Trending Now
Commercial

Access to Justice for Developing Countries: Third Party Funding for Sovereigns in WTO Disputes

October 4, 2017

Access to Justice for Developing Countries: Third Party Funding for Sovereigns in WTO Disputes

Guest Post by Mauritius Nagelmueller, who has been involved in the litigation finance industry for more than 10 years. Access to justice remains one of the prevailing issues within the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), especially for developing countries. To enforce the promise of a fairer trading system, developing country participation in the DSB must be improved, given that relationships between WTO members are predicated on power dynamics, rather than adherence to the rule of law. Third party funding has provided access to justice for claimants with meritorious claims, but with limited financial capacity in the private sector, as well as in investor-state disputes. The industry is also capable of leveling the playing field in the DSB, as it can be utilized by developing countries to finance a WTO dispute. An expansion of the current third party funding business model to include financing sovereigns in WTO disputes would create a win-win situation, by allowing developing countries to bring claims which they otherwise could not afford, and by granting third party funders the opportunity to adopt a more neutral stance towards sovereigns by providing their services in support, rather than in mere contention (as is the case today). And demand is significant, given that most obstacles to developing country participation in the DSB are related to costs, such as high-priced experts that must be brought on to account for a lack of expertise, the fear of economic pressure from the opposing state, and the lengthy proceedings which often place a strain on a developing country’s resources (member states estimate a time frame of 15 months from the request for consultations to the report of the Appellate Body. A period of at least 6 to 14 months should be added to this, as a reasonable period for the implementation of recommendations. Although this time frame is short in comparison to other international procedures, the financial hardship for developing countries can be fatal). The costs of initiating a dispute of medium complexity in the WTO are in the region of $500,000, however legal fees can sometimes exceed $10,000,000. In many cases, developing countries are forced to rely on the financial support of local industries affected by the dispute. This begs the question, why hasn’t there been an influx of third party funders into WTO dispute resolution? There are two chief concerns which seem to keep funders shying away. The first involves the typical remedies in WTO disputes, which regularly circumvent a direct financial compensation that the funder could benefit from. Still, complainants seek monetary benefits, be it through concessions (the losing country compensates the winning country with additional concessions equal to the original breach), or retaliation (the winning country withdraws concessions in that amount). A simple solution to this issue is for the winning party to provide a share of those benefits to the funder. One possibility is to assess the level of harm caused by the illegal measure challenged in the dispute, and accept that as a basis for the compensation of the funder. If the WTO Panel decisions are implemented, and the disputed measures that were found to be inconsistent with the WTO are withdrawn, a certain value of trade is not affected by those measures anymore and can be realized again. Affected industries, or the affected country, can set aside part of the gain to compensate the funder. In the case of compensation or the suspension of concessions, the complainant gains from increased tariff revenue, and is able to compensate the financing entity from a portion of the same. In any event, financial benefits of a winning party can be measured, and any compensation for the funder will represent only a minor percentage of the gained value of trade. The second main concern surrounds the area of enforceability, and whether WTO mechanisms would allow financing agreements. But those would have to be enforced in local courts, and the WTO DSB technically cannot rule on non-WTO agreement issues. However, there are provisions that allow the DSB to engage in arbitration if the parties both agree. A practical solution would therefore be to include an arbitration or dispute settlement provision in the financing agreement that operates outside of the DSB. Based on the aforementioned demand, as well as the practical solutions which can mitigate possible concerns, it is clear that external funding of WTO disputes can provide a flexible, independent and powerful alternative for developing countries to increase access to justice, as well as for developed countries to “outsource the risk” of a WTO dispute. It’s only a matter of time before third party funding makes its way into the WTO. ** A version of this article first appeared in International Economic Law and Policy Blog

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Government to End PACCAR Limbo for Litigation Funding Agreements

By John Freund |

The UK government has pledged to introduce legislation to resolve the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court’s PACCAR ruling, which has left many litigation funding agreements in legal limbo. The Ministry of Justice confirmed its intention to bring forward a bill that will clarify that third party litigation funding agreements (LFAs) are not damages based agreements (DBAs) under existing law, a classification that, since PACCAR, has rendered many LFAs unenforceable and raised deep concerns across the funding market.

