States Increasingly Approve of Litigation Financing

Since its inception in the United States approximately twenty years ago, alternative litigation financing (“ALF”) has grown exponentially.  A 2017 survey found that nearly 30 percent of attorneys in private practice had used ALF compared to 7 percent a few years earlier. Michael F. Alyward, “Beyond Champerty: The Rise of Third Party Litigation Funding”, 2017 University of Michigan Law School Symposium (October 20, 2017).

Many jurisdictions initially sought to block or limit ALF, generally relying on common law doctrines such as barratry, champerty and maintenance. In recent years, many jurisdictions have rethought their resistance to ALF as its benefits have become widely acknowledged among practitioners and academics.

Massachusetts’s Supreme Judicial Court in 1997 declared that the doctrine of champerty would no longer be recognized.  Other states, including Arizona, California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Texas take the position that the doctrine of champerty was never adopted, and thus, it does not apply.   The Wall Street Journal noted in 2014 that the litigation funding “climate looks friend[ly] in Illinois,” and that restrictions on third-party litigation financing have been “relaxed or abolished” in a number of other states, including Texas, South Carolina, Massachusetts and Florida. Eighteen states explicitly permit champerty in some form.

It has been reported that Alabama, Colorado, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania are among the states that are most hostile to ALF. Litigation funding is restricted wholly or part in 20 states.  “Beyond Champerty”, supra.

Some states require particular disclosures in connection with ALF arrangements.  New York has not eliminated the doctrine of champerty in its entirety but encourages more disclosure.  The New York City Bar Association identified a number of elements of funding agreements which should be disclosed.  Similarly, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Maryland require certain disclosures to funding clients pursuant to their state bar ethics committees. The American Bar Association also issued a cautiously favorable opinion regarding ALF subject to “full, candid disclosure of all of the associated risks and benefits”.  ABA Comm’n on Ethics 20/20, White Paper on Alternative Litigation Finance 17-40 (2011), http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/ethics_2020/20111019_draft_alf_white_paper_posting.pdf.

The doctrines of champerty, maintenance, and the like remain on the books in a majority of states, but those doctrines are not necessarily dispositive on the issue of ALF within those jurisdictions.  Massachusetts and Florida, for example, are among the thirty jurisdictions (twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia) that maintain prohibitions against both the assignment of personal injury claims as well as the assignment of the proceeds from any such claims. One commentator recently noted that “[t]oday, third-party funding is governed in the United States by a patchwork of relatively weak laws, cases, rules, and regulations—and they are only in force in a handful of states. The requirements of specific jurisdictions need to be closely examined, as this issue continues to evolve.

For further information, please feel free to contact Roni A. Elias, who leads the litigation finance team at TownCenter Partners, LLC, a boutique litigation funding company that funds plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ law firms nationwide.  TownCenter Partners, LLC is a litigation funder with a social mission and continues to level the playing field in litigation. Mr. Elias can be reached at roni@yourtcp.com or (703) 570-5264. © 2018 Roni A. Elias. All rights reserved.

Topics:  Litigation finance, state approval, trends, third-party funding, alternative litigation finance.

TownCenter Partners is Growing its Team

(As seen in Litigation Finance Journal)
TownCenter Partners LLC (TCP) is experiencing tremendous growth and is seeking new team members to add to its Justice team. TCP is a Virginia-based Consumer and Commercial litigation funder.

TCP is seeking a marketing/law firm Liaison to increase the amount of cases for review, and 2 legal team members for underwriting and case review, as well as 1 capital raising team member for TCP litigation funds.

