Trending Now

John Freund's Posts

2856 Articles
Case Developments Commercial

£1.5M Settlement Approved by CAT in ‘Car Delivery Charges’ Class Action

By John Freund |
Despite the ongoing consternation over the future of litigation funding’s role in UK class actions, we continue to see victories and major milestones achieved in funded cases over recent weeks. The approval of a settlement in the ‘car delivery charges’ class action represents another such success for claimants and their funders. Reporting by CDR confirms that the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has approved the £1.5 million settlement in the opt-out class action brought against Compañía Sudamericana de Vapores (CSAV), following the settlement agreement being reached in October. The CAT approved the settlement in Mark McLaren v MOL and Others at a hearing on 6 December but have yet to publish a written judgement. Following the CAT’s approval, this now stands as the first ever settlement in a UK opt-out class action. Class representative Mark McLaren praised the approval of the settlement, saying that it would “provide redress to those British consumers and businesses who bought new cars and vans and have suffered a loss as a result of the cartel.”  Scott+Scott’s Belinda Hollway, who acted for the class representative, said that the CAT’s decision demonstrated “that collective settlements can be achieved and that the regime is working to deliver compensation to the victims of breaches of competition law.” Woodsford provided litigation funding for the claim. As LFJ reported in October, claims have been brought against five international shipping companies: MOL, “K” Line, NYK, WWL/EUKOR and CSAV, over allegations that they engaged in a price-fixing scheme between 2006 and 2015. The settlement with CSAV was hailed as a “significant milestone” by McLaren, but it still only represents a small portion of the overall class action, as CSAV is the smallest of the defendants with a 1.5% market share. The remaining four defendants are currently set to continue their defence at trial in 2025, having previously been censured by the CAT ‘for undermining the ethos of collective actions by communicating directly with class members.’
Commercial Regulatory Issues

UK Government’s Amendment to DMCC Bill Offers a Partial Solution to PACCAR Ruling

By John Freund |
The UK litigation finance industry has been closely watching the government’s response to the Supreme Court’s PACCAR decision, with many hoping that there will be a quick legislative fix regarding the enforceability of litigation funding agreements (LFAs). According to one industry expert, a parliamentary debate held earlier this week has offered an indication of what shape a legislative solution may take. A post from Clyde & Co’s director of policy and government affairs, Alistair Kinley, provides insights into the recent debate on the House of Lords over the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill (DMCC), and its potential consequences for the government’s plans to provide a legislative solution to the PACCAR decision. Kinley highlights two key takeaways from a speech by Minister Viscount Camrose. Firstly, that it appears the government has acknowledged that the current amendment to the DMCC bill only addresses the issue of LFA enforceability for cases in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). Secondly, the government has indicated that it will attempt to provide a legislative solution for funded cases outside the CAT, as ‘the DMCC Bill is not the place to address this.’ Kinley suggests that this can be considered a mixed result for the litigation funding industry. On the positive side, if the DMCC bill is brought into law then it will solve the enforceability issue for LFAs in the CAT, whilst also having a ‘retrospective effect.’ However, even though there are signs that the government will look for another legislative venue to provide a solution for non-CAT cases, ‘it is likely to be slower in coming to fruition than that proposed for funded opt-out cases in the CAT.’
Commercial Deals

The Funders’ Perspective on Criteria for Case Selection

By John Freund |
For lawyers or claimants who have no prior experience in working with litigation funders, it can often seem an opaque process through which funders arrive at a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ decision when choosing whether to fund a case. As a result, it is incredibly useful to understand the funder’s perspective, and through that lens, understand which funders to approach. An article in Concurrences by Thierry de Bovis, director at Equity & Claims Lux, provides an overview of the latest developments in litigation funding and offers useful insights into the factors which funders consider when selecting the most attractive cases for investment. de Bovis begins by exploring the ‘rather undefined concept’ of the term ‘litigation funder’, before examining the different types of litigation finance, from single case funding and the monetization of claims, to law firm funding and special court funding. The article then provides a helpful overview of the main ‘funding criteria’ used by investors, outlining nine separate factors which are often considered by funders during case evaluation and selection. de Bovis identifies the following nine criteria:
  • Matter and financial thresholds
  • Book-building strategy and the passing-on defence
  • The right moment to fund a dispute
  • Dispute Team
  • Recovery of the defendant
  • Which jurisdictions?
  • Pricing the risk
  • Mitigating the risk: Insurance
  • Legal structuring and tax 
de Bovis explains that ‘an investor in litigation finance does not fund a dispute but invests in a legal context that is made up of any criteria’, and that the relative importance of each of these factors to an individual funder ‘will typically be determined by its culture, its legal structure, and its risk appetite.’ Due to this lack of uniformity among funders, de Bovis recommends that ‘the claimant and its counsel should consider the specificity of each funder in relation to these criteria.’ The full article with in-depth explanations for each of these criteria can be found here.
Announcements Consumer

Stellium’s Anthony Johnson Launches New Website

By John Freund |
Anthony Johnson launched a new thought leadership website based on customer feedback on December 7, 2023. “The new platform is specifically designed to cater to the needs of legal professionals and firms,” says Anthony Johnson (AJ). “We took extensive customer feedback into account while building this platform, aiming to provide a comprehensive guidance system that enhances operational efficiency, client satisfaction, and profitability.” The new website's mission is clear: to address the frustrations, wants, fears, and aspirations of legal professionals, enabling them to achieve positive business outcomes. AJ understands the importance of sound business management principles and up-to-date legal technology reporting in today's competitive landscape. Transparency fosters trust, collaboration, and innovation within the legal system. Therefore, the site emphasizes the benefits of transparent legal data practices to empower legal professionals and promote excellence in the field. The platform offers a wide array of free educational downloadables and media resources, enabling the audience to navigate the complexities of the legal industry and succeed in their endeavors. AJ is committed to providing valuable content that equips legal professionals with the knowledge and tools they need to excel. The site will continue to deliver high-quality content and empower legal professionals. Visit https://awesomeattorney.io/ to explore the available resources. To learn more about Anthony, click the link below. https://www.linkedin.com/in/awesomeattorney/ For media inquiries contact: Margaret@stellium.co
Read More
Commercial

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

By John Freund |
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.
Read More
Commercial Deals

