Burying our heads in the clouds

Did you see the 2004 film “Head in the Clouds“? I did not! But if you had you would know that the protagonists face unpalatable choices in 1930s Europe. In fact I had never heard of it until told about it by a lunch companion last week who raved about it. Whether it is any good or not, I do not know but a film with Charlize Theron and Penélope Cruz in it has something going for it in any event, I thought.

Apparently the film received poor reviews and has presumably sunk without trace. A pity, as I would have liked to see it now it has been drawn to my attention.

Burying your head in the sand is an evocative euphemistic expression of a failure to acknowledge or confront a problem. Ostriches are supposed to bury their heads in the sand but do not actually do so. The theoretical behaviour attributed to them derives from Pliny the Elder who wrote that ostriches are so stupid that they imagine that when their head is hidden the viewer cannot see the rest of them either! They have no need for this ridiculous attitude as they are very fast when threatened and expert at camouflage in the right terrain and have a fearsome kick which can seriously injure and even kill.

Continue reading

It’s behind you

Continuing last month’s seasonal theme (Mirror, mirror on the wall 19th November), I was delighted to see that there is a website dedicated to all things panto called www.its-behind-you.com

Fairy godmothers and magic lamps do not feature much, I suspect, in the setting up of vehicles to provide outside funding to litigants who cannot afford to fund their cases. It is far too serious a business for that. It is also a business whose time has come. One lawyer commented to me that “everyone is jumping on the bandwagon now” and I was engaged in a detailed discussion on the subject with another guest last night at the launch of two new offices of European Business Lawyers, Miller Rosenfalck LLP.  True to the aims of the firm, the new offices being celebrated were in different parts of the world as far apart as Norwich and New York. No surprise that I was invited to the party in Norwich and not in New York, but there you go! It was a very good party! 

Continue reading

Funder bolt and lightning

Less than half the funds sought by putative litigation funder Burford Capital were subscribed last month as the London market’s second biggest listing of the year flopped.

Only £80 million was provided by investors in the IPO on the AIM market. Burford had sought £200 million.

The company needed the money to fund commercial disputes in the US. While £80 million is a sizeable sum, Burford will not be able to fund many pieces of litigation in the US with it especially if they have a high threshold below which they will not contemplate lending.

I am a fan of litigation funding in the right circumstances and I hope that this lack of interest on the part of investors does not presage a more general malaise in the market for funds to support litigation. The fear must be that, when coupled with the outcome of the House of Lords case in July involving Stone & Rolls and Moore Stephens (see Third party funding and the credit crunch, 15th Sept.), we may be seeing the start of an increasing reluctance by the financial markets and private investors to become involved in this type of venture — which I think would be a shame.

Third party funding and the credit crunch

By way of a postscript to the preceding post ‘Too early to say‘, I have noticed at least one upturn in activity. 

The market for Third Party Litigation Funding is increasingly in the news, whether because of cases like Stone & Rolls v Moore Stephens in the House of Lords in July or probably because there is a feeling that there is some mileage in this form of funding and money to be made by those who are prepared to do the hard work and raise the funds/take the risk.

Continue reading