Litigation Funding Market Heats Up – WSJ

At least three start-up businesses are entering the fledgling “alternative litigation funding” market this year, according to this WSJ story today.

One of the new players is Bentham Capital LLC, which opened for business last Monday. It’s focusing on commercial and intellectual-property litigation, according to its chief investment officer, Ralph Sutton, a former lawyer at Cowan, DeBaets, Abrahams, & Sheppard. Bentham’s parent, IMF Australia Ltd., has more than 87 million Australian dollars in assets.

Another new player is John P. “Sean” Coffey, a former plaintiff lawyer at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann and a former lead trial lawyer for investors in the case against Wall Street banks arising from the collapse of the former telecom company WorldCom Inc. His start-up firm is called BlackRobe Capital Partners LLC.

via Litigation Funding Market Heats Up – Law Blog – WSJ.

Acquisition Finance Watch: Autonomy Doesn’t Come Cheap for HP | westlawbusiness.com

(Business Law Currents) Hewlett Packard’s bid for the UK’s Autonomy Corp. shows that bulldog tenacity is not the exclusive province of the Scepter’d Isle. HP has not only extended the timing of its bid but is raising an impressive war chest to fund the acquisition; choosing to issue $4.6 billion in global notes to supplement its existing certain funds package.

As with HP’s $5 billion May notes offering, HP’s Deputy General Counsel, Paul T. Porrini, passed on the notes’ validity, relying upon an opinion by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher on issues of New York law. Cravath, Swaine & Moore represented the underwriters.

Having only gained acceptance from 41.6% of Autonomy’s shareholders, HP has extended its bid until October 3 and it is putting that extra time to good use with an additional debt issue in the U.S. An unusual feature for the UK where the takeover code requires bidders to have obtained certain funds packages before making an offer.

Under the terms of the UK’s takeover code, companies offering cash consideration for a publically traded company are required to include a cash confirmation (generally from the bidder’s financial adviser) that the offer has sufficient funding in place to satisfy the full acceptance of the offer.

HP duly included a cash confirmation from Barclays Capital and Perella Weinberg Partners in its offer document that it had sufficient resources to satisfy the offer but the delay caused from the lack of acceptances appears to have opened up the possibility of obtaining additional debt funding. The additional debt funding raises the possibility of HP reducing its reliance on bank debt and even perhaps to raise its offer should a rival bidder emerge.

via Acquisition Finance Watch: Autonomy Doesn’t Come Cheap for HP.

SEC considers letting startups use social networks to raise money | VentureBeat

Federal securities regulators are considering whether to let fast-growing companies use social networks such as Facebook and Twitter to raise funding by tapping thousands of investors for small amounts of money, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The Securities and Exchange Commission may adopt rules to let internet-age technologies be used in fund-raising. The move is part of a larger review by the agency into whether to ease decades-old constraints on how companies can issue new shares to the public. The new funding techniques, known as “ crowd funding,” could usher in a new era of capital abundance for Silicon Valley’s startups.

The technique as spread from artists looking to fund their creative works to entrepreneurs trying to bootstrap companies without giving up control to venture capitalists. Typically, a company might raise $100,000 from an internet site where users could sign up to buy $100 worth of shares.

Crowd funding could be a cheap source of cash, competing with angel investors who specialize in giving seed rounds to start-ups. Since the amounts of money are small, the downside risk isn’t too bad for investors. But the trick will be in protecting the public from scammers who have no intention of following through on promises.

via SEC considers letting startups use social networks to raise money | VentureBeat.

Twitter Valued at $3.7 Billion in Funding – WSJ.com

The value of Twitter Inc., the website that allows users to send 140-character messages called “tweets,” has nearly quadrupled in the past year, according to a new investment made in the San Francisco start-up.

Twitter said Wednesday it raised a round of funding that valued it at $3.7 billion, becoming the latest young Web company in which private investors put a multibillion-dollar worth on the operation.

The rich valuation comes despite the fact Twitter is still working on ways to translate its more than 175 million registered users into a profitable business.

“There’s no question that price is well ahead of any analysis of Twitter’s business today,” said Josh Hannah, a partner at venture firm Matrix Partners

While the three-year-old company has been slowly incorporating advertising into its service it hasn’t hit upon a formula as lucrative as the models of Google Inc. and Facebook Inc., among others, analysts say.

via Twitter Valued at $3.7 Billion in Funding – WSJ.com.