Omni Bridgeway’s Loewith Discusses Canadian Litigation Finance Market

By John Freund |
Whilst the North American litigation finance market is dominated by the huge volume of cases in need of funding in the US, the industry’s leading funders are keen to exploit the potential of a Canadian market that is ripe for growth. An article by Law360 Canada provides insight into the country’s litigation funding market through an interview with Naomi Loewith, director of strategic partnerships - Canada, at Omni Bridgeway. Loewith explains that whilst third-party funding is still in its early developmental years in Canada, “the courts are comfortable with it and sophisticated lawyers know about it.” Reflecting on her own career move into the world of litigation finance, Loewith highlights that she relishes “the idea of defining people’s expectations about helping establish the industry, helping clients realize why it’s so attractive and important to them.” Discussing the value that Omni Bridgeway can bring to clients through its team of experienced litigators and specialists, Loewith notes that funders can provide clients with both “capital and assistance if they want it.” Looking at the future of litigation funding in Canada, Loewith states that “another trend we’re likely to see is law firms working with litigation finances to enable them to offer more creative fee arrangements to their clients.” Comparing the developing market with the United States, Loewith says that “many more top tier firms are comfortable acting on a partial success fee basis,” and expects to see that trend reflected in Canada moving forward.
Announcements Commercial Regulatory Issues

Triple-I: Plaintiffs Should Disclose Third-Party Funding Arrangements

By John Freund |
Ohio’s defendants should know whether a third-party litigation funding firm is financing a lawsuit against them, the Insurance Information Institute’s (Triple-I) chief insurance officer, Dale Porfilio said, in testimony today before the state Senate’s Judiciary Committee. Third-party litigation funders (TPLF) provide billions of dollars each year to U.S. plaintiffs and their legal counsel, yet only a handful of U.S. states, such as Indiana and Montana, have required plaintiffs to disclose in court whether a TPLF is financially supporting a civil lawsuit. "Without any direct ties to litigated cases and minimal transparency, institutional investors and even sovereign nations are contributing significant amounts of capital toward litigation suits for the sole intent of making a profit," Porfilio stated. "Without transparency, we are not able to provide deep data-driven insights about TPLF’s impacts on consumers and the insurance industry. Therefore, Triple-I supports mandatory disclosure of TPLF so we can study the impacts on consumers and carriers alike." A Swiss Re Institute report published in 2021 estimated more than half of the $17 billion in TPLF monies deployed globally in 2020 were in the U.S. Moreover, while TPLF investments offered internal rates of return exceeding 25 percent, commercial liability plaintiffs who used TPLF firms to finance their litigation saw the settlement proceeds allocated to them decrease by 12 percent, this same Swiss Re Institute report estimated. "The insurance industry retains claim adjusters, litigation managers, and defense attorneys to help settle claims. The portion allocated to defense costs are defined as ’Defense and Cost Containment Expenses’ (DCC). These expense dollars across all P&C (property and casualty) products increased 30 percent from 2016 to 2022, while increasing 60 percent for general liability (GL) products across these same years. GL products are where more of the complex and high-limit litigation occurs for large corporations. Because TPLF is not disclosed in Ohio as well as most other states, Triple-I cannot today quantify how much TPLF is contributing to the increase in DCC and the industry’s financial results," Porfilio testified. Triple-I has been educating and informing consumers about its growing concern with third-party litigation funding under the broader umbrella of what the organization refers to as "legal system abuse." Triple-I defines legal system abuse as policyholder or plaintiff attorney practices which increase costs and time to settle insurance claims. While litigation is considered a policyholder’s last resort, Porfilio continued, legal system abuse exploits litigation when a disputed claim could have been resolved without judicial intervention. Legal system abuse contributes to higher costs for insurance operations and policyholder pricing, Triple-I’s chief insurance officer concluded.
Read More
Consumer

American Tort Reform Foundation Calls Louisiana a Judicial Hellhole, Citing Influence of Litigation Funding

By John Freund |
Among the critics of the litigation finance industry, some of the loudest and harshest voices are associations representing the businesses and industries, who view funders as a driving force behind the increasing volume of lawsuits targeting American corporations. A press release from the American Tort Reform Foundation (ATRF) highlights its ongoing objections to litigation funding, describing it as a ‘multi-billion-dollar industry influencing legal outcomes with, often, zero transparency.’ The release focuses on Louisiana’s place in the ATRF’s 2023-2024 Judicial Hellholes report, where the state was ranked at no.7, and places much of the blame on outgoing Governor John Edwards’ veto of legislation that sought to impose additional disclosure requirements on litigation funding. Tiger Joyce, president of ATRF, cited the case of law firm McClenny Moseley & Associates (MM&A) as an example of the negative impact of litigation funding. MM&A were sanctioned for fraudulently filing claims on behalf of victims of hurricane damage, having received around $30 million in third-party funding. Joyce described it as “a potentially fraudulent scheme between a Texas trial lawyer firm, litigation funders, and a roofing company.”  Joyce failed to note that, as LFJ recently reported, the two funders who lent money to MM&A are also petitioning to recoup their investments from the law firm. ATRF expressed hope that governor-elect Jeff Landry represented a ‘glimmer of cautious optimism for legal reform,’ and stated that ‘there might be an opportunity for the state to improve its civil justice environment.’ The ATRF’s press release makes clear that it hopes the new governor will reverse his predecessor’s position on legislation reforming disclosure requirements.
Case Developments Commercial

Judge Denies Woodsford’s Request for Temporary Restraining Order in Dispute with Hosie Rice

By John Freund |
As recently as last week, LFJ reported on the ongoing dispute between Woodsford and Hosie Rice over unpaid fees from a litigation funding deal, as the funder sought to block the transfer of proceeds from the sale of a house owned by Hosie Rice’s founders. An article from Reuters provides an update on the case of Frome Wye v. Hosie Rice, et al. in the Northern District of California, as U.S. District Judge Edward Chen ruled against Woodsford subsidiary Frome Wye’s request for an injunction to stop Hosie Rice disbursing $1.8 million from the sale of the property.  In his denial of the request for a temporary restraining order, Judge Chen stated that Woodsford’s “purely financial” injury should be solved with a damages award. The ruling concluded that Woodsford  “has not shown a likelihood of irreparable injury”, and that the funder “has not submitted any evidence that any or all three Defendants who entered into the funding agreement are insolvent or that they would not be able to pay the amount owed.” Spencer Hosie and Diane Rice, the law firm’s founders, expressed satisfaction with the judge’s ruling and said that they hoped the ruling “puts an end to this long Woodsford saga." However, Woodsford’s Steven Friel noted that the funder would “pursue the debt until full satisfaction”, noting that the case had reinforced the fact that Hosie Rice still owes Woodsford the $1.8 million awarded by the arbitration panel.
Announcements Commercial Deals

