Blog

The results of the 2014 Altman Weil survey of 186 Chief Legal Officers ("CLOs") raises some interesting questions as to how CLOs will further reduce and control costs for their firms. A seven year trend of continued decreases in the use of outside counsel begs the question as to what other resources CLOs can look at to help alleviate the high costs and risks associated with litigation. It will be interesting to see the results of Altman Weil's 2015 survey and whether the litigation finance industry will see an increase in use by CLOs.

Our New York team is growing with the recent addition of David Kerstein. He is a seasoned complex commercial litigator bringing with him 15 years of experience. When David is not in the office, you may find him out and about cheering for the local NYC sports teams or enjoying his favorite dish at a local restaurant. Please join us in welcoming David to Bentham!

IMF Bentham, our parent company, provided litigation finance that led to a 2012 ruling of liability against a major ratings agency for their actions. Fast forward to 2015, where a handful of U.S. entities settled with the S&P for their part in contributing to the global financial crisis. The final portion of our two-part series summarizes these settlements that likely mark the beginning of actions in the U.S. which seek to hold credit ratings agencies accountable for deceptive ratings practices.

In the first portion of this two-part series focusing on S&P's recent settlements with various U.S. entities, we discuss how litigation finance provided in Australia by our parent company, IMF Bentham, helped light the powder keg of subsequent lawsuits and regulations that sought to make ratings agencies accountable for their part in the global financial crisis.

Insurance companies and Big Business took note when an Indiana jury handed down the largest defamation award in U.S. history - $14.5M ($17M after interest) - in favor of Joseph Radcliff and against State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. Pivotal to Radcliff's ability to withstand the course of litigation and subsequent appeals was the assistance of litigation funding from Bentham IMF. In an effort to prevent litigation finance companies from continuing to help average Joe's hold Goliath Industries accountable for their wrongdoing, Big Business is pushing to pass HB 1340 in Indiana, which upon a close reading, is overbroad, unduly restrictive, and anti-business.

In honor of our parent company, IMF Bentham, and the birthplace of the commercial litigation finance industry, Bentham's Los Angeles office hosted an Australia Day party at a pub in downtown LA. Good cheer and good grub attracted Bentham's friends and colleagues to celebrate a significant Australian holiday.

Through crowdfunding on the Internet, "Joe Public" has arrived to help David beat Goliath. David’s damages are usually under $1million, too small for consideration by Bentham but significant to David. Goliath is often the type of mighty corporate behemoth Bentham finds in larger cases. Funding these types of cases through the Internet allows Joe the opportunity to help “David” hold “Goliath” accountable.

It has been a great year for Bentham IMF and the development of the litigation funding industry in the United States. We look forward to continued success and progress in 2015!

In light of the recent decision over a litigation funder's liability for a defendants' costs on an indemnity theory in Excalibur Ventures LLC ("Excalibur") v. Psari Holdings et al (which arose out of the Excalibur v. Texas Keystone Inc, et al matter), Bentham Europe's Jeremy Marshall discusses the benefit of giving some control to a funder during the course of litigation in the December issue of Litigation Funding magazine.

Say it’s not so. Opponents of litigation funding have cried out that litigation funding will bog down the courts with an avalanche of unnecessary lawsuits. Now we have statistics compiled by Australia’s Monash Business School that the number of class actions has not increased since the introduction of litigation funding in 2001 (pioneered by Bentham, of course -- one of the reasons Bentham's founders were named one of "The Top 50 Innovators in Big Law in the Last Fifty Years".).

Professor Stephen Gillers has referenced Samuel Beckett’s absurdist play, Waiting for Godot, in choosing the title of this article that debunks two misconceptions in litigation financing. He enumerates the numerous ways there currently exist for non-lawyer involvement in litigation and surveys arguments that litigation funding gives rise to more expensive settlements and wasteful trials. Not only is Professor Gillers brilliant in his analysis and commentary but we find that in his choice of this title, he has a good sense of humor.

Bentham has been, and always will be, committed to the principle that all individuals have the right to have access to justice. Indeed, this tenet is built into Bentham’s “Code of Best Practices” which specifically sets forth that “the funder shall devote executive time and resources to pro bono projects for those unable to pay for their own legal services.” In Australia, we see this carried out in Bentham’s support of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (“PIAC”).

Bentham IMF is pleased to announce that on Thursday, October 30, 2014, senior Investment Manager Jim Batson will be leading a Continuing Law Education program with the Practicing Law Institute entitled “Accessing Justice: Ethics and Lawsuit Financing in a New Era.” As most attorneys know, the expense of bringing a case to trial for attorneys, firms, and the parties themselves can be astronomical. In this engaging and informative program, James Batson, an attorney with over 20 years of litigation expertise, will introduce the use of litigation funding as a modern means to ensure that meritorious cases get the commitment of resources they deserve. In addition to introducing the basics of litigation funding and how it can be integrated into every step of litigation strategy, Jim will address numerous Rules of Professional Responsibility and how they intersect with litigation funding.

A decade ago, Bentham’s Senior Investment Manager Jim Batson won a historic legal verdict that continues to reverberate throughout the world of litigation. That case, Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, was the first time a court opined how e-discovery such as emails should saved, managed, and produced in discovery. The case was so historic that the ABA Journal in its September 2014 issue revisits the case and Batson’s pivotal role in it. Inconceivably, prior to Zubulake, emails were not always considered “documents” under discovery rules. Today, with ever-increasing numbers of emails and other types of e-discovery (including the explosion of discoverable evidence from social media sources such as from Facebook and Twitter), the need for proper funding resources – including the use of litigation financing - to prepare one’s case is essential.

The financial and retail markets now know no borders. Corporate branding and access to social media and the Internet allow a Japanese equity trader to trade in the US markets at night from his home in Tokyo, an athlete to buy Nike’s almost anywhere in the world, and a family to eat at McDonald’s wherever they travel. This globalization will increase corporate liability to international claims, and a corollary to that will most likely be an increase the need for litigation funding. Bentham, the only litigation funder with offices on three continents, is ready to meet this need.

The strong sentiment about the advantages of arbitration has been disproven in three recent cases. In many instances, arbitration is mandatory but when there is a choice, you must carefully weigh the risk-reward of arbitration versus litigation. It isn’t always what you think.

It is one thing to claim that you are transparent but it is another thing to be transparent. In this blog we've taken a selfie together with our parent company in Australia. We discuss two recent investments in cases that have been realized and where litigation funding provided access to justice.

Since its launch in 2001, Bentham IMF has served as a thought leader for the commercial litigation finance industry. This past year, Bentham IMF in the US has initiated a series of roundtables, where distinguished academics and lawyers discussed critical issues and best practices for the industry. In the first half of 2014, Bentham IMF co-hosted a roundtable at Stanford University’s Center for the Legal Profession. The results of our thinking coming out of this roundtable were interesting.

You can take it with you, or perhaps you cannot take it with you. Is unfinished business the property of a defunct firm that has closed involuntarily and therefore subject to attachment by creditors or is unfinished business the property of the partners of a firm that closed voluntarily and who have moved on to a new firm? We’ve reviewed four decisions where the circumstances of a firm’s closing impacts the right to unfinished business profits.