Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Eric Schurke, CEO, North America, Moneypenny
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

LITFINCON Europe Sets Amsterdam Agenda With Burford, Therium, WTW and Susman Godfrey on the Bill

Siltstone Capital has released the full programme for the first European edition of LITFINCON, which opens in Amsterdam on 7 October with eleven panels and a speaker roster drawn from funders, brokers, insurers and the plaintiff bar.

As reported by PR Newswire, the two-day conference runs 7 and 8 October at the Rosewood Amsterdam, the former Palace of Justice on the Herengracht, with VIP programming including a dinner and canal cruise the evening before. This is the seventh LITFINCON edition and the first held in Europe, following events in Houston, Beverly Hills and Singapore that have drawn more than a thousand attendees between them.

The theme is "The Claim Is the Asset: IP, Arbitration, Class Actions & the Investors Who Know It." Confirmed speakers include Philipp Leibfried, Managing Director and Head of Europe at Burford Capital; Neil Purslow, Co-Founder and Managing Partner of Therium Capital Advisors; Max Tribble of Susman Godfrey; Dan Kesack of WTW; Nick Moore of CAC Specialty; Jamie Molloy of Ignite Specialty Risk; Tets Ishikawa of LionFish Capital; and Till Schreiber of Cartel Damage Claims.

Panels cover pricing in European collective actions, enforcement of arbitration awards, Unified Patent Court strategy, artificial intelligence in litigation finance, insurance structures for legal assets, and the divergent regulatory positions taking shape in the UK, EU and United States. The programme closes with a 75-minute unscripted session billed as "Candid Conversations."

Jim Batson, Chief Investment Officer of Legal Finance at Siltstone Capital, said: "Every deal in this industry starts with a conversation between people who trust each other."

Commercial

Padronus Funds Three German Collective Actions Over Streaming Price Rises, Capping Its Fee at 9.9%

Austrian funder Padronus is financing three new German collective redress actions against Netflix, Apple TV and WOW, structuring its return just below the statutory ceiling that governs funder participation in the country's collective redress regime.

As reported by Digital Fernsehen, the Verbraucherschutzverein filed the three Abhilfeklagen on 15 September, two before the Kammergericht Berlin and one before the Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht. The claims allege that the providers raised subscription prices unilaterally on the basis of clauses that do not meet German standards for consumer contracts. Cited increases include WOW from €35.99 to €44.99, Apple TV+ from €4.99 to €9.99, and Netflix from €11.99 to €19.99.

The funding terms are the notable feature for the market. Padronus, operating through Vienna-based Prozessfinanzallianz GmbH, carries the entire cost risk and takes 9.9% of any proceeds, deliberately set beneath the 10% cap imposed on funder remuneration by the German legislation implementing the EU Representative Actions Directive. Where a participant holds legal expenses insurance that responds, Padronus waives its share altogether. Consumers pay nothing regardless of outcome.

Expected individual refunds run from roughly €200 to €700 per provider, and Padronus chief executive Richard Eibl has said a subscriber to all four services could recover close to €800. At the participation levels the funder is targeting, aggregate exposure would reach nine figures.

The German courts have not settled the question. The Kammergericht Berlin held comparable Netflix and Spotify clauses invalid in 2023, and the Bundesgerichtshof declined to disturb that outcome. But the Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht dismissed a parallel claim over Prime Video in July, and an appeal is pending.

Commercial

CAT Approves £260M Google Settlement, the Largest Class Payout in the Regime’s History

The Competition Appeal Tribunal has approved the £260 million settlement of the opt-out collective action brought against Google on behalf of thousands of UK app developers, clearing the way for the largest distribution to class members the Tribunal has sanctioned since the UK's collective proceedings regime began in 2015.

Of the total, £160 million is earmarked for eligible developers, including sole traders and small businesses that sold apps or digital content through the Play Store from August 2018 onwards. The remaining £100 million covers the funding, insurance and legal costs of running the case. Individual payouts will be calculated on each developer's qualifying Play Store sales during the relevant period, and eligible businesses are being directed to the claim website to register ahead of the claims process opening.

As reported by City AM, the claim alleged that Google abused a dominant position by imposing unfair and excessive commissions on developers distributing through the Play Store. Google settled without any admission of liability or wrongdoing, saying it was pleased to reach agreement subject to court approval.

For the funding market, the approval resolves the question hanging over the case since August. Bench Walk Advisors financed the proceedings, and the professional parties agreed to forgo £34 million of their contractual entitlement, bringing their combined return down to the £100 million the Tribunal has now approved. The Tribunal's willingness to sanction a settlement of this size, with costs and funder returns disclosed and reduced in advance, gives funders a concrete benchmark for what the CAT will treat as just and reasonable.

Neil Purslow, Chairman of the Executive Committee of ILFA, said: “This landmark settlement vindicates the opt-out collective actions regime at an important moment for its future. Thanks to the regime and the litigation funders who underpin it, thousands of small businesses with no realistic alternative to take on a corporate wrongdoer will now be awarded compensation they could never have won on their own.”

“As the Government considers the future of the regime, this case is proof the system can deliver. This is a young regime that should be nurtured and expanded, not constrained, so more consumers and small businesses can hold powerful defendants to account.”