Odyssey Marine Exploration Secures Additional Capital as it Pursues NAFTA Claim Against Mexico

By John Freund |
As litigation funders are keen to regularly emphasise, third-party financing is not only useful to directly support a company’s legal claims, it is also a valuable tool to allow the business to continue its operations unhindered whilst pursuing meritorious litigation. In a press release from Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc., the mineral exploration company announced that it has secured a debt financing deal including capital from Drumcliffe Partners, its primary litigation funder. The financing has been secured to support its ongoing operations and strategic initiatives, whilst it pursues an arbitration claim against Mexico over allegations that the country’s government ‘wrongfully denied environmental approval of the ExO Phosphate project in breach of NAFTA.’ The note and warrant purchase agreement was agreed on December 1, with Two Seas Capital leading the financing and additional investors including, Four World Capital Management, and the DP Special Opportunities Fund I, LLC (managed by Drumcliffe Partners). The financing deal includes ‘the issuance of promissory notes with an 11.0% annual interest rate, totaling up to $6.0 million, and warrants that allow them to purchase shares of Odyssey's common stock over the next three years.’ Sina Toussi, founder and chief investment officer of Two Seas Capital, highlighted that the funding would “bridge Odyssey to what we believe will be a just judgment in the arbitration and position Odyssey to pursue several new high-value projects.” James C. Little, CEO of Drumcliffe Partners stated they “continue to believe in the strong merits of the claim and Odyssey’s entitlement to compensation as the result of Mexico’s arbitrary and unfair treatment in breach of international law.”  The arbitration panel’s decision in the NAFTA case is expected in early 2024.
Read More
Commercial Deals

Lenders for Indian Airline Considering Litigation Finance Options

By John Freund |
Although the litigation finance market in India is currently in a developmental stage, domestic and international funders have repeatedly identified it as a country with huge potential for growth in the adoption of third-party funding. A developing story regarding an insolvent airline suggests that this optimism is well-founded, as the company’s lenders are reportedly investigating third-party funding options to pursue legal proceedings.  Reporting by BQ Prime and Mint provide insight into the legal woes of the bankrupt Indian airline, Go First, whose financial backers are reportedly considering pursuing litigation financing options to fund its legal actions against engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney. Last month, BQ Prime reported that Go First’s lenders led by the Bank of Baroda were meeting to discuss third-party funding options to support the airline’s litigation against Pratt & Whitney, for its failure to supply engines as contracted.  Following up on BQ Prime’s reporting, an article from Mint suggests that these lenders will move forward with a search for litigation finance providers, with the goal being to secure ‘up to ₹12,000 crore tied up in various lawsuits’. According to an anonymous source who spoke with Mint, the plan would be for the “existing legal costs can be paid off to lawyers by the lenders, and then a credit fund or a large stressed-debt fund can be roped in for financing all the litigation going forward and help Go First win the cases." The source went on to suggest that whilst the actual costs for the various litigation may total “less than ₹100 crore”, the lenders are hoping that “a favourable court verdict may fetch up to ₹12,000 crore."
Commercial

Attorneys say Financial Terms are Most Important Factor when Selecting Litigation Funding

By John Freund |
For attorneys looking to pursue litigation financing, whether it is for the first time or as a repeat user, these professionals must consider a wider range of factors when choosing the right provider to work with. A new survey reveals some of the most pressing factors and concerns that attorneys are focused on when assessing their third-party funding options. An article from Bloomberg Law highlights findings from its recent State of Practice Survey, which found that the financial terms offered in a funding agreement are the most important factor that lawyers consider when pursuing litigation funding. 26 of the 31 attorneys who responded to the survey’s question about factors considered when assessing litigation funders, answered that the ‘financial terms offered’ were ‘very important’ or ‘somewhat important’. When looking at the top concerns raised by first time users of litigation funding, those attorneys surveyed answered that ‘high financing costs’ alongside ‘maintaining control over the litigation’ were two of the most prominent areas of concern. As the article goes on to note, these answers ‘make sense in light of the high financial stakes in litigation matters that tend to draw the interest of funders.’ The State of Practice Survey included answers from 450 attorneys across a range of topics.
Case Developments Commercial

Woodsford to Receive $7.8M from $26M Settlement in Ardent Leisure Class Action

By John Freund |
As LFJ reported in August, a class action backed by third-party funding and brought against one of Australia’s largest leisure companies has reached a settlement agreement. New court documents reveal the court’s approval of the settlement, as well as the details of the final payout to the litigation funder. A court order posted by the Federal Court of Australia on 30 November provides confirmation that the settlement in the case of Colin Graham Ingram & Anor V Ardent Leisure Limited & Ors has been approved and will move forward to distribution. The settlement, which will bring the class action brought in June 2020 to a close, will see Ardent Leisure pay ‘$26 million for compensation, legal fees and disbursements, without admission of any liability.’ The group members were represented in the class action by Piper Alderman, with Woodsford providing litigation funding. The order also includes ‘Deductions from the settlement for the purposes of the SDS (Settlement Distribution Scheme)’, which lists the court approved deductions from the $26 million sum. Of note, is the $7.8 million in “Funder’s Commission”, which will see Woodsford secure a significant return on its investment in the class action. The deductions also include just over $5 million for “Legal Costs Reimbursement Payments” and $737,836 for the “Funder’s Insurance Costs”, the latter of which will cover costs associated with After-the-Event (ATE) insurance cover. The class action focused on allegations that Ardent had misled its shareholders over safety measures at its Dreamworld theme park in the lead-up to the 2016 Thunder River Rapids Ride accident, which led to the deaths of four people.  The final settlement accounts for roughly 10 percent of the $260 million that shareholders lost in the aftermath of the incident in 2016. The full settlement notice can be read here.
Commercial

