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

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.

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.