Trending Now
Commercial Consumer

Global Lawsuit Loans Market Report 2019

By John Freund |

Global Lawsuit Loans Market Report 2019 is a professional and in-depth research report on the world’s major regional market conditions of the Lawsuit Loans industry, focusing on the main regions (North America, Europe and Asia) and the main countries (United States, Germany, Japan and China).


The report firstly introduced the Lawsuit Loans market basics: definitions, classifications, applications and industry chain overview; industry policies and plans; product specifications; manufacturing processes; cost structures and so on.

Then it analyzed the world’s main region market conditions, including the product price, profit, capacity, production, capacity utilization, supply, demand and industry growth rate etc. In the end, the report introduced new project SWOT analysis, investment feasibility analysis, and investment return analysis.

Get sample copy of this report@  https://bit.ly/2LSDBVP

Some of the key players operating in this market include: Peachtree Financial Solutions,DRB Capital,J.G. Wentworth Structured Settlements,Oasis Legal Finance,Fair Rate Funding,High Rise Financial,LawCash,Mayfield Settlement Funding,Nova Legal Funding,Pravati Capital

The report includes six parts, dealing with:

1) Basic information

2) The Asia Lawsuit Loans market.

3) The North American Lawsuit Loans industry.

4) The European Lawsuit Loans industry.

5) Market entry and investment feasibility.

6) The report conclusion.

Reasons for Buying this Report

This report provides pin-point analysis for changing competitive dynamics

It provides a forward looking perspective on different factors driving or restraining market growth

It provides a six-year forecast assessed on the basis of how the market is predicted to grow

It helps in understanding the key product segments and their future

It provides pin point analysis of changing competition dynamics and keeps you ahead of competitors

It helps in making informed business decisions by having complete insights of market and by making in-depth analysis of market segments

TABLE OF CONTENT:

1 Industry Overview of Lawsuit Loans Market

2 Manufacturing Cost Structure Analysis of Lawsuit Loans Market

3 Technical Data and Manufacturing Plants Analysis of Lawsuit Loans Market

4 Global Lawsuit Loans Market Overview

5 Lawsuit Loans Market Regional Market Analysis

6 Global (2015-2019) Lawsuit Loans Market Segment Market Analysis (by Type)

7 Global (2015-2019) Lawsuit Loans Market Segment Market Analysis (by Application)

8 Major Manufacturers Analysis of Lawsuit Loans Market

9 Development Trend of Analysis of Lawsuit Loans Market

10 Lawsuit Loans Marketing Type Analysis

11 Consumers Analysis of Lawsuit Loans Market

12 Conclusion of the Global Lawsuit Loans Market Professional Survey Report 2019

Get Complete Report@ https://bit.ly/2LSDBVP

Contact Us:

Sanjay Jain
Manager – Partner Relations & International Marketing
www.reportsandmarkets.com
info@reportsandmarkets.com
Ph: +44-020-3286-9338 (UK)
Ph: +1-214-736-7666 (US)

About Us:

Market research is the new buzzword in the market, which helps in understanding the market potential of any product in the market. Reports And Markets is not just another company in this domain but is a part of a veteran group called Algoro Research Consultants Pvt. Ltd. It offers premium progressive statistical surveying, market research reports, analysis & forecast data for a wide range of sectors both for the government and private agencies all across the world.

This release was published on openPR.

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Legislation to ensure the enforceability of LFAs is progressing smoothly through Parliament

By John Freund |

The following is a contributed piece by Tom Webster, Chief Commercial Officer at Sentry Funding.

So far, the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill has been passing through Parliament without a hitch.

The government is bringing the legislation in response to the Supreme Court’s decision last summer in PACCAR Inc & Ors v Competition Appeal Tribunal & Ors [2023] UKSC 28, which called into question the enforceability of LFAs.

The Bill was briefly introduced into the House of Lords on 19 March, and was debated at second reading on 15 April. During the debate, while some peers discussed the need for regulation of the litigation funding industry and for careful consideration of whether the retrospective nature of the legislation was justified, no peers opposed the Bill – and many welcomed it.

More recently, during scrutiny at grand committee on 29 April, the relatively small number of peers who attended the session broadly supported the Bill, and several spoke in favour of the need for its provisions to be retrospective.

In terms of the Bill’s drafting, the government proposed some small changes at committee stage, which were waved through by peers. The most significant was to address a potential problem with the original drafting where the LFA relates to the payment of costs rather than funding the provision of advocacy or litigation services.

