A typical example of this is the situation of theft of intellectual property from a group of inventors, united in a small development company. Entering into a partnership with a company which is one of the biggest players in the market of new technologies, and failing to develop appropriate agreements, protecting the rights of inventors for the prototypes and models, belonging to them, this little company found that its intellectual property has been alienated in favor of the latter-day partners.

This small company had neither resources nor the skills for the legal protection, therefore this company applied to the fund, providing the litigation financing and received the consent for the financing of their claim. In the result of it, the specialized company began the protection of their interests. The case was successful for the inventors and for the Fund – the specialized company proved the illegality of the deeds of partners of this small company. The fund, having paid the bills for provided legal services, has become a partner in this small development company, replacing by the agreement of the parties this global, but dishonest partner.

Once two very big companies were parties in a trial. First company, being a hundred percent sure that it was right and hoping for the rapid completion of the process in its favor, did not approach with due diligence to the organization of its legal defense. In addition, during the trial it has changed the corporate lawyers (although the external specialized law firm led the mentioned case). The Court did not agree to postpone the next court session, having refused to take into account the above circumstances. The other company (its opponents) made all and every effort to delay the process, fully paid the lawyers so that to reach this aim. As a result of these actions the first company exceeded the approved budget, the Board has not given its consent to the continuation of corporate financing and proposed to apply to the Fund, providing the funding for the legal protection.

In this case, in order not to change the lawyers in the ongoing trial and taking into account the position of the judge, the Fund has financed the continuation of the same law firm. The trial has been won by the first company.

As a result of the investment agreement the Fund had received 30% of the amount of the reimbursed damage.

The Applicant has no intention to wait when the party, lost in a court will carry out the decision of the Court. Having received the Court’s decision in its favor, the Applicant shall not wait for the actual receipt of the funds to his account, instead he signs the cession agreement with the Fund. Under this agreement, the Fund acquires the right of claim to the won amount (won asset) and immediately pay to the Applicant part of this amount. After it, in the due course the Fund shall come into the lawful possession of the entire amount (entire asset), which had been supposed to go to the Applicant in line with the Court’s decision.

Firm A has won the trial court, which decision has unlocked the stake, being under the dispute. The opponent’s intention to appeal the Court’s judgment were known to the Firm A. The Firm A had neither capacity nor the desire to participate in the ongoing trials, also the Firm was not quite sure that the further decision of the Court of Appeal will also be made in its favor, therefore firm A has decided to sell the above mentioned shares at a discount price to the Fund. Accordingly, the Fund had to carry on the further costs for the protection of this asset. Firm A was satisfied that it managed to receive just a part of the asset, without the risk of the alienation of the whole of it during the upcoming session of the Court of Appeal.

This type of financing can be granted by our Fund directly to the legal entities in case the legal entity runs already the client’s case. And the client can not pay the bills of this legal company (in this particular case, we understand that the company is not willing to accept the non-cash assets of the client as the payment) . On the other hand the client of this company already has a debt to it, but categorically refuses to change a company in the process, insisting on the continuation of its work. At the same time, both sides there have clear understanding that the company will not receive anything, if it will come out of the process at this stage due to the fact that its services are not paid for, also there is understanding that its services can be paid only after the end of the process in the event of winnings. In other words, a company can get the money either through non-cash assets of the client or due to the fact that the client's assets, which are the subject of the dispute, can be unlocked in the course of a successful judgment.

In this case, the Fund may provide the legal company with the funds, sufficient to ensure that it can safely (and what is most important successfully) finalize the process. In exchange, the Fund acquires the right to a partial demand for the amount of the client's debt to the company.

Alternatively the Fund may come up with a proposal to structure the transaction in such a way that it accepts non-cash assets of the client in return for funding provided to the law firm.

This type of financing is characterized by the fact that namely law firm acts here in the role of the Applicant.