Stay on top of regulatory updates taking place throughout various jurisdictions across the globe.

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that every citizen has the right to unimpeded access to the courts. Citizens of modest means who cannot afford an…

In any discussion on rising insurance costs, fingers are sure to be pointed at Litigation Finance. LitFin is a $17+ billion industry, with more than half of assets being leveraged…

When surveying funding agreement options, claimants will often come across damages based agreements, or “DBAs,” and litigation funding agreements, or “LFAs.” Both DBA and LFA agreements help clients achieve the…

As the Litigation Finance industry grows, attorneys, insurers, corporates, and even small businesses are seeing the benefits of non-recourse third-party funding. As regulation adapts to these new realities, new opportunities…

Much has been made of the US District Court of New Jersey’s Local Rule 7.1.1, which requires disclosure of any non-recourse legal funding used to support a case. Some have…

The Supreme Court recently rejected the claim filed by Richard Lloyd against Google. Lloyd is the former executive director of Which?, a consumer protection organization. The case involved a data…

An Australian court recently offered guidance regarding when litigation funding agreements will be grandfathered, vs when they’ll be subjected to the Managed Investment Scheme regime. This came in the form…

Law firm ownership has been changing in recent years. Legal professionals in Australia and the UK are leading the world regarding ownership of legal firms. Recent developments in US states like Arizona, combined with a more liberal approach on ownership from the American Bar Association, means that the tide may be turning on this issue. Other US states are considering similar measures, including California, Utah, Florida, Illinois, and Michigan.

With the elimination of ethics Rule 5.4, the state of Arizona loosened regulations prohibiting non-attorney ownership of law firms. Not unexpectedly, this has attracted interest from several prominent litigation funders. Comparable legislation is expected in multiple states in 2022, with Michigan, North Carolina, Illinois, New York, and California already considering it.

As litigation funding grows in popularity and legislation struggles to keep up—much attention is drawn to the outliers who fill funding opponents with fear. Unscrupulous funders get plenty of press coverage, further clouding already contentious issues.

The Australian government’s bid to reform class actions, and by extension third-party litigation funders, is nearing its climax. A parliamentary committee assembled to examine the bill has expressed support. A key argument in favor of increased legislation is that funders ostensibly make profits that are out of proportion to the risk taken and the costs incurred.

ICLG’s Global Class action Symposium discussed the dynamic and evolving issues surrounding class actions and litigation funding. One takeaway is clear: attitudes about class actions and their funding are evolving with the industries themselves. Growing pains and a constant stream of regulatory changes point to new opportunities for claimants seeking compensation, and the lawyers and funders who serve them.

All eyes are on Bank of America Corp v Fund Liquidation Holdings LLC, because of the issues the case is bringing before SCOTUS. In this instance, an upcoming decision has led the US Chamber of Commerce to lament the oft-repeated (but unproven) assertion that the American justice system simply cannot withstand undisclosed funding agreements.

Like much of the world, Canada’s legal system can be expensive to access effectively. Even well-off Canadians may not be able to afford to follow up on meritorious claims against powerful defendants. Enter third-party legal funding. This practice affords potential clients the financial support needed to pursue meritorious cases without the risk of incurring a huge legal debt.

Until recently, there was a $150,000 cap on the incentive for employees to alert authorities when money laundering occurs. This monetary incentive was only for employees of regulated financial institutions, and was paid at the discretion of the feds.

Litigation Finance has become a powerhouse investment in the last decades, with billions in assets under management. The reasons for this are varied—including financial instability caused by the pandemic, a thirst for uncorrelated assets, and a burst of interest in ESG investing.

At present, the New Zealand Law Commission is reviewing regulations regarding class action regimes and litigation funding. The expectation is that a new round of regulations could be introduced to the minister of justice by summer of next year.

Like many places in the world, Canada’s cost of litigation can be prohibitively high. Even meritorious claims may not be worth what it costs to pursue them—leaving good people victimized and the unscrupulous free from dissent. Enter third-party litigation funding. That’s when everything changes for Canadians seeking justice.

After-the-event insurance is a common means of covering costs by both defendants and plaintiffs in litigation or arbitration cases. Often, such insurance can also be used as security for the defendant’s costs. Recently though, Deputy Master Nurse found in Addlesee and Ors v Dentons Europe LLP that not all ATE policies are suitable as providing security for costs.

Recently, Magistrate Judge Mark Roberts released his decision in the NuStar Farms action, regarding discovery of the identity and terms of the third-party legal funder supporting the plaintiffs. Citing “unusual” circumstances in the case, Judge Roberts determined that disclosure was necessary in this instance.

This week, the Australian Parliament has introduced the Corporations Amendment Bill 2021. It’s designed to promote what’s described as a “more fair” distribution of awards from class actions.

Litigation funding expenses are fundamentally related to the cost of doing business—so says a federal district court judge in their rejection of a request to recover expenses. In Perez v Rash Curtis & Assoc, the judge held that if funding expenses were recovered from a class settlement fund, that it would undermine necessary transparency—particularly in cases in which funding agreements were not pre-approved by the court.

The purpose of attorney-client privilege is to allow clients and their legal teams to discuss cases privately without fear of disclosure to other parties. Yet third-party funders require information about cases in order to vet them for potential funding. How is this dichotomy addressed?

What’s the connection between Litigation Finance and cryptocurrency? David Kay, CIO of crypto litigation finance entity, Liti Capital, says that the overlap between these two topics is an increasingly popular discussion in the digital assets theatre.

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.

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.

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.