, including Sarah.

I settled on three funders to consider more closely. They were generally selected due to responsiveness and clarity. Being new to the litigation finance world, I was not looking for any specific terms in the agreement. I wanted to provide our Board with options. Overall, the proposals between funders were similar. One funder proposed a substantial monetization payment, which I personally liked. However, our Board liked the clarity of interactions with individuals from Omni Bridgeway, which is who ultimately funded us. They also liked the patent litigation experience of the team at Omni Bridgeway.

Personally, I think that the litigation finance industry is of huge value to SMEs and anyone else who has enforceable rights. Hopefully the Small Business Administration (SBA) embraces it!

The industry should help strengthen the value of rights owned by SMEs. For example, contractual rights are more meaningful and valuable if enforcement is not linked to whether a company has cash to support litigation. I think the biggest help, however, relates to patent enforcement, which becomes attainable for more patent owners.

SilcoTek’s primary reason for obtaining litigation financing was that we felt it would prevent waste. Being an SME and enforcing patent rights against a multi-billion dollar company creates an imbalance and a risk that the other side could try to bleed you dry, even if you are in a position to fund litigation. We felt that public awareness of us receiving litigation financing would reduce that risk created by the imbalance.

SilcoTek is interested in obtaining a reasonable outcome, whether it be through settlement or going all the way through litigation. Personally, I was concerned that litigation financing was similar to the contingency-based injury-lawyer model, and that is not something that was consistent with our core values. After I understood that it is an investment for a future return, I became more comfortable that it would align with our core values and support our desired outcome.

If there are funders that have the contingency-based injury-lawyer model, that would be a red flag to me; however, all of the funders I communicated with seemed much more sophisticated and seemed like investors.

Litigation finance can help encourage innovation through its impact on patent rights. It is well-established that patent systems foster innovation, especially the corresponding disclosure of ideas and the increase in access to investment for companies. Patent rights, however, are expensive to enforce.

Without access to litigation finance, some companies will not be able to assert their rights, thereby reducing the value of the patents and ultimately the companies. Without awareness of litigation finance opportunities, some companies will choose to use trade secret law to protect ideas instead of patents, which reduces innovation and technological progress overall (and has a negative economic impact based upon principles from the Solow-Swan economic model showing how GDP is driven by technological progress).

Long-term, providing litigation finance for patent enforcement should increase valuations. This is especially true with techniques based upon relief from royalty calculations, as royalties should be more likely with easier access to funding. Such effects should further drive innovation and technological progress by making such firms more appealing for investment in the future. Ultimately, litigation finance will drive global growth of GDP by driving technological progress.

I think litigation finance will have clearer delineation between stages similar to other investments. It seems that many or all stages are represented right now, albeit without it being easy for outsiders to identify them. More focus will be on early investment with the ability to capture option rights for future investment. Later-stage investment arrangements may also grow. Of course, such changes are going to require adjustments to the expectations of investors and the duration they can expect for returns, but the overall returns could be much higher and the risk could be much lower due to concepts like portfolio theory and real options.

Here is a patent-specific, technology-agnostic effort I began with Innovative Product (IP) Manufacturing, separate from my role at SilcoTek:

• Seed Stage: to support patent drafting and innovation protection before any patent filings.
• Angel Stage: to enhance patent protection while generating early revenue from operations.
• Venture Stage: to enforce issued patents (this seems to be the focus of funders now).
• Mezzanine and Bridge Loans: to drive standards or to establish new standards.
• IPO: to fund sector-specific innovation deployment based upon robust patent portfolios.

Although the Innovative Product (IP) Manufacturing effort is merely at the Seed Stage leading into the Angel Stage, existing interest from funders suggests to me that the litigation finance industry will evolve into more robust support of such efforts. Efforts beyond the Venture Stage may not be necessary in many situations, but broader and bigger opportunities could be anchored by such early-stage rights and the litigation finance industry.

I am sure other similar efforts outside of the patent sector will evolve over the coming years, but the opportunity for fascinating growth within litigation finance is clear to me.

1. Why the recent rebrand to Gain? What was the motivation for this change?

2. Gain is seeking to streamline the medical lien process for healthcare providers. What are the challenges at play here, and how does Gain address those issues?

1. Delayed payment: Healthcare providers often have to wait for an extended period of time to receive payment for their services, which can strain their cash flow.
2. Administrative complexity: Managing a portfolio of liens and receivables associated with legal cases can be administratively burdensome, diverting resources from patient care.
3. Collection efforts: Collecting on these liens and receivables can be time-consuming and challenging, leading to potential write-offs.
4. Risk management: Healthcare providers may also face the risk of not being compensated if the legal case does not result in a settlement or judgment in their favor.

3. How does Gain's AI technology help attorneys and healthcare providers? Can you give us an example of how Gain's AI can be used for enhanced efficiency or business intelligence?

