Litigation funding is primarily considered as an advantage in commercial litigation for its ability to remove the financial risk for companies that would otherwise have to fund their own claims. However, third-party funding also places the plaintiff in a position of strength by mitigating the negative effects of prolonged proceedings, and increases the likelihood of a favourable settlement.
An LFJ Conversation with Michael Kelley, Partner, Parker Poe
Litigation funding is primarily considered as an advantage in commercial litigation for its ability to remove the financial risk for companies that would otherwise have to fund their own claims. However, third-party funding also places the plaintiff in a position of strength by mitigating the negative effects of prolonged proceedings, and increases the likelihood of a favourable settlement.
In an article on MarketScreener, Omni Bridgeway recaps its recent webinar and dives into why these advantages are particularly useful within antitrust cases. Jason Levine, investment manager and legal counsel at the funder highlighted that beyond the cost of antitrust litigation, it is the complexity and length of proceedings that make antitrust an ideal area of focus for third-party funding. He also notes the regularly high value of settlements, and that these cases have a particular tendency to settle more so than other claim types.
Joining the funder for this webinar was Priyanka Timblo, a partner at Holwell Shuster & Goldberg LLP, who argues that the reliance on expert testimony in antitrust cases is so vital, that having the requisite funds to secure such experts is of paramount importance. Furthermore, Timblo highlights the advantages of different funding models, whether utilising single-case funding or a funder advancing working capital to solve a client’s liquidity issues, which can then be recouped through returns on future claims.