Book an Appointment Online with Lead Asset Manager, Roni Elias, via this link:
https://meetme.so/LitigationfinanceTownCenter Partners LLC, Litigation Finance for All Case TypesOur Mission Is Justice™
Invest In Justice™ 
Love the Way You Shop™
Financial Power for Legal Success™

Mr. Roni A. Elias
MBA, JD, LLM, CCIM
Asset Manager
Direct Dial Office: 703-570-5264
Mobile: 407-383-4705
Fax Number: 1-866-788-2542
Conference Call Dial-In: 1-866-820-7151.  No Pin Required.TownCenter Partners LLC
1390 Chain Bridge Road,
Suite A101
McLean, Virginia(VA) 22101

The Current State of ALF Regulation

The federal government does not regulate alternative litigation financing (“ALF”) at all, and only Maine (Maine Consumer Credit Code Legal Funding Practices, Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 9-A, §§12-101 to -107 (2012)), Ohio (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1349.55 (West 2012)), Nebraska (Nonrecourse Civil Litigation Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§25-3301 to -3309 (West 2013)), have codified ALF regulation in their respective states.

The State of New York has a quasi-regulatory regime based on a 2005 agreement between the Attorney General of the State of New York and nine ALF companies regarding certain practices in the State.  (Bureau of Consumer Frauds and Protection, Attorney Gen. of the State of N.Y., Assurance of Discontinuance Pursuant to Executive Law § 63(15), pp. 4-7 (2005) available at http://www.americanlegalfin.com/alfasite2/documents/ALFAAgareementWithAttorneyGeneral.pdf. One New York court expressed its dismay at the Attorney General for giving ALF his “blessing.”  Echeverria v. Estate of Linder, No. 018666/2002, 2005 WL 1083704, at 8 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 2, 2005) (“While the Attorney General seems to have given these types of funding institutions his blessing through signing an agreement with them, the Court feels that the effects of these types of institutions on the legal system and the judiciary need to be examined in further detail in order to determine whether this type of business practice is more of a benefit or detriment to society as a whole.”).

The New York City Bar Association (“NYCBA”) also released an opinion regarding ALF. This opinion reminds attorneys to be vigilant of the ethical pitfalls associated with this means of funding a lawsuit.  New York City Bar Association’s Committee on Professional Ethics Formal Opinion 2011-2.  The American Bar Association also addressed the ethical and legal issues regarding ALF.  Laurel S. Terry, “Globalization and the ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20: Reflections on Missed Opportunities and the Road Not Taken,” Hofstra Law Review: Vol. 43; Issue 1 (2014),
available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol43/iss1/3.

This area of the law continues to evolve rapidly, with proposals regarding a variety of aspects of ALF pending in a number of states and at the federal level.

For further information, please feel free to contact Roni A. Elias, who leads the litigation finance team at TownCenter Partners, LLC, a boutique litigation funding company that funds plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ law firms nationwide.  TownCenter Partners, LLC is a litigation funder with a social mission and continues to level the playing field in litigation. Mr. Elias can be reached at roni@yourtcp.com or (703) 570-5264. © 2018 Roni A. Elias. All rights reserved.

Topics:  Litigation finance, portfolio financing, portfolio funding, third-party funding, alternative litigation finance, state regulation, American Bar Association, New York.

Recent Developments in Litigation Financing and Discovery

Most federal courts that have considered whether communications involving litigation funding arrangements are discoverable have held that those materials are either immaterial, privileged, or protected by the work product doctrine. See, e.g., Kaplan v. SAC Capital Advisors, LP, No. 12-cv-09350 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2015) (funding agreement immaterial); Devon IT, Inc. v. IBM Corp., No. 10-2899, 2012 WL 4748160 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 27, 2012) (common interest privilege applied); Viamedia, Inc. v. Comcast Corp., No. 1:16-cv-05486, 2017 WL 2834535, at *3 (N.D. Ill. June 30, 2017) (litigation funding documents were protected as attorney work product).[1]  State courts are generally in agreement.  See, e.g., Carlyle Investment Management L.L.C. v. Moonmouth Company, S.A., C.A. No. 7841-VCP (Del. Chancery Ct., February 24, 2015).  