Revealed: Chamber of Commerce funding effort to weaken anti-bribery law | Raw Story

The US Chamber of Commerce, which has injected massive sums into 2010 election races, is allegedly behind an massive push to weaken anti-bribery laws.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, first enacted in 1977, prohibits companies from paying bribes to foreign officials in order to retain or obtain business. Both US companies and foreign companies operating in the United States are bound by the law.

Earlier this month, the liberal blog ThinkProgress (an arm of the liberal thinktank Center for American Progress) broke the news that the Chamber’s political action fund was being underwritten by myriad high-profile multinational firms, including Paris-based insurer AXA, the Swiss bank Credit Suisse, London-based bank HSBC, and pharmaceutical firms Novartis and Sanofi-Aventis.

The list also included nine companies located in the Middle Eastern kingdom of Bahrain, including Gulf Petrochemical Industries, which is owned partly by the Bahrain, Saudi and Kuwaiti governments, and Gulf Air, the national air carrier of Bahrain owned by the government of Bahrain.

via Revealed: Chamber of Commerce funding effort to weaken anti-bribery law | Raw Story.

New Legislation Will Curb How Multinationals Can Use Foreign Tax Credits | National Law Journal

International tax lawyers are scrutinizing a state and local funding bill signed by President Barack Obama on Aug. 10 that significantly curbs how U.S. multinational corporations can use foreign tax credits.

The administration bills the changes as closing international tax loopholes for multinational companies. In practice, they’ll significantly change big companies’ tax decisions and have a far-reaching impact on foreign corporate transactions.

The provisions’ effective dates range from immediately to the tax filer’s first taxable year that starts after Dec. 31, 2011.

via New Legislation Will Curb How Multinationals Can Use Foreign Tax Credits.

Vopium Raises US$ 16.5 Million, Skype Gets Competition

A Danish VoIP technology company called  Vopium just banked US $16.5 million in funding, and has a specific aim to  gatecrash Skype’s party.

Introducing Vopium

Vopium’s angle is — surprise, surprise! — an inexpensive one. The mobile application allows users to make international calls or send SMS messages for a fraction of what traditional phone companies would charge (they claim their application can save you up to 90%). And, they don’t require users to change their current operator or SIM-card. The price of your local calls will be up to your provider, while any international calls placed will go to Vopium.

The app also supports instant messaging (MSN, Yahoo!, Skype, Google Talk, AIM, ICQ) for Android, Apple devices, Blackberry, Windows Mobile, and there is additional support for Twitter.

via Vopium Raises US$ 16.5 Million, Skype Gets Competition.

More Attorneys Exploring Third-Party Litigation Funding | NY Law Journal

Ask Louis M. Solomon where his fees are coming from these days, and you will get a complicated answer.

Solomon, who joined Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft earlier this year, counts corporations such as Bristol-Myers Squibb and PepsiCo as part of his book of business. Yet while companies like those still are generally paying his fees, lately the source of funds is not just his clients’ corporate war chests but money they received from investors looking to take stakes in the lawsuits he files for them.

Solomon, 54, is among a handful of corporate litigators handling commercial disputes with outside, third-party litigation funding. Two litigation funds have in the last three years launched initial public offerings, and both are on the lookout for U.S. litigants who would allow them to finance their cases in return for a portion of any settlement or judgment.

Juridica Investments Limited, which launched in 2007, last month reported that through March it had committed almost $123 million to 15 investments in 22 cases, one of which is in New York, according to a spokesman. Burford Capital Ltd., which went public in October, has so far invested $40 million across 10 cases, many of them international arbitrations.

But the practice of allowing outside investors into lawsuits is not without its critics. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce in October called for the prohibition of third-party litigation financing at all levels.

Selvyn Seidel, a former Latham & Watkins partner who is chairman of the investment advisor side of Burford, said the concern is understandable given the relative newness of the investment funds in the United States.

“The industry’s biggest enemy is unawareness,” he said. “And most of the lawyers in the U.S. are unaware of it.”

Third-party litigation funding is a relatively recent phenomenon in the United States, after establishing itself in Australia, then later in the United Kingdom. Until recently, in the United States it tended to focus on consumer disputes like personal injury claims, with advances of $1,750 to $4,500 in exchange for a percentage of the recovery, according to a Juridica-funded report by RAND Corporation released last month.

