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.
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.