While some courts have ordered litigation funding documents to be produced in discovery, those rulings recognized that the materials constituted work product but found that the party seeking discovery had demonstrated a “substantial need” for the documents. Odyssey Wireless, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 3:15-cv-01738, 2016 WL 7665898, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2016); In re Int’l Oil Trading Co., 548 B.R. 825, 839 (S.D. Fla. 2016).  See also, Gbarabe v. Chevron Corp., No. 14-CV-00173-SI, 2016 WL 4154849, *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2016) (litigation funding documents held subject to disclosure in connection with class certification, no work-product objection was raised).

These issues continue to evolve.  The United States Chamber of Commerce and more than two dozen other business groups in June 2017 submitted a “renewed proposal” to amend Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 to require disclosure of all compensation agreements that are “contingent on, and sourced from, any proceeds of the civil action, by settlement, judgment or otherwise”. http://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/17-cv-o-suggestion_ilr_et_al_0.pdf; https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/sites/nationallawjournal/2017/06/02/us-chamber-pushes-rule-to-expose-litigation-funding/?back=law.[2]

It was reported in November 2017 that the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure had created a subcommittee to take up a package of proposals to amend federal multidistrict litigation procedures. One of the proposals, submitted by Lawyers for Civil Justice, highlighted the pervasiveness of third-party litigation financing in MDLs. The subcommittee is expected to spend six to 12 months gathering additional information. https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/sites/nationallawjournal/2017/11/08/federal-judicial-panel-to-consider-litigation-financing-sort-of/.

In addition, HR 985, the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017, recently passed the House of Representatives and is pending in the Senate.  The bill provides:

In any class action, class counsel shall promptly disclose in writing to the court and all other parties the identity of any person or entity, other than a class member or class counsel of record, who has a contingent right to receive compensation from any settlement, judgment, or other relief obtained in the action. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/985?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22fairness+in+class+action+litigation%22%5D%7D.

For further information, please feel free to contact Roni A. Elias, who leads the litigation finance team at TownCenter Partners, LLC, a boutique litigation funding company that funds plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ law firms nationwide.  TownCenter Partners, LLC is a litigation funder with a social mission and continues to level the playing field in litigation. Mr. Elias can be reached at roni@yourtcp.com or (703) 570-5264. © 2018 Roni A. Elias. All rights reserved

Topics:  Litigation finance, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, third-party funding, alternative litigation finance, discovery, common-interest privilege, attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, pending legislation

[1] Federal courts are split regarding the application of the common interest privilege to litigation funding documents.  Leader Techs., Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., 719 F. Supp. 2d 373, 376-77 (D. Del. 2010) (common interest privilege does not apply to disclosure to funder).

[2] The U.S. Chamber of Commerce features a website dedicated to advancing the cause against litigation financing. U.S. Chamber Inst. for Legal Reform, Third Party Litigation Funding, U.S. Chamber of Com., http://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/issues/third-party-litigation-funding [http://perma.cc/73SH-UCVK. An article in the Yale Law Journal noted that “the rhetoric [on the site] could perhaps fairly be characterized as shrill”, “ear-splitting” and comprised of “refer[ring] breathlessly to litigation financing as ‘a clear and present danger to the impartial and efficient administration of civil justice in the United States.’” Tyler W. Hill, “Financing the Class: Strengthening the Class Action Through Third-Party Investment”, 125 Yale L.J. 484, 524 (2015), citing John H. Beisner & Gary A. Rubin, “Stopping the Sale on Lawsuits: A Proposal to Regulate Third-Party Investments in Litigation”, U.S. Chamber Inst. for Legal Reform 1 (2012).

 

ALF Increasingly Extends to Portfolio Financing

The emergence of “portfolio financing” is perhaps the defining recent trend in alternative litigation financing (“ALF”). Indeed, some litigation financing companies are now investing less than 15% of their litigation investment portfolios in single-case deals.