An article in The Law Gazette reports that the forthcoming legislation will specifically address the fallout from the 2023 PACCAR decision, which had classed typical litigation funding arrangements where a funder receives a share of damages as DBAs, bringing them within regulatory restrictions and making them invalid unless they met DBA regulatory requirements. This has undermined the clarity and enforceability of funding agreements for collective actions and other high value cases.

Industry sources and legal commentators have long advocated for a statutory fix. Over recent months, funders and claimant groups have pointed to the erosion of access to justice while PACCAR uncertainty persists, given that many have been hesitant to underwrite new claims under a model the courts deemed unenforceable. The government’s proposed change to statute rather than judge made law aims to restore the pre PACCAR position and reaffirm that LFAs do not fall within the DBA regime.

If enacted, the bill is expected to provide greater certainty for both existing and future litigation funding arrangements, reinforce the UK’s position as a leading venue for funded litigation, and encourage finance for complex group and commercial claims. Observers note that while the legislative promise is welcome, its timing and detailed provisions will be closely watched by funders, claimants and legal practitioners alike.

Commercial People Moves

Omni Bridgeway Bolsters U.S. Team with Claire-Naïla Damamme & William Vigen

By John Freund |

Omni Bridgeway has further strengthened its U.S. litigation finance platform with two senior strategic hires in its Washington, D.C. office. In a move signaling expanded capabilities in both international arbitration and antitrust litigation funding, the global legal finance leader appointed Claire-Naïla Damamme and William Vigen as Investment Managers and Legal Counsel. These additions reflect Omni Bridgeway’s continued commitment to deepening in-house legal and investment expertise amid growing demand for sophisticated funding solutions.

Omni's press release states that Claire-Naïla Damamme brings nearly a decade of distinguished international legal experience to Omni Bridgeway, where she will lead the firm’s U.S. International Arbitration initiative. Damamme’s background includes representing sovereign states and multinational corporations across energy, telecommunications, infrastructure, and technology disputes. Her expertise covers the full lifecycle of investor-state and commercial arbitrations, including enforcement before U.S. courts, honed through roles at top global law firms and institutions like White & Case LLP, WilmerHale, and the International Court of Justice.

William Vigen complements this expansion with more than 15 years of trial and litigation experience, particularly in antitrust enforcement and government investigations. Before joining Omni Bridgeway, Vigen worked at the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division and later as a partner in private practice, where he led complex criminal prosecutions and major civil antitrust matters. At Omni Bridgeway, he will spearhead investment sourcing and evaluation in antitrust and related litigation.

According to Matt Harrison, Omni Bridgeway’s U.S. Managing Director and Chief Investment Officer, these appointments underscore the firm’s focus on delivering world-class legal finance expertise both domestically and internationally.

Case Developments Commercial

Archetype Capital Partners Secures Injunction in Trade Secret Battle with Co‑Founder

By John Freund |

A significant legal win for litigation funder Archetype Capital Partners emerged this month in the firm’s ongoing dispute with one of its co‑founders. A Nevada federal judge granted Archetype a preliminary injunction that prevents the ex‑partner from using the company’s proprietary systems for underwriting and managing mass tort litigation while the underlying trade secret lawsuit continues.

According to an article in Bloomberg, Archetype filed suit in September against its former co‑founder, Andrew Schneider, and Bullock Legal Group LLC, alleging misappropriation of confidential methodologies and business systems developed to assess and fund mass tort claims. The complaint asserted that Schneider supplied Bullock Legal with sensitive documents and leveraged Archetype’s systems to rapidly grow the firm’s case inventory from a few thousand matters to well over 148,000, a jump that Archetype says directly undercut its competitive position.

In issuing the injunction, Judge Gloria M. Navarro of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada found that Archetype was likely to succeed on its trade secret and breach of contract claims. While the court determined it lacked personal jurisdiction over Bullock Legal and dismissed the company from the suit, it nonetheless barred both Schneider and Bullock from distributing proceeds from a $5.6 billion mass tort settlement tied to video game addiction litigation that had been structured using Archetype’s proprietary systems.

The order further requires the return of all materials containing confidential data and prohibits Schneider from soliciting or interfering with Archetype’s clients.