Cross-border patent cases are becoming increasingly common. We all watched as the Apple v. Samsung battle raged. It’s not unusual to see cases spanning multiple jurisdictions in the US, Europe, Asia, and elsewhere. Sounds expensive, right?
Despite evidence to the contrary, some still insist that third-party litigation funding is a greed-fest for the already wealthy. In reality, the practice allows increased access to justice for those who can afford it least. But all that non-recourse funding comes at a steep price.
As Litigation Finance makes its way around the world, some jurisdictions struggle with the finer points. Typically businesses in places like Singapore and Hong Kong have a corporate structure that encompasses entities incorporated in their own jurisdiction, as well as offshore locales like BVI, Cayman Islands, or Bermuda.
London’s specialist competition court, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) has given the green light to rail passengers to seek compensation for overcharging by the Southeastern and South Western rail franchises by not making ‘boundary fares’ sufficiently available to consumers. In a judgment delivered today, the Tribunal has ordered that the claims, issued on behalf of millions of rail passengers, can now proceed to trial. The standalone claim was the first of its kind to be filed in the UK and is estimated to be worth around £93m in damages for rail users.
Retired justice Hon. Shira Scheindlin has a lot to say about litigation funding, as we learned in the first half of her recent interview. She is now Of Counsel at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, in addition to being a leading neutral at CPR, FedArb, and AAA.
Several franchisees that have agreements with Priceline, a leading HBA retailer in Australia, have opted into a class action to obtain a new, fair, franchise agreement with the company. The suit alleges that current agreements may be illegal under the current legislative framework.
Burford Capital, the leading global finance and asset management firm focused on law, today announces the launch of phase two of The Equity Project, its groundbreaking initiative designed to increase diversity in the business of law.
Two barristers and two solicitors are under fire for allegedly misappropriating at least $19 million in fees relating to the Banksia class action. Barristers Norman O’Bryan and Michael Symons will be permanently banned from practicing law. Solicitors Anthony Zita and Alex Elliot will be required to show cause for why they too should not be banned from the practice of law.
Three men from Chorley and one from Leyland are suing auto giant Mercedes over its role in “dieselgate.” Dieselgate impacted multiple car manufacturers, accusing them of using defeat devices to illegally skirt emission standards. National consumer rights firm Slater and Gordon are bringing the claim.
Over the last decade, third-party litigation funding has been increasingly popular as a means of increasing access to justice. At its core, TPF is a way to put investor money toward meritorious legal cases (often, but not always, class actions) in exchange for a share of the award or settlement it generates. As the cost of litigation increases, the need for legal funding grows.
Mining companies are especially susceptible to disputes arising from the impact of COVID. Tax issues, regulatory changes, politics, and supply chain failures can all lead to large-scale disputes. In fact, mining disputes made up the majority of investor-state arbitration cases last year.
On the topic of third-party legal funding, trial judges past and present have much to say. Hearing them out can tell us a lot about how the industry is perceived by the courts and how that may impact its future. A recent interview with Judge Shira Scheindlin includes three questions that shed light on how courts view the practice of litigation funding.
The Competition Appeals Tribunal has granted permission for a class action against British Telecommunications to move forward. The action could be worth as much as GBP 600 million, and asserts rampant overcharging of landline customers. The action is being funded by third-party funder Harbour Litigation Funding.
As more investors discover the benefits of Litigation Finance, funders have had to become more proactive about funding cases. Collective action cases are particularly attractive to funders due to large class sizes and the potential for high payouts. As the industry becomes larger and more influential, innovations abound.
With demand for litigation finance continuing to grow among businesses of all sizes, leading dispute funder Validity Finance reports it has raised a new managed fund of $70 million in capital commitments. The newly raised “sidecar” fund further diversifies Validity’s business and advances its experience as an alternative asset manager. To date, Validity’s third-party managed funds total nearly $150 million of assets under management, in addition to its permanent capital base.