ALF historically was employed principally for class actions and individual personal injury cases. Today, commercial litigation is increasingly the focus of ALF.  Portfolio financing is a critical element of this evolution.

Portfolio financing allows attorneys – both individuals and firms – to take on large commercial disputes without unacceptable risk, and can be especially helpful to firms which are in the early stages of formation. One observer notes that “[f]irms that engage in portfolio financing can attract clients with alternative fee arrangements which offer flexibility and efficiency, attractive terms, and lower pay-out prices.” “Portfolio Litigation Financing – What’s in it for the Lawyers”, Lexology, Canada, September 24, 2017; https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=769d8b64-2770-43fd-842e-7ae97f484963.  Scholars have also documented the increasing role of ALF in allowing corporate defendants to manage their litigation risk.  See, e.g., Jonathan T. Molot, “A Market in Litigation Risk”, 76 U. Chi. L. Rev. 367 (2009).

Portfolio financing offers many well documented advantages to funders as well, such as diversifying risk, promoting an even flow of profits and losses, and providing long-range stability with predictable returns. It not only provides the potential to expand the cases which get funded, but may simultaneously help clarify the role of litigation finance in furthering access to justice by bringing within an aggregate funding portfolio claims which might not otherwise qualify for funding standing alone.  One commentator also noted that “if the litigation finance transaction is structured as portfolio financing, it may be possible to maintain the privilege if the lender only receives aggregate information about the portfolio of cases.”  Nathan M. Crystal, “Ethics Watch: Litigation Finance: An Overview of Issues and Current Developments (Part I)”, 28 S. Carolina Lawyer 12, 14 (May 2017).

For further information, please feel free to contact Roni A. Elias, who leads the litigation finance team at TownCenter Partners, LLC, a boutique litigation funding company that funds plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ law firms nationwide.  TownCenter Partners, LLC is a litigation funder with a social mission and continues to level the playing field in litigation. Mr. Elias can be reached at roni@yourtcp.com or (703) 570-5264. © 2018 Roni A. Elias. All rights reserved.

Topics:  Litigation finance, portfolio financing, portfolio funding, third-party funding, alternative litigation finance.

 

The Benefits of ALF in Class Actions

“Access to our courts is expensive—prohibitively so for the vast majority of class action plaintiffs”.  Tyler W. Hill, “Financing the Class: Strengthening the Class Action Through Third-Party Investment”, 125 Yale L.J. 484, 494 (2015).  Alternative litigation financing (“ALF”) is recognized as having the potential to not only improve access to the courts, but also make litigation more economically efficient and receptive to the traditional aims of tort and employment discrimination law.  See, e.g., Peter Charles Choharis, “A Comprehensive Market Strategy for Tort Reform”, 12 Yale J. on Reg. 435, 435 (1995).  These virtues apply to class action litigation as well.

The social benefits provided by ALF are being increasingly acknowledged.  Addressing the value of ALF, New York Supreme Court Justice Shirley Kornreich noted the “sound public policy of making justice accessible to all regardless of wealth” and recognized that the expense of litigation can otherwise deter litigation against “deep pocketed wrongdoers”.  Hamilton Capital VII LLC I v Khorrami LLP, No. 650791/2015, 2015 WL 4920281, at *5 (NY Sup Ct 17 August 2015).  See also Susan Lorde Martin, Op-Ed., “Leveling the Playing Field”, N.Y. Times (Nov. 15, 2010), http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/11/15/investing-in-someone-elses-lawsuit/leveling-the-playing-field (“Defendants in lawsuits often have insurers to finance their litigation expenses; litigation finance firms merely play that same role for plaintiffs, leveling the playing field.”)

Some observers have parsed public statements of certain litigation financiers and concluded that “litigation investors [] see their market as comprising large corporations [and] that it is politic to give class actions a wide berth”.  Deborah R. Hensler, “Third-Party Financing of Class Action Litigation in the United States: Will the Sky Fall?”, 63 DePaul L. Rev. 499, 507-508 (2014).  The evidence belies this conclusion.  ALF plays a critical and necessary role in class actions.

