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

Connecticut Op-Ed Warns of Hidden Costs of Litigation Funding

A new opinion piece out of Connecticut casts third-party litigation funding as an under-regulated market whose costs ultimately fall on the public, adding to the chorus of consumer- and insurance-side critics pressing for greater transparency.

As argued in a CT Insider op-ed by Lisa Lounsbury, president of Big I Connecticut, the growth of third-party litigation funding (TPLF) has turned lawsuits into an investable asset — with the resulting costs, she contends, showing up in higher insurance premiums borne by ordinary consumers.

Lounsbury acknowledges the access-to-justice case for funding, noting that it can help plaintiffs pursue legitimate claims they could not otherwise afford. But she argues that expanded access does not justify operating without meaningful transparency or consumer protections. In many states, including Connecticut, she writes, consumers who turn to litigation funders have little protection: the industry is largely unregulated, with no caps on fees, no clear disclosure of true costs, and inadequate safeguards against referral arrangements between lawyers and funders.

She reserves particular concern for disclosure in the courtroom, warning that funding deals often need not be revealed to judges — leaving courts unaware of who holds a financial stake, who may be influencing litigation decisions, and whether conflicts of interest exist. The piece adds a Connecticut voice to a national debate over how, and how much, the funding industry should be regulated.

Commercial

New Jersey Supreme Court Sets Five-Factor Test for Third-Party Funding in Criminal Cases

The New Jersey Supreme Court has established a framework for trial judges weighing the ethical implications of third-party funding in criminal matters, extending scrutiny of outside financing into a context that has drawn far less attention than its commercial counterpart.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, the unanimous court issued the framework in a ruling that upheld the conviction of a defendant whose legal bills had been paid by a witness the state called to testify — an arrangement that raised clear questions about divided loyalties. The opinion set out five factors judges should weigh in determining whether a third-party payment arrangement creates a conflict of interest for a defendant's counsel.

At the center of the decision is the principle that an attorney's duty "requires the attorney's exclusive loyalty to the client, without diversion of that loyalty in favor of another person." By articulating specific factors rather than a blanket rule, the court gave trial judges a structured way to assess when outside payment for a criminal defense threatens that loyalty.

The ruling adds a criminal-law dimension to an ongoing debate over transparency and control in third-party litigation funding, which has largely centered on commercial disputes. For courts confronting funded criminal defenses, the decision offers a template for surfacing potential conflicts before they compromise a defendant's representation.

Commercial

Counsel Financial Names David Le to Lead Product and Digital Transformation

Counsel Financial has expanded its technology leadership with the appointment of David Le as Director of Product and Digital Transformation, a newly created role aimed at modernizing the platforms that underpin its litigation finance operations.

According to a company announcement, the Buffalo-based firm — a provider of specialized financial solutions for plaintiff law firms and litigation finance stakeholders — said Le will lead its digital transformation strategy, overseeing the development and modernization of internal systems supporting underwriting, operations, reporting, and enterprise-wide workflow. The company framed the hire as a step toward strengthening operational efficiency, data integrity, and scalable technology as it continues to grow.

Le brings more than 15 years of experience leading product strategy and digital transformation across legal, financial, and operationally complex organizations. He most recently served as Senior Product Manager for Financial Operations at Urgently, where he led the modernization of internal payment and financial systems. Earlier roles included Head of Product at a consumer technology company and leadership positions at Anthroware and Garretson Resolution Group, where he directed platform initiatives supporting mass tort and personal injury settlement administration. He began his career in corporate strategy and engineering roles at Toyota.

The appointment reflects a broader trend across litigation finance, where funders are investing in technology to sharpen underwriting discipline, improve reporting, and manage increasingly complex portfolios at scale.