P&L doesn't equal cash flow. Earnings may take a hit as...

P&L doesn't equal cash flow. Earnings may take a hit as they likely have to impair balance sheet positions, but cash may still be OK, as WIP has already been paid for over the last ten years (salaries, etc.). Shine is more than just one large case.

The ruling still baffles me and it seems that JL as well as many commentators here fail to see the wood for the trees. The case took 10 (!) years. For most of this time, Shine paid everything (salaries, experts, court fees, admin expenses) upfront, out of pocket, and while taking on full case risk. Shine could have given up or settled early (which would have resulted in a much lower payout to victims). But they went all the way, at significant business risk, and achieved the best possible outcome for the mesh victims. To a certain extend, mgmt was forced to bet the firm on winning this case. The mesh victims' enemy was and is J&J, not Shine.

Of course those able and willing to finance such a risk want to get adequately compensated for the possibility of losing it all. The road is littered with law firms and litigation funders that went bust because they lost one case too many.

It's highly disturbing that JL justifies his point of view with Shine's dividend payments. According to his logic, no law firm should be allowed to pay ANY dividend or market-rate interest until ALL running cases are settled. If you think about it - his argumentation is absurd, highly political, and communist in nature. It's also extremely shortsighted, as no law firm will take on similar risk in the future, materially harming victims of future cases of similar nature.

I hope Shine will appeal and at least get somewhat compensated for necessary interest on disbursement funding. Let's hope at least some common sense will prevail in the end.