Readers of our previous issues understand that litigation finance is a tool for the legal department to control spending and help contribute to the company’s bottom line. Indeed, companies with litigation portfolios are more frequently using litigation funding to manage budgetary pressures and mitigate litigation risk.
Notwithstanding the growth in this market, the companies still exploring litigation finance have questions about how it works and whether it can advance their strategic interests. This two-part series will answer some of the most prevalent questions from corporate legal departments that are considering litigation funding for their affirmative claims.
The United States has long purported to be a champion of arbitration. This stance is embodied both in the “pro-arbitration” Federal Arbitration Act enacted by Congress nearly a century ago and in U.S. treaties providing for the recognition of international arbitration awards. The U.S. likewise boasts rich jurisprudence regarding personal jurisdiction, defining when parties can be hauled into court in this country. But what happens when these two principles collide, for example, when a foreign losing party to an international arbitration merges into another entity that has property in the U.S. that can be used to satisfy an adverse award?
Litigation finance’s presence in the bankruptcy industry is in its early stages. However, given the overall size of capital that litigation funders control and how this capital is deployed across case types, its presence in the marketplace will continue to expand -- particularly as the market becomes more familiar with the process, funders grow comfortable with investing in the distressed debt market, and the pace of corporate filings increase in the next economic downturn.
On Aug. 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion widely anticipated in the international arbitration and award enforcement communities, involving numerous disputes between the Kingdom of Spain and renewable energy investors from other European nations.
In its ruling in NextEra Energy Global Holdings BV v. Kingdom of Spain, the D.C. Circuit provided a glimmer of hope that award holders might succeed in U.S. courts — at least from a technical legal standpoint.
At the same time, the court lit a path for foreign sovereigns to render any such victories economically meaningless.
After years of hard-fought litigation, most claimants are thrilled to obtain a final and enforceable judgment or arbitration award. However, more often than one thinks, this excitement is followed by the disappointing realization that the defendant has little interest in voluntarily satisfying the award.
This article explores how a judgment creditor might consider creating an enforcement strategy by leveraging an asset trace report. While the research focuses on identifying assets, the ultimate strategy requires a thoughtful engagement between asset tracers and counsel—often across multiple jurisdictions—to achieve success.
Stubborn judgment debtors routinely look for ways to delay or increase the cost of collection. Aided by a vibrant “asset protection” industry in certain U.S. jurisdictions, they frequently turn to LLCs in those jurisdictions to retain the benefit of their property while shielding it from creditors, hoping that enforcement courts will defer to those states’ LLC acts and prevent turnover of membership interests. But a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit provides some reason for optimism that, at least for debtors subject to personal jurisdiction in New York, these corporate shell games may not be entertained by courts in America’s financial hub.
In-house legal counsel are key members of corporate teams and are often responsible for managing credit and insolvency related risks faced by their organizations. Particularly when insolvency and litigation risks converge, in house lawyers play a critical role in helping corporations make strategic decisions to optimize value. The following cases demonstrate how funding can provide unique and flexible solutions for both debtors with affirmative litigation claims and creditors with claims against insolvent corporations.
In Australia, dispute finance has long been associated with class actions and access to justice. However, a paradigm shift is underway as well-heeled corporates begin to recognise the broader applications of dispute finance, particularly how it can be used as a sophisticated corporate finance and risk management tool.
Judgment and award creditors often fret that US courts are unfriendly and the tools to unravel complicated asset protection schemes are inadequate. In an encouraging ruling refuting this sentiment, the Southern District of New York recently reiterated its endorsement for reverse veil piercing as a remedy for unsatisfied judgment creditors seeking to hold corporate entities responsible for judgment liabilities of shareholders and directors.
In challenging economic conditions, construction businesses face intense pressure to maximise revenue and optimise cashflow. Legal claims are valuable assets in this context and should be prioritised. However, the upfront cost of advancing construction claims often prevents companies from doing so.
Companies with affirmative claims increasingly are using litigation finance to pursue meritorious cases, reduce legal expenses, and manage financial risk. But not all funding requests are approved, and an application can be handicapped by an overly optimistic opinion about the potential recovery in a case or a casually prepared litigation budget.
One of the significant risks that creditors weigh when deciding whether to lend money is bankruptcy risk: can the borrower use the bankruptcy laws to discharge the debt or compel the creditor to accept less than it bargained for? In the sovereign debt market, it has been an article of faith for creditors that states cannot file for bankruptcy and obtain such relief. But a recent ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York—Hamilton Reserve Bank v. Sri Lanka—may cause creditors to question that faith, with uncertain consequences for sovereign creditors and borrowers alike.
The Singapore Court of Appeal has upheld a decision by the Singapore High Court that a costs undertaking given by Omni Bridgeway was an adequate form of security for costs. The High Court decision was the first time a Singapore court has permitted a litigation funder to provide a costs undertaking as security. The Court of Appeal’s endorsement of the decision is another example of the Singapore judiciary’s continuing acceptance of third party dispute finance for court proceedings.