• Imagine a personal injury case where various parties, including attorneys and healthcare providers, need to collaborate seamlessly to ensure the best outcome for the injured patient. Our AI-powered platform streamlines this process. For instance, it offers a patient record center, simplifying the updating and retrieval of information and documents. This feature alone saves valuable administrative time, ensuring that nothing gets missed in the case.
• Our AI-enhanced dashboard and reporting capabilities provide real-time insights into case status and financials. This means better monitoring, quicker decision-making and enhanced efficiency in managing personal injury cases. The messaging and notifications feature further streamlines communication among all stakeholders involved.

• Our AI technology equips attorneys and healthcare providers with predictive analytics capabilities, which provide invaluable business intelligence. AI-enhanced reports shed light on payor sources, case characteristics, jurisdictions, third-party liability carriers, financial outcomes and other vital decision-making factors.
• For instance, attorneys and healthcare providers can gain insights into case volumes, treatment costs, reimbursement rates, duration and more. They can drill down to obtain detailed information on cases, attorneys, healthcare providers or individual patients. Moreover, Gain's database of similar cases helps in understanding standard treatment costs, reductions and reimbursement rates. All of this information empowers those providing services to personal injury plaintiffs to make better decisions and optimize their approach to specific cases.

• Effective collaboration and communication are vital in personal injury cases. Gain's secure document storage and messaging system make it incredibly easy to share important documents and updates related to cases securely. This not only saves administrative time but also ensures that critical information is readily accessible.
• Real-time notifications and status updates keep medical and legal teams in sync as cases progress, enabling them to take timely actions and prioritize tasks efficiently.

4. How is Gain pursuing fairness and equity in the Consumer Legal Finance and Medical Lien spaces?

• Supporting personal injury plaintiffs – and those who support them: For personal injury plaintiffs who lack the financial means to pay for essential bills and necessary medical treatment, navigating the insurance system can be incredibly challenging. This is where Gain steps in to offer assistance. We specialize in managing Letters of Protection (LOP), collections and funding, providing the support needed to ensure plaintiffs receive the care they deserve. Our AI-enhanced platform simplifies the handling of LOP agreements, personal injury receivables and medical liens. It facilitates better communication between personal injury attorneys and healthcare providers, streamlining document sharing, case updates and financial transactions. Through the platform, we also compare reimbursement amounts to thousands of similar lawsuits, ensuring fair payment for services provided.
• Enhancing efficiency with AI: Our AI technology plays a crucial role in achieving fairness and healthcare equity. It empowers healthcare providers and attorneys with predictive analytics capabilities, providing valuable business intelligence. Attorneys and healthcare providers can access AI-enhanced reports that offer insights into payor sources, case characteristics, jurisdictions, third-party liability carriers, financial outcomes, duration and more. This data equips professionals with the information they need to make informed decisions, ultimately leading to better patient care and fairer financial outcomes.
• Fighting back with a wholistic team approach – Managed Services: Gain's Managed Services team is dedicated to managing personal injury receivables and medical liens. They work closely with healthcare providers to monitor progress, follow up on key items and ensure that cases are advancing toward settlement. This partnership helps push back on reductions, reduce write-offs and increase collection amounts. Leveraging our third-party status also helps minimize the risk of being targeted in legal proceedings.

5. Gain is leaning into AI and Legal Technology heavily. What has the response been from claimants, attorneys and healthcare providers? Do you plan to continue making investments in Legal Tech initiatives going forward?

1. Funders have become more selective about funding investment treaty claims.  The increased selectivity usually is unrelated to the merits of the cases—which often times are compelling—but concern over the length of time tribunals are taking to render awards, and subsequent time thereafter to enforce the award if the respondent state does not comply willingly with the award.  The profile of the sovereign defendant (are they likely to pay; do they have enforceable assets) has become critical to the funding assessment.
2. By contrast, funders are increasingly keen to fund commercial and construction arbitrations.  They are very eager to work with corporates that likely have a portfolio of arbitrations at any given time.
3. More players exist in the market now to buy a stake or all of an arbitration award than a decade ago.