Examining the Issue of Agency Costs in Litigation Funding

By John Freund |
In the ever-present debate around the pros and cons of litigation funding, it is always valuable to step back from highly charged opinion pieces and look at more rigorous academic examinations of the key issues that are contested between third-party funding’s advocates and critics. A research paper from the Vanderbilt University Law School authored by Brian T. Fitzpatrick, professor of law, and William Marra, director at Certum Group, tackles the topic of ‘Agency Costs in Third-Party Litigation Finance Reconsidered’. In the paper, Fitzpatrick and Marra seek to question the oft-repeated critique that third-party funding ‘can increase agency costs for litigants’, suggesting that ‘much of the concern in the third-party litigation finance literature over exacerbated agency costs and who controls the litigation has been mistaken.’ The authors argue that the assumption that the funder will ‘meddle in the lawyer litigant relationship’ is incorrect. They point out that because funders are unable to control litigation ‘due to the ethical rules’, they instead ‘try to align their interests with both the interests of the lawyers and the interests of the litigants.’ As a result, Fitzpatrick and Marra highlight that this approach avoids any need for a funder to try and control the litigation process, as it is much more preferable for a funder to ‘let the invisible hand of incentives do the work for them.’ The paper takes a methodical approach to unpacking the issue of agency costs in third-party funding, firstly by examining the most common criticisms of the practice and the claim that litigation finance ‘will exacerbate lawyer-client agency costs.’ Fitzpatrick and Marra then walk through the standard funding arrangements and the use of the ‘hybrid-fee formula’, before going on to show how this formula is ‘superior to the hourly fees or contingent percentages that clients would otherwise pay without financing.’ Before concluding, the paper also tackles the issue of, ‘if the hybrid formula is so favorable,’ why the legal market does not utilise this formula even in situations with third-party funding present. The full paper can be read here.
Case Developments Commercial

Woodsford Sues Hosie Rice Over Unpaid $1.8 Million Award

By John Freund |
Whilst disputes between law firms and funders who have worked together on a case are rare, we have often seen that when these fault lines do appear, the path to an amicable resolution can be quite arduous. This has once again been demonstrated through the latest development in the long-running dispute between litigation funder Woodsford and law firm Hosie Rice over unpaid fees. An article in Reuters provides an update on the fallout between Woodsford and Hosie Rice, as the funder’s subsidiary has filed a lawsuit seeking $1.8 million from the sale of a house owed by the Hosie Rice’s founders. This $1.8 million figure represents the amount that Woodsford was awarded by an arbitration panel in a dispute over unpaid remuneration to the funder. The new lawsuit is asking the court to stop Hosie and Rice from transferring $1.817 million from the sale of the property, with the sale valued at $7.99 million. Woodsford is arguing that without a court order, “it will be costly and expensive (if not nearly impossible)” to secure the amount that is still owed by Hosie Rice. Echoing previous comments on the dispute with the law firm, Woodsford’s CEO Steven Friel described the case as “a straightforward debt collection matter, complicated only by the delay tactics of recalcitrant debtors.” Whilst Hosie Rice provided a much more charged comment, denying that they owed Woodsford any money and saying that the funder is “so crooked it makes Lombard Street seem straight.” The origins of this dispute date back to Woodsford providing around $800,000 in funding for Space Data’s case against Google, with Space Data refusing to pay Hosie Rice after it reached a settlement with Google in 2020. After an arbitrator ruled that Space Data owed the law firm up to $4 million in costs but no contingency fee, Hosie argued that it was not required to award Woodsford any additional fee beyond the original loan repayments.  The $1.8 million award was handed down by an arbitration panel as a result of Woodsford’s subsequent lawsuit against Hosie Rice, in which the funder argued that it was owed additional remuneration as the $4 million client payment constituted a ‘revenue event’ for the law firm. As LFJ reported in September, Judge Colm Connolly ruled that Hosie Rice’s appeal had ‘failed to establish a basis for vacating the $1.8 million award’, thereby concurring with the previous ruling by a magistrate judge.
Case Developments Commercial

Woodsford-Funded Piper Alderman Class Action Against IC Markets Reportedly Filed

By John Freund |
Australia continues to be one of the top jurisdictions for class actions, with both law firms and funders eager to pursue claims which can open access to justice and secure compensation for consumers and groups who have been poorly treated by companies and institutions. Reporting by CDR and Proactive Investors suggests that Piper Alderman is launching a class action against IC Markets, over its sale of contracts for difference (CFDs) to retail investors in Australia. Last month, LFJ had reported that Piper Alderman were at the investigation stage for the class action, but both of the above publications are now reporting that the claim has been filed. The lawsuit will focus on IC Markets’ sale of these products to retail investors between December 2017 and March 2021, alleging that the trading platform failed to ‘adequately assess their [investors] objectives, financial situations and where the risks of investing were inadequately disclosed.’ The claim also alleges that IC Markets broke Target Market Determination rules, from October 2021 onwards.  Piper Alderman has secured funding from Woodsford for the IC Markets class action, and interested parties can learn more on Piper Alderman’s website. Both Piper Alderman and Woodsford are already engaged in separate class actions against another trading company, IG Markets, over their sale of CFD products. Piper Alderman’s class action was filed in May of this year and received funding from Omni Bridgeway, whilst Woodsford is funding a case that was filed by William Roberts Lawyers in August.
Commercial Special Features

An LFJ Conversation with Geoffrey White, General Counsel and Chief IP Counsel, SilcoTek

By John Freund |

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.

SilcoTek provides game-changing coating service to solve challenges for some of the largest global organizations in the world, especially in semiconductor, analytical instrumentation, life science, and energy industries. Properties include inertness, corrosion resistance, metal-ion containment, and more (see www.SilcoTek.com). SilcoTek has coated parts that have been sent throughout the world, into the Earth, to space, to Mars, to an asteroid, and to places unknown. Below is our LFJ Conversation with Geoffrey White: I understand you are participating in a litigation funding agreement as General Counsel and Board Member of a manufacturing company. What was your selection process like in terms of the litigation funder you opted to partner with? What were you looking for in an agreement, how many funders did you speak to, and what did that funder offer that others did not?

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.

From an SME's perspective, what advantages does litigation finance bring, beyond the obvious funding of meritorious claims? 

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.

When choosing a litigation funder, what concerns you the most?  What are the 'red flags' you look for when it comes to selecting the appropriate funding partner? 

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.

How can litigation finance help encourage innovation in the SME space and beyond? 

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.

What are your predictions for how litigation finance will evolve over the coming years? 

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.

