Blog

Litigation funding provides in-house counsel with the ability to pursue claims while overcoming the objections they typically hear from their financial team.

Though the ancient doctrine of champerty is on the decline, it’s still used in some jurisdictions to invalidate funding agreements.

There are ethical rules funders and lawyers must be mindful of that prevent a third party from directly influencing case strategy.

Los Angeles Investment Manager David Gallagher recently participated on a panel discussion about litigation funding hosted by LACBA's Antitrust & Unfair Business Practices Section.

Bentham's Matthew Harrison participates in a panel discussion focused on the “Financial Aspects of Intellectual Property Litigation.”

Following the recent decision of the Queen’s Bench for Saskatchewan in Schneider v Royal Crown Gold Reserve Inc, six provinces have now set out the guiding principles for approving third-party litigation funding agreements. Although most decisions are in the class action context, they are instructive for general commercial litigation, the core of Bentham IMF’s business in Canada.

The results of Norton Rose Fulbright's 2016 Litigation Trends Annual Survey are in and show a rising trend in the use of Alternative Fee Arrangements.

For a cash-strapped estate, financing a litigation asset to obtain an infusion from a funder can mean the difference between continuing with a winning strategy or potential capitulation.

Bentham IMF recently celebrated its 5-year anniversary in the United States on September 21, 2016 with a seminar co-hosted by Bloomberg BNA titled "Litigation Finance: Driving Law Firm Profitability."

For plaintiffs, the growing costs of e-discovery can cramp their attempt to gather evidence and ultimately endanger their ability to pursue worthwhile litigation.

Third party litigation funding (TPF) can benefit businesses of all sizes, but small and medium sized companies can find particular value in using TPF for their cases.

Bentham IMF works with law firms to create litigation portfolios that allow firms to finance several clients’ cases at once.

In this week's blog on Prism Legal, Bentham's Dave Kerstein discusses the evolution of the litigation finance industry in the U.S. and discusses why law firms increasingly look to funding as a means to reduce risk.

Scorched earth tactics tend to occur in cases where a smaller business sues a larger, deep-pocketed defendant.

With corporate legal departments facing financial constraints, litigation funders like Bentham IMF are emerging as vital partners for companies looking to recover assets and protect their rights in the marketplace.

In our conversations introducing commercial litigation funding to the Canadian legal market, we are frequently asked about maintenance and champerty. Under current Canadian jurisprudence, third-party funding does not offend the doctrines of maintenance and champerty.

Bentham’s Ralph Sutton and Julia Gewolb weigh in on the implications of Judge Illston’s decision in Gbarabe v. Chevron Corp., No. 14-cv-00173, 2016 WL 4154849 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2016) to compel a class action plaintiff to produce his confidential litigation funding agreement to the defendant.

While each funder uses a unique set of criteria to assess the potential value of investing in a case, lawyers are likely to find similarities in the factors taken into consideration.

When lawyers become comfortable with explaining the intricacies of litigation funding, they become better counselors to their clients because they are able to present a broader array of options for financing a case.