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.
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.
The following article was contributed by John J. Hanley, Partner at Rimon Law.
Litigation financing is on the rise in the United States and provides some claimants a valuable means for paying the costs of pursuing a legal claim. Lawyer involvement in litigation financing transactions raises many ethical issues for a lawyer such as competence, duty of loyalty, the potential waiver of privilege and interference by a third party, to name a few.
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.
The LF Dealmakers conference kicked off this morning with a keynote address from Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. The address was titled “Litigation Finance: Survey of a Shifting Landscape,” and covered four main issues: ethics, fee sharing, disclosure regulations and privileged communications between funder and attorneys.
Australia’s requirement for third-party legal funders to hold an Australian Financial Services License took effect in August of last year. From that point forward, funders were subject to rules regarding managed investment schemes under the Corporations Act.
Last year, London saw an unprecedented 1,775 maritime arbitration cases. As the city is the accepted center for this type of dispute, that number indicates that maritime arbitration is on the rise around the globe. Arbitration can take years to resolve—allowing time for debtors to move assets around and make eventual enforcement more difficult. With arbitration funding and the expertise that accompanies it, arbitration can be the best option.
It stands to reason that litigation funders and big corporations would be at odds over class actions. After all, it’s often funding that makes pursuing these cases possible. Third-party funding provides the tools needed for people harmed by companies or governments to seek restitution. These large entities, and those who insure them, may not be used to this kind of accountability–and blame funders for increasing access to justice.
This past June, the European Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee published recommendations for the European Commission. This draft report is being discussed and debated by the Economic Affairs Committee before being discussed in Parliament in November. If Parliament adopts the draft report, the next step would be for the European Commission to draft new legislative proposals.
Litigation funding existed for more than a decade before anyone thought to question whether disclosure mandates were needed. After Gawker was driven into bankruptcy by a single lawsuit, legal professionals and even the media began discussing whether disclosure rules were needed.
The Southern District in New York has unsealed indictments against several doctors and attorneys accused of engaging in fraudulent conduct. The defendants have been charged with mail and wire fraud in connection with a plot to gain fraudulent insurance reimbursements.
What can we expect in the coming months in offshore markets? John O’Driscoll, leader of the Insolvency and Dispute Resolution team at Walkers, had much to say on the subject. Litigators, financial professionals, and insolvency practitioners should pay close attention to legal developments in offshore markets.
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.