Read More
Case Developments Commercial

Swiss Startup Funder Has Ties to Kazakh Man Accused of Money Laundering

By John Freund |
Whilst the litigation funding industry has seen significant maturation over recent years, the potential for bad actors to be involved in the industry through new startup companies cannot wholly be eliminated. Investigative reporting by John Holland and Emily R. Siegel at Bloomberg Law has revealed ties between a Kazakhstan individual accused of money laundering and a litigation funding business  founded by his brother. Ilyas Khrapunov, who is alleged to have laundered hundreds of millions stolen from the Kazakh city of Almaty and from the country’s BTA Bank, is attached to Litigation Partners, SA as a litigation consultant. Daniel Khrapunov founded the Swiss litigation funding company in February of this year, with Ilyas’ role in the company being recorded in records from the Swiss Business Registry and in a statement to a New York court. Ilyas had informed the court of his involvement in Litigation Partners in response to a judgement ordering him to pay $221,000 to BTA Bank, over his use of laundered money in his real estate holding company, Swiss Development Group. Responding to Bloomberg Law’s requests for comment, Daniel Khrapunov stated that his brother was an ‘outside adviser’ to the funder and stated that he had founded the company using the proceeds from ‘a sale in 2020 of Swiss-based real estate purchased in 2004 by his mother.’ However, Bloomberg Law’s reporting includes two anonymous sources who work in the litigation finance industry, who claim that ‘they met with Ilyas Khrapunov to discuss litigation finance opportunities before and after Litigation Partners was formed.’ Ilyas did not respond to Bloomberg Law’s requests for an interview or comment. The full investigative report can be read here.
Commercial Regulatory Issues

LSLA Survey Finds Overwhelming Support for ‘Further Regulation’ of Litigation Funding

By John Freund |
As we approach the end of 2023, it is a useful time to reflect on the state of the litigation funding market in the UK and to see how prominent industry groups are thinking about the future of the industry. A preview of an upcoming survey suggests that whilst litigation funding is thriving in terms of activity and demand, there is a growing consensus that new regulations are required. An article by The Law Society Gazette provides a summary of remarks made by Nicholas Heaton, head of competition litigation at Hogan Lovells, at the London Solicitors Litigation Association’s (LSLA) annual dinner last week. Heaton was delivering a preview of the association’s Annual Litigation Trends Survey, which included some very interesting insights into the perspective of solicitors on litigation funding. According to the Gazette’s article, Heaton explained that 79% of the survey’s respondents have been involved in ‘cases in which one or more parties are using litigation funding.’ Heaton went on to note that given this frequency of funding activity, it would be natural to assume that the solicitors surveyed would regard the Supreme Court’s PACCAR decision as a ‘major concern’. However, Heaton revealed that ‘only about 10% of respondents foresee a reduction in the availability of funding or increase in its cost as a result.’ Despite this largely positive view of the third-party funding market, Heaton also said that the survey had asked respondents about their views on the potential need for increased regulation of the industry. The response from these solicitors was overwhelming, as 88% of those surveyed agreed that ‘further regulation of some kind was required for litigation funding.’
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Judge Connolly to Refer Lawyers Involved with IP Edge for Ethics Inquiries

By John Freund |
When it comes to contentious relationships between the courts and funders, the ongoing situation in the US District Court for the District of Delaware is perhaps the most notorious. Judge Colm F. Connolly’s efforts to enforce greater disclosure and transparency by funders involved in patent litigation appears to have now entered a new stage, as the judge has released an opinion alleging unethical behaviour by lawyers working with a funder.  An article in Bloomberg Law covers the latest developments in the case of Nimitz Techs. LLC v. CNET Media, Inc., where Judge Connolly is stepping up his investigation into litigation funding practices in intellectual property lawsuits. In an opinion released on Monday, Judge Connolly stated that he would refer lawyers associated with IP Edge for ethics inquiries, arguing that the lawyers “may have perpetrated a fraud on the court by fraudulently conveying the patents asserted in this Court to a shell LLC and filing fictitious patent assignments.” Judge Connolly’s written opinion put the spotlight on the involvement of these lawyers in around 60 patent infringement suits, where IP Edge had the controlling interest in the litigation but used shell companies to hide its presence from the court. The lawsuits were filed by Nimitz Technologies, Mellaconic, and Lamplight Licensing, but Connolly argued that IP Edge was the actual entity who owned these patents and was the driving force behind the filing of these lawsuits. Connolly went on to say that IP Edge was the “de facto owner of the asserted patents”, with the use of these shell LLCs “designed to shield the real parties in interest from the potential liability they would otherwise face.” Connolly stated that he would be referring George Pazuniakis, Jimmy Chong, Andrew Curfman, and Howard Wernow, to their state bars for ethics investigations. Whilst these four lawyers worked with the LLCs, Connolly also announced that he would additionally refer three lawyers associated with IP Edge: Papool Chaudhari, Gau Bodepudi, and Duy Tran. Of these seven lawyers, only Pazuniakis responded to Bloomberg’s request for comment, stating that “plaintiffs’ counsel followed the law, and had not done anything wrong or unethical or unprofessional.”
Commercial Special Features

Member Spotlight: Maros Kravec

By John Freund |
Maros founded LitFin in 2018 after spending several years as a business director of a successful property development company in Manchester, the United Kingdom. As LitFin’s managing partner, Maros handles its day-to-day activities, business strategy and investments. Lately, his primary focus revolves around LitFin SICAV, a recently established fully-regulated fund, perhaps the first of its kind within the EU area focused on the litigation finance industry. In 2019, Maros was honored as part of Forbes' 30 Under 30, a testament to his entrepreneurial skills and influence in the business world. Furthermore, Maros is a Chambers-ranked individual for 2023 in the EU. Maros' education includes graduating with distinction in law, which he studied in Manchester (the UK) and Lund (Sweden). His international educational background has played a crucial role in shaping his career and business strategies. In addition to his professional accomplishments, Maros enjoys a variety of personal interests. He is known for his love of swimming and traveling, however, most of all he cherishes spending weekends at his countryside mansion nestled in the hills, where he can relax and unwind from his busy work schedule. Company Name and Description: LitFin Capital Company Website: https://litfin.capital/ Year Founded:  2018 Headquarters:  Prague, Czech Republic Area of Focus:  LitFin is a European complex litigation funder with a special focus on funding follow-on cases related to the private enforcement of damages within the realms of EU competition law. Member Quote: "Our mission is to use litigation funding in order to help injured individuals, companies, insolvency dispute stakeholders, and others to achieve justice, and provide our investors with outstanding returns. From the position of the pioneer in the region, LitFin shortly became one of the most considerable players in the EU funding space. We partner with investors who aim to diversify their investment portfolios while promoting positive social impact, as well as with law firms, which benefit from the potential to offer their clients alternative fee arrangements while minimizing associated risks."
Read More
Announcements Consumer

