Insights into Funding International Collective Proceedings
The first day of the Global Class Actions Symposium brought with it new considerations for claims filed in the US and EU. In the United States, champerty is still an issue, as nearly half of all states do not allow the practice of Litigation Finance. Some have even said that regulatory trends are moving in two directions at once—with some seeking to restrict or heavily regulate the use of litigation funding, and others laying the groundwork for its mainstream acceptance. ISLG explains that regulatory developments are often focused on changes within the industry, and mitigating their impact. In the last few years, litigation funding has shifted from funding single large cases, often class actions, to portfolio funding. This reduces risk for funders while helping legal firms manage budgets. Some have suggested that this funder-friendly approach is incongruous with the foundational concept of Litigation Finance—increasing access to justice. Disclosure is an ongoing sticking point in litigation funding, as is the fear that funders will hold sway over decision-making in the cases they fund. This, despite existing law typically requiring that funders not control any aspect of the case. In the EU, class action cases are called ‘collective redress’. The EU is expected to strengthen the laws that impact such actions. Typically, the use of litigation funding must be disclosed to the courts, regardless of which side is utilizing it. Meanwhile in Germany, Litigation Finance has been legal since 1999, but it has never gained the popularity it has elsewhere. Day one of the symposium concluded with Melissa Ferrari, president of Verein Global Justice Network, who affirmed the importance of funders not controlling any aspect of a funded case.
Andrew Saker
CEO
Omni Bridgeway
Neil Purslow
Co-Founder
Therium Capital Management
Nick Rowles-Davies
Executive Vice Chairman
LCM