In perhaps the most detailed and comprehensive academic treatment to date, the “Financing the Class” journal article cited above “draws on recent literature about the benefits of third-party litigation financing”, and makes a meticulous case advocating the merits of promoting third-party financing of class actions. “Financing the Class”, id. at pp. 489, et seq.  The author – as well as other observers — note that class actions perform important compensatory and regulatory functions, and should therefore be encouraged.  ALF provides a mechanism for advancing the beneficial role of valid class actions, which might otherwise be unsustainable.  See also Jay Tidmarsh, “Can We Talk Money?”, JOTWELL (Courts Law) (Jan. 19, 2016), available at http://courtslaw.jotwell.com/can-we-talk-money/.

For further information, please feel free to contact Roni A. Elias, who leads the litigation finance team at TownCenter Partners, LLC, a boutique litigation funding company that funds plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ law firms nationwide.  TownCenter Partners, LLC is a litigation funder with a social mission and continues to level the playing field in litigation. Mr. Elias can be reached at roni@yourtcp.com or (703) 570-5264. © 2018 Roni A. Elias. All rights reserved.

Topics:  Litigation finance, portfolio financing, portfolio funding, third-party funding, alternative litigation finance, class actions.

ALF in Commercial and International Disputes

Scholars have noted that there are “three primary kinds of [alternative litigation financing (“ALF”)] companies currently operating in the market: (1) companies that finance consumers with legal claims; (2) companies that finance larger plaintiff-side commercial claims (‘business-against-business’ lawsuits); and (3) companies that provide funding to plaintiffs’ law firms.”  David Tyler Adams, “Laissez Fair: The Case for Alternative Litigation Funding and Assignment of Lawsuit Proceeds in Georgia”, 49 Ga. L. Rev. 1121, 1126 (Summer 2015), citing Steven Garber, Alternative Litigation Financing in the United States: Issues, Knowns, and Unknowns 1 (2010) available at http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_pape rs/OP306.html.

While ALF is generally viewed as funding plaintiffs involved in personal injury tort lawsuits, some ALF companies in the United States now focus their funding on large-scale commercial litigation and international disputes.  Michelle Boardman, “Insurers Defend and Third Parties Fund: A Comparison of Litigation Participation”, 8 J.L. Econ. & Pol’y 673, 676-77 (2012).  Observers have noted the significant role for ALF in these markets.  According to one article, while “[t]he market for lawsuit investment is already quite large in Australia, the U.K., and the U.S., [] it is poised for growth worldwide.”  Cassandra Burke Robertson, “The Impact of Third-Party Financing on Transnational Litigation”, 44 Case W. Res. J. Int’l L. 159 (2011).

In addition to providing funding, scholars have noted that companies providing ALF “also serve to provide [] [litigation] expertise” in developing venues, including arbitration.  Id.

To finance this expanding market, ALF companies are in turn increasingly being funded by banks.  While conventional banks do not loan funds to litigants whose only source of collateral consists of the potential proceeds from a lawsuit, some banks – including Citigroup, Commerce Bank of New Jersey, and Credit Suisse have all provided funding to LFCs — do finance ALF companies.   Binyamin Appelbaum, “Investors Put Money on Lawsuits to Get Payouts”, N.Y. Times, Nov. 14, (2010) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/business/15lawsuit.html?pagew anted=all&_r=0.

For further information, please feel free to contact Roni A. Elias, who leads the litigation finance team at TownCenter Partners, LLC, a boutique litigation funding company that funds plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ law firms nationwide.  TownCenter Partners, LLC is a litigation funder with a social mission and continues to level the playing field in litigation. Mr. Elias can be reached at roni@yourtcp.com or (703) 570-5264. © 2018 Roni A. Elias. All rights reserved.