Legal-Bay Legal Funding Announces Dedication to Legal Malpractice Case Funding

By John Freund |
Legal-Bay LLC, The Lawsuit Pre-Settlement Funding Company, announced today that they have expanded their branch dedicated to various types of Legal Malpractice Cases. As an industry leader in legal funding and lawsuit funding with various types of lawsuits, Legal-Bay is one of the go-to funders in the legal malpractice arena. This is due to the lawsuit settlement funding company's expertise and success in helping both law firms and clients obtain the resources they need to fight and win their cases. Most legal funding companies and lawsuit loan companies do not offer law suit cash advances on legal malpractice suits, mostly out of a desire to avoid commercial litigation and the complexities that come with it. However, Legal-Bay accepts these challenges with ease, knowing they employ an experienced underwriting and investment team that understands these cases well. With this knowledge comes the ability to get their clients the lawsuit cash advances they need now, regardless of how complex the case is in nature. Many legal malpractice claims arise when an attorney's decision, action, or misstep results in a loss for their client. These items can include various elements such as missing a statute of limitation filing date, not accepting a settlement agreement, or gross negligence of some kind. The client impacted by the event may then seek to recover said loss, by filing a legal malpractice lawsuit. Chris Janish, CEO of Legal-Bay, commented, "Too often, we encounter plaintiffs who've suffered grave consequences due to judiciary missteps on their lawyer's behalf. It is for this reason we are prioritizing these cases and giving them the attention—and capital—they deserve. If you are someone who's been impacted by lawyer misconduct or legal misconduct, please don't hesitate to contact Legal-Bay today, regardless if your legal malpractice claim has been denied by other lawsuit funding companies."  Legal-Bay considers themselves the best lawsuit funding company in the industry when it comes to this market. Commercial litigation cases can be tricky and very expensive to get approved, but with Legal-Bay's experienced team they are able to fund many of these cases for significant value. This not only includes plaintiff funding, but also case cost funding, and expert witness cost funding for legal malpractice cases. To learn more, or to apply for your legal malpractice pre-settlement cash advance or legal malpractice settlement cash advance now, please visit Legal-Bay's page dedicated solely to these types of cases, at: https://lawsuitssettlementfunding.com/legal-malpractice.php Legal-Bay's pre settlement funding programs are designed to provide immediate cash in advance of a plaintiff's anticipated monetary award. Anyone who has an existing legal malpractice lawsuit or thinks they might have a legal malpractice suit and needs cash now can apply. Due to the fact that the law suit loans don't need to be repaid unless you win your case, presettlement funding is a risk-free way to get some much-needed cash in your hands—sometimes within mere hours. Legal-Bay reminds plaintiffs that these lawsuit cash advances, lawsuit loans, or legal malpractice fundings are extremely beneficial in helping to cover expenses due to the malpractice or misconduct at hand. Legal-Bay also assists law firms with case cost expenses, trial cost expenses, or expert witness cost expenses to help lawyers prosecute commercial litigation or legal malpractice claims.  Legal Malpractice filings have been on the rise over the last few years. Legal-Bay believes the average settlement amount or value for legal malpractice is in the $175K area, however these amounts can be much higher or lower in the $100K range.  Legal-Bay typically receives inquiries from people asking for a lawsuit loan, loan on lawsuit, loan on settlement, loans on pre settlements, presettlement funding, settlement funding, legal funding, settlement cash advances, or how to get lawsuit money early. Legal-Bay reminds people that their cash advances are not a lawsuit loan, a loan on a pending lawsuit, a settlement loan, or a presettlement loan. They are simply pre-settlement cash advances that one only has to pay back if they win their case. If a client loses their case, there is absolutely no recourse. To apply right now for the quick approval process on your legal malpractice funding request, please call Legal-Bay's 24-hour hotline at 877.571.0405 or visit: https://lawsuitssettlementfunding.com/legal-malpractice.php
Read More
Commercial Legal Innovation

BusinessToday Names Top 10 Most Influential UK Litigation Funding Lawyers

By John Freund |
A recent feature from BusinessToday examines the UK litigation funding market, putting the spotlight on those individuals whose expertise facilitate these funding deals and work to reach successful resolutions for their clients. The article lists 10 of the leading professionals in the UK industry, with the list considering these lawyers’ ‘backgrounds, achievements, and distinctive qualities.’ The 2023 list includes the following individuals:
  • Steven Friel, CEO, Woodsford
  • Timothy Mayer, senior investment manager, Litigation Capital Management
  • Harshiv Thakerar, chief investment officer, Asertis
  • Ayse Yazir ACII, global head of origination, Bench Walk Advisors
  • Ian Madej, founder and CEO, Asertis
  • Tets Ishikawa, managing director, LionFish
  • Adrian Chopin, managing director, Bench Walk Advisors
  • Louis Young, co-founder, Augusta Ventures
  • Roberth Rothkopf, managing partner, Balance Legal Capital
  • Charlie Morris, chief investment officer, Woodsford
BusinessToday concludes its list by stating that the growth of the UK litigation funding market ‘owes much to the innovative work of these highly experienced and accomplished lawyers.’
Case Developments Commercial

US Judge Grants Argentina a Delay in Enforcement for $16.1 Billion Award in YPF Case

By John Freund |
The multi-billion dollar award in the YPF case has been one of the biggest stories involving litigation funding in 2023, with Burford Capital looking to recoup impressive returns from its investment, while the Argentine government continues in its efforts to delay or avoid paying the massive sum.  An article from Bloomberg and shared by Yahoo Finance provides an update on the case of Petersen Energia Inversora SAU. v. Argentine Republic, as US District Judge Loretta Preska has granted Argentina a short delay in the enforcement of the $16.1 billion award. Argentina is still appealing the award and Preska has ordered Argentina to ‘seek expedited consideration from the higher court, the Second US Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan.’ Preska agreed to a suspension of enforcement without an appeal bond until 5 December, on the condition that Argentina pledges its 51% equity interest in YPF and receivables connected to the Yacyretá Dam, which was jointly built by Argentina and Paraguay. The equity stake in YPF is reportedly valued between $2.35 billion and $3.05 billion, whilst payments from Paraguay for the damn could provide another $2 billion, if securitized.  Burford Capital, who funded the YPF lawsuit, could be set to receive up to $6.2 billion from the award.
Case Developments Commercial

