Paul B. Haskel
Overview
Paul B. Haskel is a partner in the New York office of Crowell & Moring. His practice focuses on the field of secondary distressed and high-yield debt transactions. He represents investment funds, investment banks, broker-dealers, and other financial institutions in connection with the purchase and sale of various U.S. and international distressed assets. These assets include, among other things, domestic and foreign bank loans, high-yield securities, and claims against bankruptcy estates, litigation trusts, SIPA trusts, and similar liquidating vehicles. He also advises clients on regulatory compliance issues relevant to financial institutions investing in bank loans and claims, including issues arising under U.S. securities law and state common law.
Career & Education
- Cornell University, B.A., 1985
- Columbia Law School, J.D., 1988
- New York
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Professional Activities and Memberships
- Committee Member, The Loan Syndications and Trading Association
Paul's Insights
Client Alert | 8 min read | 11.28.23
Update on English Litigation Funding Agreements Since PACCAR
In this alert we discuss recent developments in the regulation of third party funding since R (on the application of PACCAR Inc & Ors) v Competition Appeal Tribunal & Ors [2023] UKSC 28, (“PACCAR”) which we discussed in our prior alert. In Alex Neill Class Representative Limited v Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Limited et al. [2023] CAT 73, the first analysis of a third-party litigation funding agreement (“LFA”) to take place since PACCAR, finding that an optional payment mechanism based on a cut of damages “only to the extent enforceable and permitted by applicable law” will not render the whole LFA an unenforceable damages-based agreement (“DBA”). Meanwhile, the government intends to enact a legislative amendment to make non-lawyer LFAs for group opt-out competition proceedings enforceable, but calls have quickly begun for the government to go further.
Publication | 11.27.23
Speaking Engagement | 10.28.23
Client Alert | 9 min read | 08.01.23
Representative Matters
- Represented a major U.S. investment bank in connection with its sale of several multibillion dollar portfolios of syndicated revolving loans to foreign investors pursuant to “true sale” participation agreements.
- Represented a major multi-strategy hedge fund in connection with providing non-recourse litigation financing to several contingency law firms representing municipal agencies victimized by defendants in the ongoing Ohio opioid MDL.
- Represented multiple private equity and hedge funds in their diligence and acquisition of PG&E Corp. insurance subrogation claims.
- Advised a private equity firm in connection with several “loan-to-own” transactions focused on distressed businesses, including a national restaurant chain and a global hospitality provider.
- Represented a hedge fund in connection with providing a non-recourse litigation financing facility in excess of $30 million to a major Wall Street law firm to finance a large portfolio of environmental remediation and damages cases against various U.S. municipalities.
- Represented a private equity fund in connection with a joint venture with a claims broker to acquire and manage Visa/Mastercard portfolio in antitrust class action claims.
Paul's Insights
Client Alert | 8 min read | 11.28.23
Update on English Litigation Funding Agreements Since PACCAR
In this alert we discuss recent developments in the regulation of third party funding since R (on the application of PACCAR Inc & Ors) v Competition Appeal Tribunal & Ors [2023] UKSC 28, (“PACCAR”) which we discussed in our prior alert. In Alex Neill Class Representative Limited v Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Limited et al. [2023] CAT 73, the first analysis of a third-party litigation funding agreement (“LFA”) to take place since PACCAR, finding that an optional payment mechanism based on a cut of damages “only to the extent enforceable and permitted by applicable law” will not render the whole LFA an unenforceable damages-based agreement (“DBA”). Meanwhile, the government intends to enact a legislative amendment to make non-lawyer LFAs for group opt-out competition proceedings enforceable, but calls have quickly begun for the government to go further.
Publication | 11.27.23
Speaking Engagement | 10.28.23
Client Alert | 9 min read | 08.01.23
Paul's Insights
Client Alert | 8 min read | 11.28.23
Update on English Litigation Funding Agreements Since PACCAR
In this alert we discuss recent developments in the regulation of third party funding since R (on the application of PACCAR Inc & Ors) v Competition Appeal Tribunal & Ors [2023] UKSC 28, (“PACCAR”) which we discussed in our prior alert. In Alex Neill Class Representative Limited v Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Limited et al. [2023] CAT 73, the first analysis of a third-party litigation funding agreement (“LFA”) to take place since PACCAR, finding that an optional payment mechanism based on a cut of damages “only to the extent enforceable and permitted by applicable law” will not render the whole LFA an unenforceable damages-based agreement (“DBA”). Meanwhile, the government intends to enact a legislative amendment to make non-lawyer LFAs for group opt-out competition proceedings enforceable, but calls have quickly begun for the government to go further.
Publication | 11.27.23
Speaking Engagement | 10.28.23
Client Alert | 9 min read | 08.01.23