A decade ago, all eyes were on hedge funds as they were believed to be the most shrewd investors. After a decade of sub-par returns, that reputation has soured somewhat. Still, hedge funds currently maintain over $3.5 trillion in assets under management.
One would think that if new laws are being created to regulate an industry, prominent members of that industry would be consulted. That doesn’t seem to be the case regarding Australia’s proposed law that would place an arbitrarily determined cap on fees for law firms and litigation funders in class action cases.
Nanoco Group recently released an update in their legal action against tech giant Samsung. The suit alleges the willful infringement of Nanoco IP. The patent infringement suit was filed against multiple Samsung entities in February of last year. Nanoco has accepted financial assistance from a third-party litigation funder in order to pursue the case.
Remember the lawyer from Erin Brockovich? He married a former cocktail waitress. They bought multiple luxury houses and two private jets. If that sounds like the sensationalized stuff of reality TV, that’s because it is! The Girardis eventually wound up on The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. So what happened?
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.
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.
A recent case involving gambling license jurisdictions and online gaming has gained the interest of Advofin, the oldest litigation funder in Austria. Advofin is seeking EU 40 million to recoup funds lost by more than 2,000 Austrian citizens who gambled online.
One survivor of sexual abuse in childhood is spearheading a class action against Auckland’s Dilworth School—the wealthiest school in New Zealand. Neil Harding, along with an undisclosed claimant, asserts that the school knew that young boys were being sexually abused by teachers and staff as early as the 1970s. The case is being funded by LPF Group—the leading New Zealand litigation funder.
Will a new disclosure requirement in New Jersey federal court ‘create more issues than it solves?’ Some members of the International Litigation Finance Association (ILFA) believe so. On Monday, Chief Judge Freda Wolfson ordered that third parties providing non-recourse legal funding must be disclosed to the court.
The ongoing legal action between the Pakistani government and asset recovery firm Broadsheet experienced a new development on June 9. Richard Dietz withdrew an application to have attorney Stuart Newberger give testimony about VR Global’s litigation funding agreement with Broadsheet—the asset recovery firm Dietz funded. Broadsheet was handed a multi-million dollar payment by the government of Pakistan in January, yet Dietz is still seeking compensation.
Litigation funding has taken off in the last decade, largely due to its utility and benefits—but also spurred by the financial unrest caused by COVID. In the ten years since its inception, the Litigation Finance industry has grown, adapted, and flourished as an investment and a product.
The Legal-Tech Act has recently been passed in Germany and will take effect in October of this year. Essentially, it allows attorneys more flexibility with regard to contingency agreements. This act is the opening move in a series of planned reforms to Germany’s legal service market.
Is post-pandemic global inflation a certainty? Probably not. But it’s worth noting that pandemic alleviation spending, quantitative easing by the Fed, and a sizable budget deficit are creating similar conditions to the last large inflation peak—way back in 1947. There are other factors to consider, some of which are difficult to predict. Consumers are excited to spend, travel, and do all of the things the pandemic prevented them from doing. What does that mean for litigation funding?
Do both sides of a case need to know when third parties have an interest in the outcome of their case? David Levitt of Hinshaw & Culbertson says yes. He has proposed changing the rules in the District of New Jersey to require plaintiffs and defendants alike to disclose information about TPLF agreements.
Targeting the oft-maligned Real-Time Bidding (RTB), the Irish Council for Civil Liberties is taking IAB Tech Labs to court. The focus is on consumer privacy. This is a potentially far-reaching case as it addresses tactics used by Twitter, Amazon, Google, and Facebook among others.
As Litigation Finance grows in popularity, more new players are entering the playing field. Some fields, like IP litigation, are considered especially lucrative and are a popular focus for upstart funders. However, success in this landscape is far from a sure thing.
More people than ever now understand the broad strokes of what Litigation Finance is and what it can offer. Investors fund cases through funding entities that are then owed a share of any recovery or award in the case. Litigation funding is non-recourse, so funders can take a higher percentage in exchange for the enhanced risk.
A recent order in a case between Laser Trust and CFL Financing is turning heads. The English High Court has made three cost orders against CFL. The court determined that the funder exerted an excessive amount of control over the case it had funded.
