Critics of Litigation Finance appear to be celebrating Australia’s proposed cap of 30% on potential returns for litigation funders. It’s hard to argue that such a move would not have enormous, industry-wide consequences. Some say it’s ‘unfair’ for funders to reap high profits while claimants, who were actually damaged by the factors in their cases, receive a paltry sum. But who is really taking on the most risk?

We already know that litigation is expensive. We also know that even if a claimant can technically afford a lawyer, they can easily be outspent by corporations and other big spenders who may be practiced in avoiding responsibility. That’s why litigation funding was developed—to level the playing field between the Davids and Goliaths of the legal world.

As of yesterday, the Singapore Ministry of Law is extending the third-party legal funding framework in order to cover more types. These include domestic arbitration proceedings, some cases heard at the Singapore International Commercial Court—and related mediation proceedings.

Debate continues as to whether the New Jersey district court’s new disclosure rules impacting litigation funding are a celebration of transparency or a futile exercise in unnecessary regulation. What happened?

Nicky Foulston inherited the racing circuit Brands Hatch when she was a mere 19 years old. In just over a decade, she had taken a loan of GBP 6 million and used it to turn Brands Hatch into a powerhouse circuit. She ultimately sold it for a staggering $195 million in 1999.

The regulations surrounding the practice of third-party legal funding are ever-changing. As the practice becomes more popular as a product and an investment—interest in legislating litigation funding grows. Recently, Roy Strom discussed what we can expect in the coming months.  

Manolete Partners, a leader in insolvency litigation funding, recently released a new report. In it, they revealed that shares have lost half their value within the last year.