• New mining claims from investors in the critical minerals industry. These are minerals that are essential to the energy transition (such as lithium, which is used in battery storage). Governments all over the world, such as in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Mexico, Zimbabwe, and Zambia, are enacting new measures to regulate and control these critical minerals.  Many of the mining companies or their investors (such as electric vehicle automakers) are new to the mining sector and/or are junior or small mining companies.  They likely will need third-party funding for their claims—and there will be claims in the next few decades given the commercial and geo-political fights over critical minerals in the supply chains.
• More arbitrations in the renewables sector (commercial, construction, and investment arbitrations) all over the world as governments continue to implement their obligations under the Paris Agreement and fulfill their Nationally Determined Contributions to invest in renewable energy, low carbon, and hydrogen projects. As has been the case in Italy, Spain and other European countries, governments may change a key economic input (such as the price of feed-in tariffs) that led to foreign investment in the renewables sector, resulting in investment treaty disputes.  There will also be more commercial disputes as new technologies in the sector evolve and the limits of existing technologies in long-term projects (wear and tear) are tested.
• My firm Milbank frequently serves as counsel to lenders in financing projects. If the project company is tied up in disputes, lenders need comfort on recovering their loans, which requires ballparking damages and obtaining protections in the form of insurance products or indemnities. This has led to me facilitating more conversations between my finance/restructuring partners and litigation funders.
• Discussions with clients over whether to secure ATE insurance even if an arbitration is not seated in a jurisdiction such as England that adopts a default principle of “loser pays.” We are seeing more adverse costs awards against unsuccessful claimants in the investment arbitration space.  So, a client may want to consider whether to obtain ATE insurance in addition to third party funding, even though this might mean more overall borrowing.

LegalPay is the only company in India which provides different financing solutions to businesses for their legal services and/or litigations. Founded by Kundan Shahi in 2019, LegalPay now has a team of more than 100 staff managing more than USD 400 million of claims under management.

Kundan Shahi is an alumnus of IIM Bangalore's startup incubator, NSRCEL and had perviously founded a LegalTech company. He deeply believes in relieving the burden on Indian judiciary, and to further that cause he supports Bharat Disputes Resolution (BDR), India’s largest online dispute resolution platform.

What is the litigation funding landscape like in India? What are the unique challenges and opportunities for funders operating there? 

At present, litigation finance in India is at an embryonic stage, reflective of its burgeoning legal expense market. A combined total of around 40 billion dollars encompasses both individual and business legal expenditures, a figure poised for further escalation with the country's rapid economic expansion and the surge in cross-border transactions. The imminent ascension of India to become the world's third-largest economy is projected to further amplify the legal expense market's growth. Distinguishing India from other jurisdictions is the absence of a contingency fee model, necessitating the demand for alternative financing avenues. The concept of third-party funding (TPF) was initially alien to the legal landscape, often perceived as illicit by legal practitioners. The awareness around litigation finance has been minimal until recently.

What types of cases does LegalPay fund? What case aspects do you look for? What are some of the things you look to stay away from?

LegalPay has made substantial investments to cultivate awareness within the business sphere, elucidating the financial dimensions of litigation. This concerted effort has yielded a notable increase in litigation finance inquiries from businesses. In contrast to conventional jurisdictions where stakeholder interests are aligned (plaintiff, lawyer, funders), in India, only funders and plaintiffs share a common interest. We are a low trust society with price sensitivity. Consequently, possessing deep pockets alone does not guarantee access to lucrative opportunities. To navigate this landscape, an innovative blend of technology and distribution strategies is imperative for robust deal origination.

One of the major concerns for funders is case duration. India is not known for speedy case resolutions. How do you manage this risk factor?

The reputation of India's judicial system for protracted case resolutions is acknowledged, yet empirical data reveals incremental improvements. While perceptions linger, the expansive realm of disputes provides ample room for astute selection. Adaptation is key in this price-sensitive climate; prioritizing plaintiff interests ensures risk management remains a cornerstone. Businesses have started understanding the financial perspective of litigation which encourages them to opt for alternative disputes resolutions.

You recently launched Contract Defense, a free service protecting businesses from disputes arising from BNPL. What can you tell us about this? 

Our recent introduction of "Contract Defense" serves to bolster trust and provide businesses with a safety net against disputes arising from the contract bought using our framework. This innovative offering extends an interest-free credit line to manage legal expenses and covers initial legal costs stemming from contractual agreements facilitated through our BNPL platform. This engagement serves as a prelude to forging robust relationships, positioning us to offer litigation finance when needed. To use Contract Defense, all the customer needs to do is create a contract through any lawyer or law firm in India and pay for it using our BNPL payment method. If any legal disputes arising from the contract, the customer can simply transfer the legal expense to LegalPay, and we will cover the cost of all possible disputes.

What are your predictions for the future of litigation funding in India? How will this market evolve?

Forecasts for the litigation funding landscape in India remain resoundingly positive. As awareness burgeons, businesses are keen to transfer the financial risk of litigation to platforms such as ours. The aftermath of a Delhi High Court judgment has triggered heightened discussions and inquiries, attracting international funders and law firms seeking symbiotic collaborations. The expansive market paves the way for coexistence and flourishing among several prominent litigation funders, contingent upon their adept adaptation to the intricacies of the Indian landscape.

In conclusion, the canvas of litigation funding in India is unfolding with remarkable potential. The convergence of economic growth, legal dynamics, and the desire for risk transfer converge to paint a promising trajectory for this evolving sector.