Topics:  Litigation finance, portfolio financing, portfolio funding, third-party funding, alternative litigation finance, commercial, banks, international.

Benefits of ALF Increasingly Recognized

As information and experience regarding alternative litigation financing (“ALF”) continues to develop, new and increasingly significant benefits to both litigants and the civil justice system are being recognized.

Opponents of ALF have historically argued that use of ALF will result in ethical violations, frivolous litigation, allowing a third party to control the litigation and make decisions, an attorney abandoning his or her own judgment in favor of the ALF company’s judgment, and a waiver of the attorney-client privilege in any given case.  John Beisner, “Issues Paper Concerning Lawyers’ Involvement in Alternative Litigation Financing”, ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20. February 15, 2011. September 7, 2011. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/2011_build/ethics_2020/ comments_on_alternative_litigation_financing_issues_paper.authcheckdam.pdf.

It was recently noted that little evidence exists to support these arguments.  “The Business of Litigation Finance is Booming” (May 30, 2017), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-30/the-business-of-litigation-finance-is-booming.

Evidence of the benefits of ALF continues to mount, however.  Proponents of ALF – both plaintiffs and defendants — note that ALF may actually improve the current volume of pending cases by weeding out frivolous litigation that ALF companies deem a bad investment.  Indeed, the American Legal Finance Association recommends that member companies only provide plaintiff funding if the plaintiff has a legitimate claim and is represented by an attorney.  Working Group on Alternative Litigation Finance. “Comments: Working Group on Alternative Litigation Finance, White Paper on Alternative Litigation Finance.” American Bar Association. November 28, 2011. December 15, 2011. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/ethics_2020/20111128-alf_white_paper_comments_all. authcheckdam.pdf.

For further information, please feel free to contact Roni A. Elias, who leads the litigation finance team at TownCenter Partners, LLC, a boutique litigation funding company that funds plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ law firms nationwide.  TownCenter Partners, LLC is a litigation funder with a social mission and continues to level the playing field in litigation. Mr. Elias can be reached at roni@yourtcp.com or (703) 570-5264. © 2018 Roni A. Elias. All rights reserved.

Topics:  Litigation finance, portfolio financing, portfolio funding, third-party funding, alternative litigation finance, state regulation, ALF benefits, ALF data.

As information and experience regarding alternative litigation financing (“ALF”) continues to develop, new and increasingly significant benefits to both litigants and the civil justice system are being recognized.

Opponents of ALF have historically argued that use of ALF will result in ethical violations, frivolous litigation, allowing a third party to control the litigation and make decisions, an attorney abandoning his or her own judgment in favor of the ALF company’s judgment, and a waiver of the attorney-client privilege in any given case.  John Beisner, “Issues Paper Concerning Lawyers’ Involvement in Alternative Litigation Financing”, ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20. February 15, 2011. September 7, 2011. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/2011_build/ethics_2020/ comments_on_alternative_litigation_financing_issues_paper.authcheckdam.pdf.

It was recently noted that little evidence exists to support these arguments.  “The Business of Litigation Finance is Booming” (May 30, 2017), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-30/the-business-of-litigation-finance-is-booming.

Evidence of the benefits of ALF continues to mount, however.  Proponents of ALF – both plaintiffs and defendants — note that ALF may actually improve the current volume of pending cases by weeding out frivolous litigation that ALF companies deem a bad investment.  Indeed, the American Legal Finance Association recommends that member companies only provide plaintiff funding if the plaintiff has a legitimate claim and is represented by an attorney.  Working Group on Alternative Litigation Finance. “Comments: Working Group on Alternative Litigation Finance, White Paper on Alternative Litigation Finance.” American Bar Association. November 28, 2011. December 15, 2011. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/ethics_2020/20111128-alf_white_paper_comments_all. authcheckdam.pdf.

