As the third party funding ecosystem matures, businesses’ organizational systems and processes are sure to evolve. A credit agreement has traditionally served as a loan vehicle to fund litigation. The loan earns interests while an “after the event” (ATE) policy is secured to insure the loan. If litigation is successful, credit agreement facilities traditionally can be helpful.
An LFJ Conversation with Michael Kelley, Partner, Parker Poe
As the third party funding ecosystem matures, businesses’ organizational systems and processes are sure to evolve. A credit agreement has traditionally served as a loan vehicle to fund litigation. The loan earns interests while an “after the event” (ATE) policy is secured to insure the loan. If litigation is successful, credit agreement facilities traditionally can be helpful.
However, Andrew Mckie’s new essay on LinkedIn points out flaws in credit agreements, many with too many moving parts that are convoluted. Mckie argues that legacy credit agreements are prone to misselling and misrepresentation. When credit agreements are mis-sold, Mckie points out that many ATE policies are rendered void, a commonly undesirable consequence for parties of failed litigation.
When a credit agreement gets to the stage of ATE policy cancellation, Mckie prompts the disadvantaged to evaluate the capacity of professional negligence as a culprit. Depending on the severity of the matter, negligence can be career-ending malpractice.
Mckie’s thematic point concludes that modern litigation funding agreements have dynamism that credit agreements simply lack in design. Read the entire essay to learn more.
