Category Archives: Regulatory Issues
Regulating Litigation Finance to Manage Social Inflation
There is an ongoing argument against the global litigation finance community purporting that litigation investment is a key driver of social inflation. Many critics of the growing litigation finance ecosystem include lobbyists who aim to usher in strict regulation, possibly targeted at dampening innovation in the space. Keeping this in mind, the idea that litigation…
Corporations Act s596A Expanded by High Court of Australia
A recent decision by the High Court of Australia (HCA) expanded the scope of s596A of the Corporations Act 2001, regarding public examinations and who has standing to conduct them. In a majority decision, the HCA found that claims of corporate malfeasance reflect the public interest in enforcing laws and protecting creditors and investors….
Burford Capital Explores Worldwide Antitrust Competition
Europe and the United Kingdom continue to pummel United States technology giants with billion-dollar claims to kill marketplace manipulation related to anti-competitive behavior. This begs the question of if regulators in California and New York will embrace the idea of cross-border regulation. These perspectives are actively being considered by the world’s foremost decision makers in…
Does Legal Funding Generate Frivolous Lawsuits? Experts Say No
One of the most common assertions from Litigation Finance naysayers is that access to funding to pursue cases will result in frivolous lawsuits that lack merit. Claims that such filings will clog court dockets, especially at a time when delays relating to COVID are abound, continue to be rampant. But are they accurate? The second…
Should We Be Concerned About Funder/Law Firm Partnerships?
As the litigation funding industry grows, many newcomers are flocking into the sector. This in turn has led to a number of mergers and new partnerships between funders. But what about partnerships between legal firms and litigation funders? Is this a conflict of interest? Will clients be limited in their choice of funders?…
Singapore Introduces Path to Conditional Fee Agreements
Singapore recently passed a Legal Professional (Amendment) Bill that permits CFAs (conditional fee arrangements) in international arbitrations. This change, introduced by the Legal Professional (Amendment) Act 2022, is said to improve the options to share risk among the involved parties….
Australian Chief Justice Weighs in on Class Action Debate
Chief Justice James Allsop has a lot to say about class action reform in Australia. He asserts that class actions have an inherent public benefit—one that’s in constant danger of being minimized or even forgotten. This came within days of AG Michaelia Cash revealing that the government would not continue its quest for litigation funding…
How State Laws Can Impact Litigation Funding
Can the medieval doctrines of champerty and maintenance impact litigation funding agreements today? Most jurisdictions have abolished the outdated concepts prohibiting anything that looks like third-parties betting on litigation—but it still behooves counsel to know the laws of their case’s jurisdiction. …
Draft of Australia’s Amendment to Improve Outcomes for Litigation Funding Participants
The future of the litigation funding marketplace in Australia is a hot topic of late. Canberra (Australia’s capital city) is putting pressure on litigation investor returns by suggesting a 30% cap on the ROI of litigation agreements. Citics of Canberra’s blanket move are furious, many alluding that any such mandate will stifle access to justice. …
The Complexities of Third-Party Legal Funding in India
Litigation Finance is alive and well in India and was affirmed to be in line with public policy since the Ram Coomar Coondoo and Others v Chunder Canto Mookerjee (1876) case. Like most other jurisdictions that have embraced the practice, Indian courts accept that litigation funding expands and promotes access to justice. Furthermore, India has…