For further information, please feel free to contact Roni A. Elias, who leads the litigation finance team at TownCenter Partners, LLC, a boutique litigation funding company that funds plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ law firms nationwide.  TownCenter Partners, LLC is a litigation funder with a social mission and continues to level the playing field in litigation. Mr. Elias can be reached at roni@yourtcp.com or (703) 570-5264. © 2018 Roni A. Elias. All rights reserved.

Topics:  Litigation finance, portfolio financing, portfolio funding, third-party funding, alternative litigation finance, state regulation, ALF benefits, ALF data.

TownCenter Partners LLC, TCP, ANNOUNCES BAR REVIEW SCHOLARSHIP

(McLean, Virginia). TownCenter Partners LLC, TCP, today announced it is offering a scholarship for any jurisdiction of Kaplan Bar Review, course twice each year, for the February and July administrations of the bar examination. The scholarship is open to any third-year law student at an ABA-accredited law school.

TownCenter Partners, said, “The mission of the TownCenter Partners LLC, Bar Review Scholarship is to provide a free bar review course to third-year law students and recent graduates as they prepare for taking the bar examination who need the financial assistance. TownCenter Partners recognizes the importance of adequate bar examination review. Therefore, we are extremely pleased to offer this important scholarship and empower future Justice seekers.”
Interested applicants should apply directly online by going to the TownCenter Partners website and downloading the application at www.yourtcp.com/Scholarship.pdf.

About TownCenter Partners
TownCenter Partners LLC, TCP, is a boutique litigation funding company where Our Mission Is Justice. TCP makes investments in meritorious legal claims nationwide to permit litigants to defend their rights and pursue justice even though they may not have sufficient financial resources of their own to pay attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. Litigation funding is a growing enterprise that is transforming the legal system and increasing access to justice. TownCenter Partners focuses on providing investments for plaintiffs in personal injury cases and for parties in commercial cases & all case types.

TownCenter Partners, LLC • Ph: 877-238-0011 • Fax: 866-788-2542www.yourtcp.com

TownCenter Partners LLC Introduces New Online Platform for investing in Portfolio of Cases in Litigation Finance

McLean, VA. (March 8, 2018).  TownCenter Partners LLC has proudly announced the implementation of its new platform for investing in litigation finance. This investment fund is designed to provide accredited investors only a way to earn possible returns on their investment while minimizing the risks associated with litigation finance investment via a portfolio of cases.

Lawsuit funding/Litigation Finance provides non-recourse cash advances to individuals or companies or law firms projected to win a significant settlement from a lawsuit, who need funds to cover their expenses while they wait for the case to settle. Lawsuit funding/Litigation Finance enables the injured to fight for as long as it takes to win instead of accepting inadequate, unfair settlements just to pay their bills. TownCenter Partners Asset Manager, Roni Elias, said, “This fund opens the door of opportunity for smaller accredited investors to invest in this relatively new area of litigation or lawsuit funding.  The cases that will be in the portfolio are common case types with a high probability of settlement. The Fund maintains a high level of due diligence on all case types to help realize the best possible outcome. We anticipate returns to be in excess of 18% for investors and minimum investments starting at $10,000.”

For more information please visit, https://investors.yourtcp.com/

About TownCenter Partners LLC, Our Mission Is Justice

TownCenter Partners LLC helps Plaintiffs and Plaintiff’s lawyers by providing financial help in a quick and hassle-free manner. In addition, we are steadfast in keeping our financial products reasonably priced so that the injured Plaintiffs can get the help they need without struggling to pay off financially crippling debts or bills.

 TownCenter Partners help attorneys and their clients create a level financial playing field when battling defendants with deep pockets. TownCenter Partners is there to help Plaintiffs and Plaintiff’s lawyers cover costs needed in the pursuit of Justice. TCP stands with you and your client to provide financial resources, giving attorneys the time, they need to fight the battle and win. www.yourtcp.com