The newer phenomenon has been the emergence of investors like Juridica and Burford, which finance commercial claims brought by companies against other companies. While not alone in the field — Credit Suisse has a unit that invests in litigation — Juridica and Burford are two of the largest funds dedicated solely to litigation finance. Both are publicly traded on the Alternative Investment Market in the United Kingdom, where investors are likely more familiar with these types of funds.

Burford raised about $130 million in an October IPO and is looking to invest in commercial disputes. It plans to make average investments exceeding $3 million, and expects to have its capital fully committed by October 2011. Seidel declined to provide details on a suit in which Burford has invested.

via Law.com – More Attorneys Exploring Third-Party Litigation Funding.

More Attorneys Exploring Third-Party Litigation Funding | NY Law Journal

Ask Louis M. Solomon where his fees are coming from these days, and you will get a complicated answer.

Solomon, who joined Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft earlier this year, counts corporations such as Bristol-Myers Squibb and PepsiCo as part of his book of business. Yet while companies like those still are generally paying his fees, lately the source of funds is not just his clients' corporate war chests but money they received from investors looking to take stakes in the lawsuits he files for them.

Solomon, 54, is among a handful of corporate litigators handling commercial disputes with outside, third-party litigation funding. Two litigation funds have in the last three years launched initial public offerings, and both are on the lookout for U.S. litigants who would allow them to finance their cases in return for a portion of any settlement or judgment.

Juridica Investments Limited, which launched in 2007, last month reported that through March it had committed almost $123 million to 15 investments in 22 cases, one of which is in New York, according to a spokesman. Burford Capital Ltd., which went public in October, has so far invested $40 million across 10 cases, many of them international arbitrations.

But the practice of allowing outside investors into lawsuits is not without its critics. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce in October called for the prohibition of third-party litigation financing at all levels.

Selvyn Seidel, a former Latham & Watkins partner who is chairman of the investment advisor side of Burford, said the concern is understandable given the relative newness of the investment funds in the United States.

“The industry’s biggest enemy is unawareness,” he said. “And most of the lawyers in the U.S. are unaware of it.”

Third-party litigation funding is a relatively recent phenomenon in the United States, after establishing itself in Australia, then later in the United Kingdom. Until recently, in the United States it tended to focus on consumer disputes like personal injury claims, with advances of $1,750 to $4,500 in exchange for a percentage of the recovery, according to a Juridica-funded report by RAND Corporation released last month.

The newer phenomenon has been the emergence of investors like Juridica and Burford, which finance commercial claims brought by companies against other companies. While not alone in the field — Credit Suisse has a unit that invests in litigation — Juridica and Burford are two of the largest funds dedicated solely to litigation finance. Both are publicly traded on the Alternative Investment Market in the United Kingdom, where investors are likely more familiar with these types of funds.

Burford raised about $130 million in an October IPO and is looking to invest in commercial disputes. It plans to make average investments exceeding $3 million, and expects to have its capital fully committed by October 2011. Seidel declined to provide details on a suit in which Burford has invested.

via Law.com – More Attorneys Exploring Third-Party Litigation Funding.

Litigation funding helps companies not individuals, study shows – Times Online

Litigation funding has brought greater access to justice for companies but not for individuals, according to new research from Oxford and Lincoln universities today.

The findings have emerged from first academic study on whether the emergence of third party litigation funding in Britain can give people with limited means greater access to civil justice.

Litigation funders are companies capable of raising vast sums of money to allow claimants in civil litigation cases to pursue justice through the courts or arbitration. In return for their finance, the funders retain a share of any damages awarded.

Preliminary findings of the study by Dr Christopher Hodges from the University of Oxford, and Professor John Peysner and Dr Angus Nurse, from the University of Lincoln are that most of the claims levels currently involved in cases paid for by a litigation funder are relatively high, usually well in excess of £100,000.

This suggests that ordinary consumers would be unlikely to use this model, they say – concluding that a new, different model of litigation funding is needed to benefit the ordinary person in the street.

Dr Nurse said: “Much has been said about access to justice over the last decade. There is a principle in this country that everyone should have equal access to the courts but in reality that just is not the case.

via Litigation funding helps companies not individuals, study shows – Law Central – Times Online – WBLG.