CAT Certifies Woodsford-Funded Opt-Out Claim Against Playstation

By John Freund |
In the months following the UK Supreme Court’s PACCAR decision, industry observers have been patiently waiting to see how the courts’ handling of group actions would be affected. Today’s decision from the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) certifying a funded opt-out claim will likely be viewed as a major victory for UK funders in the post-PACCAR world. An article from CDR covers the news that the CAT has certified the opt-out claim brought against Playstation, which focuses on allegations that the video gaming company unlawfully overcharged consumers for its digital products on the Playstation store. Alex Neil, the class representative for the claim, stated that the CAT’s decision to certify the claim was “the first step in ensuring consumers get back what they’re owed as a result of Sony breaking the law.” The CAT’s decision has added significance, as this class action is being funded by Woodsford and is the first claim of its kind to receive full certification following the Supreme Court’s PACCAR ruling. Sony had objected to the claim being certified, citing both the nature of the third-party funding for the case and the merits of the claim being brought against them. Milberg London’s Natasha Pearman, who is representing the claimants, said that they hoped “the certification of our claim provides some clarity as to acceptable litigation funding agreements in the post-PACCAR environment for opt-out claims.” Pearman used the decision to highlight the fact that “litigation funding is integral to the collective action regime”, and emphasised that these funded claims “provide a route to accessing justice that simply doesn’t exist otherwise.” Charlie Morris, chief investment officer at Woodsford, celebrated the CAT’s decision to certify the claim in the wake of the PACCAR ruling, and decried Sony’s attempts to “advance numerous unmeritorious and opportunistic arguments, all of which unsurprisingly failed.” In a warning shot to other defendants looking to exploit the Supreme Court’s ruling on litigation funding, Morris suggested that they should “resolve meritorious actions in a speedy and cost-efficient way rather than spending millions on spurious and ultimately unsuccessful satellite disputes aimed solely at stymying access to justice.”
Announcements Commercial Fundraising

Armadillo Litigation Funding Announces Additional $250 Million in Lending Capacity

By John Freund |
Armadillo Litigation Funding, LLC (together with its affiliates, "Armadillo") is pleased to announce that it has secured an additional $250 million in lending capacity. This $250 million, when combined with Armadillo's existing lending capacity, brings Armadillo's total available lending capacity to over $630 million. In March 2022, Armadillo announced that it had raised $750 million of which $446 million has been deployed in 20 loans, not including an additional $150 million in Armadillo led third party syndications. Nick Johnson, Armadillo's Founder and CEO, said, "This additional $250 million demonstrates the market's continued confidence in Armadillo and its ability to successfully invest capital in the law firm lending space. We are excited to begin deploying this capital, and any other new capital commitments, with leading U.S. plaintiff law firms including new borrowers." Armadillo is targeting another $250 million in additional lending capacity in 2024. Armadillo believes that this anticipated new capital, along with the recently secured $250 million, will enable it to continue to deploy capital well into 2025 and beyond. About Armadillo Litigation Funding Armadillo Litigation Funding provides financing to US law firms participating in mass tort, consumer, and commercial litigation, law firm service providers and commercial claims through a UK funding partner. Armadillo offers general obligation loans secured by the borrowers' interests in current and future awards including, but not limited to, contingent fees. Armadillo's targeted loan size is generally $10 million to $100 million per individual client.
Read More
Announcements Commercial Legal Innovation

LITFINCON Expands Its Horizon: Announcing LITFINCON Los Angeles in 2024

By John Freund |
Siltstone Capital is thrilled to bring LITFINCON to 90210. LITFINCON, the leading litigation finance summit held annually in Houston, Texas, brings together global legal and financial experts to discuss innovations, strategies, trends, and emerging opportunities in the growing ecosystem of litigation finance. This event also stands as the premier platform for networking and sharing insights in the litigation finance space. Today, we are thrilled to announce LITFINCON's expansion to Los Angeles, marking a pivotal moment in the industry. LITFINCON has consistently brought together diverse professionals, including litigators, general counsel, law firm partners, funders, investors, insurance professionals, investors, and judges. We look forward to replicating this mix in Los Angeles—one of the busiest legal hubs in the world. Attendees can anticipate exclusive networking events, two engaging days of insightful panel discussions, the much-anticipated return of the Judicial Panel, and a delightful comedic segment during "Law, Lunch & Laughs." "We are honored to bring LITFINCON to Los Angeles, home to legendry trial lawyers and some of the busiest court systems in our country. We look forward to paying tribute to those furthering access to justice in California – while also providing the industry-leading content you have come to expect from LITFINCON," says Mani Walia, General Counsel & Managing Partner at Siltstone Capital. LITFINCON LA's venue is The Maybourne Beverly Hills, a symbol of West Coast elegance, perfectly located adjacent to Rodeo Drive. Guests can indulge in top-tier dining and services, staying at Tatler's 2023 selection for "Best City Hotel." Siltstone Capital, the organizer of LITFINCON, is a top-tier niche alternative small business that provides funding solutions for litigants, law firms, and legal teams, aiming to support plaintiffs with the financial resources to assert and protect their rights. Learn more about Siltstone Capital at www.siltstonecapital.com. For further details about LITFINCON Los Angeles, please visit our website at www.litfincon.com/losangeles. To watch the highlight video of LITFINCON II, visit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiTgarzX-zs. For media and sponsorship inquiries, please contact Ally Herebic at allyson.herebic@siltstone.com.
Read More
Announcements Commercial Deals

