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

In Asia, legal funding has been used in insolvency cases for over ten years. Since Hong Kong and Singapore adopted a funding framework for third-party arbitration, appreciation for funding has grown.

It’s well known that information loses its attorney-client privilege when shared with a third party. Increasingly, however, rulings are allowing for documents and exchanges shared with third-party legal funders to be protected.

This past year has seen multiple judgments supporting the validity of class actions—once thought ‘too American’ for many jurisdictions. London courts in particular have paved the way for collective actions against big businesses. Litigation funding has proliferated, and is spurring access for justice to parties who would otherwise be left out in the cold.

In recent years, Kosovo has taken a number of steps to promote foreign investments. Among these is the ratification of bilateral investment treaties with Switzerland, Luxembourg, Austria, and Belgium, among others. In 2014, a Law on Foreign Investment was adopted, which outlines the use of arbitration for investor-related disputes.

It cannot be denied that third-party litigation funding is a boon to justice. In many instances, it’s the only way that impecunious plaintiffs can have their day in court. At the same time, legal funding is a business that depends on ROI for investors. That’s why funders have a lot to say about a proposed new regulation in Australia, legislating a standard minimum return to class members in funded class actions. Some have suggested this guaranteed percentage be as high as 70%. Is that reasonable?

While class action attorneys and litigation funders are fuming, publicly-listed companies in Australia are breathing easier after continuous disclosure laws were relaxed. This move is expected to protect company officers against liability for deceptive, misleading, or incomplete disclosure to stockholders—unless fault is proven affirmatively.

Canada has joined the US, UK, EU, Singapore, and Australia (and now many others) in having fully embraced third-party legal funding. Courts are seeing the value in the practice and are ruling accordingly. Combined with the increase in contingency fee arrangements—Canadian plaintiffs are seeing access to justice increase.

The International Legal Finance Association (ILFA), founded in 2020, is a global association of third-party legal funders committed to self-regulation and promoting high industry standards. The ILFA has provided commentary on the proposed new regulation, as well as context around the concerns purportedly being addressed.

Claimants were shocked and upset recently when a settlement ended a class action lawsuit against James Hardie—leaving potential claimants without any compensation. One such claimant, Leslie Wheatley, stated that she and other claimants believed they had a strong case. Allegedly defective cladding systems caused their homes to leak, necessitating significant and expensive repairs.

One Florida committee has suggested changes to its policies on law firm ownership. So far, lawyers are sharply divided. While the Florida committee does acknowledge that many lawyers are resisting reforms in this area, that hasn’t dissuaded them from pursuing it.

Litigation Finance powerhouse Woodsford has submitted its response to the Secretariat’s initial draft on the regulation of third-party funding. The proposed reforms include addressing concerns about conflicts of interest, security for costs, or that funders may exert undue influence over decision making or cost-related decisions about the cases they fund.

There’s been a lot of talk about how well-funded collective actions are driving up the price of liability insurance, particularly for directors in corporate settings. Furthermore, one of the ways to address this issue seems to be increased regulation and more stringent disclosure requirements. But is this an accurate representation of the facts? Andrew Saker, Managing Director & CEO of Omni Bridgeway doesn’t think so.

As Litigation Finance regulations evolve, those involved in active cases may change their tactics. On July 19th, a motion to dismiss a pending appeal was filed by the parties in Sax v Fast Track Investments. In this case, legal finance agreements affirm that New York laws apply to the question of whether or not the funding was a loan.

It’s been said that non-pharma-related patent litigation tends to focus on a few big companies. Most are consumer-facing brands with their own retail outlets, though certainly not all. Those who make a career out of being a non-practicing entity (NPE) know who they are and how to target them.

An important precedent was set recently, involving a decision in LCM Operations Pty Ltd in the matter of 316 Group Pty Ltd (in liquidation) 2021, and the use of documents produced in an examination. What exactly happened?

It’s no secret that litigation funding has its share of detractors. Some are still suspicious of the increasingly regulated practice, despite evidence that it’s a net gain for clients, legal teams, investors, and those who have been harmed by a well-monied entity.

Singapore’s Ministry of Law announced last month an extension to its existing framework of laws impacting litigation funding. The extended framework will expand the types of proceedings that may utilize third-party funding.