Blog

Browse Our Blog By Location

Champerty pops up again!

Champerty pops up again! Is it time to put the maintenance and champerty rules to the test? Senior Investment Manager, Jeremy Marshall shares his views.

'Super priority' rescue finance in Singapore

In what may prove to be a landmark decision for both of Singapore’s insolvency and litigation finance regimes, the Singapore High Court (HC) has ordered that Omni Bridgeway’s financing of an undisclosed private international arbitration be given super priority status in the context of a corporate restructuring.

Statutory price cap proposal: leaving victims of wrongdoing with nowhere to go

The Australian Government is considering the merits of legislating a minimum return to group members in funded class actions, potentially as high as 70 per cent of gross proceeds. The introduction of a 70 per cent minimum would be a completely arbitrary measure and is not supported by reference to any analysis of the negative implications for the funding of class actions or the risks being assumed by litigation funders.

Did you read the last NDA you signed?

Did you read the last NDA you signed? Jeremy Marshall discusses the important UK Supreme Court decision in Harcus Sinclair LLP v Your Lawyers Limited and others and explains why an automatic e-signature could be very costly for lawyers and funders alike.

Canada Modernizes its Model Bilateral Investment Treaty

We take a deep dive into Canada’s amendments to its Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement Model ("model FIPA"). For foreign investors or parties bringing claims under new investment treaties, we discuss the key procedural and substantive changes.

The love-hate relationship with audit negligence

With the Supreme Court recently handing down its decision in Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton LLP and Khan v Meadows, Omni Bridgeway’s Jeremy Marshall highlights the challenges associated with litigation funding cases relating to audit negligence.

Third-party funding in the MENA region

The international market for third-party funding is growing rapidly, driven by the increased use, cost, and complexity of international arbitration, together with increasing demands on arbitration parties and practitioners to manage the associated costs and risks and is gradually becoming more accepted in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region.

Explosion? What explosion? The truth about class actions

So much for the so-called ‘explosion’ in shareholder class actions backed by unscrupulous litigation funders. This claim, used liberally by sections of corporate Australia and their US big business allies to justify self-serving attacks on the litigation funding industry, was always based on dubious accounting. But now we have incontestable evidence that the ‘explosion’ is nothing more than a myth.

Dispute funding in the U.K. and Singapore: A comparative review and looking ahead

Common law jurisdictions where third-party funding is in its nascent stage, such as Singapore, can look to jurisdictions with a more established third-party funding infrastructure, such as the U.K., to develop and refine its own regime. We engage in a comparative review of the development of litigation finance in the UK and Singapore and look ahead at how funding may continue to evolve there.

Hong Kong Law Reform Commission consultation on ‘outcome related fee structures’ for lawyers in arbitration – Omni Bridgeway submission

At present, Hong Kong lawyers are not permitted to charge legal fees based on the outcome of any proceedings. However, in some jurisdictions around the world, various forms of flexible financial solutions are permitted. As Hong Kong is a leading centre for arbitration and wishes to preserve and promote its competitiveness with other popular arbitral seats, the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong (Commission) established a sub-committee to make recommendations regarding ‘Outcome Related Fee Structures’ (ORFS).