The problem was that, in the original wording, it could be argued that the Bill only applied to the funding of costs that relate to court proceedings, but not those relating to arbitration, or settlements. This has now been resolved by new wording to make clear that an LFA may relate to the payment of costs following court, tribunal or arbitration proceedings, or as part of a settlement. An LFA may also relate to the provision of advocacy or litigation services.

Meanwhile another government amendment was aimed at avoiding problems for litigants-in-person, by ensuring that the definition of LFAs in the Bill includes agreements to fund the expenses of LiPs, for example where they need to pay for an expert’s report.

During grand committee, peers also expressed their approval of the broad terms of reference that have now been published by the Civil Justice Council for its review of litigation funding, which will include an examination of whether the sector should be regulated; and if so, how. Peers commended the speedy timescale that the CJC has set itself, aiming to produce an interim report by the summer, and a full report by summer 2025.

As the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill continues its journey through Parliament and the CJC begins work on its review, there are clearly significant changes on the way for the litigation funding sector in the UK.

Read More
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Rowles-Davies: Retrospective Provision in Litigation Funding Bill is ‘Fundamentally Flawed’

By John Freund |

In an article shared on LinkedIn, Nick Rowles-Davies, founder and CEO of Lexolent, makes the case against the retrospective aspect of the UK government’s Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill. Whilst acknowledging that many within the industry disagree with his position, Rowles-Davies argues that ‘the Bill should be prospective only and that the retrospective element is fundamentally flawed.’

Rowles-Davies summarizes his extensive article into the following key points:

  1. ‘The starting point for any consideration of the Bill must be firstly to correct the various inaccurate Supporting Documents (to the Bill) such that the law as it stands, and has always stood, is properly reflected. 
  2. The Government has put forward no credible justification to support the retrospective provision in the Bill.
  3. When considered under the true set of facts, this legislation appears to be incompatible with the ECHR. 
  4. The justification for the Bill’s prospective elements and its (arguably unprecedented) retrospective aspect must be considered separately. The Supporting Documents grossly misrepresent the position. Save for pure value transfers from previously funded parties to existing funders, what the Bill properly seeks to achieve can be accomplished through prospective only legislation. 
  5. If retrospectivity survives, it is likely that the matter will come before the courts quickly thereafter in relation to the ECHR.’

Rowles-Davies argues in the article that ‘the Supporting Documents to the LFA Bill provide absolutely no evidence of legal precedent to support the retrospective aspect of the Bill.” He goes on to say that not only is this bill ‘unprecedented’, but it also fails to provide ‘credible “public interest” justification for the retrospective aspect.’ 

In the conclusion of the article, Rowles-Davies calls on both chambers of Parliament to ‘take proper time to explore the foundation upon which the Bill rests and then test its contents after it has been repaired.’ Furthermore, he argues that ‘the positioning of the Bill is disrespectful to a busy Parliament tasked with addressing far more pressing global, social, and public interest matters.’

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Bills Targeting Litigation Finance Disclosure and Foreign Funders Make Progress in Louisiana

By John Freund |

Reporting by Bloomberg Law covers the campaign to introduce new rules governing litigation funding in the state of Louisiana, with proponents of the legislation sensing an opportunity to make progress since the state elected a new governor, Jeff Landry. The two bills making their way through the Legislature are: HB336, which would create a Litigation Financing Disclosure Act, and SB355, which would enact ‘transparency and limitations on foreign third-party litigation funding’. 

In an interview with Bloomberg, Representative Emily Chenevert ,who brought HB336, explained that the turnover in elected representatives provided a fresh opportunity, saying: “The appetite was there already within the legislature and so now it’s like, let’s attempt this and let’s see with a new House and some new senators what could happen.” Dai Wai Chin Feman, managing director at funder Parabellum Capital, spoke out in opposition to Chenevert’s bill but said that SB355 was “acceptable to our industry.”

HB336 would require any party in a civil action to disclose the existence of a litigation financing agreement, whilst redacting the financial details of the agreement, and would make all financing arrangements ‘permissible subjects of discovery’. The bill also prohibits funders from controlling or making any decisions in the proceedings, stating that ‘The right to make these decisions remains solely with the plaintiff and the plaintiff's attorney in the civil proceeding.’

SB355 requires any foreign litigation funder involved in a civil action in Louisiana to disclose its details to the state’s attorney general (AG), and to provide the AG with a copy of the funding agreement. Similarly to HB336, this bill would prohibit the foreign funder from controlling the legal action in any way and also prohibits the funder from being ‘assigned rights in a civil action for which the litigation funder has provided funding’.

HB336 has been approved by the state House and was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, whilst SB355 has cleared the majority of procedural hurdles and now awaits a vote by the House.