Woodsford Funds £Multibillion Claim Filed Against Sony Group

By John Freund |
The UK specialist competition court has today certified the legal claim brought by consumer rights expert Alex Neill, on behalf of 8.9 million Playstation customers The lawsuit was filed in August 2022 alleging Sony has abused its dominant position in the market by charging excessive prices to its customers for games and in-app purchases. It is the first claim of its kind to be fully certified by the courts following the landmark funding ruling by the Supreme Court in PACCAR that held that litigation funding agreements which provide a return to the funder based on a percentage of the damages awarded to the class are damages based agreements which are not permitted in opt-out collective actions Today, 21 November 2023, in a judgment handed down by the Competition Appeal Tribunal: (CAT), Alex Neill has been granted approval to go to trial with a £5bn claim against Sony Playstation. This marks a significant first victory for the claimants as Sony lost their battle to block the claim on both the merits of the case and the funding arrangements. The claim, first filed in the CAT in August 2022, is an opt- out group legal action and it argues that the games console giant breached competition law by unlawfully overcharging PlayStation customers. The claim sees Sony accused of abusing its market dominant position to impose unfair terms and conditions on PlayStation game developers and publishers, which results in excessive and unfair prices for consumers every time they buy digital games or ingame content from the PlayStation Store. It is alleged that this has resulted in 8.9m UK consumers being overcharged for their digital gaming purchases by potentially as much as £5 billion over the last six years. Alex Neill, the Class Representative for the claim, said:  “This is the first step in ensuring consumers get back what they’re owed as a result of Sony breaking the law. Playstation gamers’ loyalty has been taken advantage of by Sony who have been charging them excessive prices for years. “It is significant that the competition court has recognised Sony must explain its actions by ordering them to trial. With this action we are seeking to put a stop to this unlawful conduct and ensure customers are compensated.” This judgment means the claim has been certified by the CAT and can now proceed to a full trial. This is the first consumer claim of its kind to achieve certification for its funding arrangements in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling in the PACCAR case. The ruling has made waves in the litigation funding industry as it means that Litigation Funding Agreements with a percentage-based fee cannot be used to fund opt-out collective proceedings that come before the CAT. Natasha Pearman, the partner leading the litigation and head of competition litigation at Milberg London LLP, said: “We are delighted to have achieved certification for our claim against Sony. Companies who break the law must be held to account and we are determined to ensure this happens and consumers get access to justice. We hope that the certification of our claim provides some clarity as to acceptable litigation funding agreements in the post-PACCAR environment for optout claims. Litigation funding is integral to the collective action regime. When a company as large as Sony breaks the rules consumers often have no idea it is even happening, let alone have the resources to take them on – litigation funding helps to level the playing field. That is why group legal claims like ours are so important, they provide a route to accessing justice that simply doesn’t exist otherwise.” Charlie Morris, Chief Investment Officer for Woodsford, commented: “Woodsford is proud to be funding Alex Neill and delighted that this is the first collective action where the funding arrangements have been approved following the seminal Supreme Court decision in PACCAR. Sony sought to advance numerous unmeritorious and opportunistic arguments, all of which unsurprisingly failed.  Defendants to these actions would be better advised to resolve meritorious actions in a speedy and cost-efficient way rather than spending millions on spurious and ultimately unsuccessful satellite disputes aimed solely at stymying access to justice.” Anyone who has purchased digital games or in-game content in the UK on their console, via the PlayStation Store between 19 August 2016 to 19 August 2022, is automatically included and potentially entitled to compensation. These customers do not need to take any further action at this stage. Those impacted are encouraged to sign-up at www.playstationyouoweus.co.uk to be kept up to date on the case. About Milberg London LLP Milberg London is at the forefront of group actions law and practice. It is instructed in some of the most significant multiparty cases ever to be heard before the courts in this jurisdiction. Milberg London and its partners are ranked in London’s top legal directories; Chambers and Partners and The Legal500.  Home | Milberg London About Woodsford  Since 2010 Woodsford has been helping to hold big business to account for their egregious behaviour. Whether it is helping consumers achieve collective redress when businesses abuse their market dominance, ensuring that inventors and universities are properly compensated when Big Tech infringes intellectual property rights, or helping shareholders in collaborative, escalated engagement up to and including litigation with listed companies, Woodsford is committed to ensuring that companies are held to the highest environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) standards and helping deliver access to justice. Woodsford - ESG, access to justice and litigation finance.
Read More
Commercial Deals

Uinta Investment Partners to Merge with Alternative Income Solutions

By John Freund |
In an announcement on 17 November, Uinta Investment Partners revealed that it would be merging with Alternative Income Solutions (AIS), with the merger set to take place on 1 January 2024. The new company will operate under the Uinta Investment Partners, LLC brand, and will ‘provide enhanced resources, focus, and growth at a time when opportunities for deploying capital are both quite attractive and more plentiful.’ Uinta is a multi-family office based out of California, founded in 2017 by Gavin James and Don Plotsky, offering financial products and solutions to institutional, wholesale and retail clients. Uinta’s flagship fund, Uinta Income Fund, LP, was launched in Q2 of 2017 and focuses on consumer litigation finance investments.  AIS was founded in 2019 by Andrew Saunders and Don Plotsky, and launched its Alternative Income Solutions – Foundation Fund, LP, to provide ‘a diversified portfolio of specialty finance opportunities’. This fund will continue to be managed by Saunders and Plotsky after the merger, but will be renamed as the Alternative Income Solutions Fund, LP. Saunders is also the co-founder and president of Castle Hill Capital Partners, a strategic marketing and capital raising firm, which will continue to support the new Uinta Investment Partners company with compliance and marketing services.  Inquiries about the merger can be directed to: info@uintapartners.com
Commercial Deals

Inweasta Expands with Launch of Dubai Branch

By John Freund |
In December of last year, LFJ reported on the launch of Inweasta, a boutique investment company with a focus on litigation finance and cross-border litigation management. Following last month’s news that Inweasta’s founder, Andrey Elinson, had departed A1 to dedicate his time to the firm, we are already seeing signs of its strategy for global expansion.  Reporting by Gulf News covers the announcement that Inweasta has opened its first office in the Middle East. The new branch has been set up in the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC), and will allow Inweasta to provide distressed asset management (DAM) services to companies operating in Dubai. This latest expansion adds to Inweasta’s global footprint, having already established presences in Paris, Hong Kong, Vienna, and Istanbul. Explaining the decision to open an office in the DIFC, Elinson highlighted its “strategic location and business-friendly policies”, describing it as “an ideal platform for Inweasta to expand its operations and cater to a diverse clientele.” Elinson went on to say that the Dubai branch is already live and operational, with the regional division aiming to “ensure convenience for clients seeking a wide spectrum of services, including consulting, legal, and investment solutions." According to Inweasta’s website, the Middle East office will be led by Timur Unarokov, who also serves as the company’s CEO.