Supporters of efforts to force disclosure of litigation funding arrangements often fail to mention the massive strain such proposals would likely place on an already overburdened court system.
A new study by Tennessee-based litigation funding broker Westfleet Advisors has found that litigants attempting to force disclosure of an opposing party’s litigation financing documents are overwhelmingly unsuccessful.
Cheng-Yee Khong, Associate Investment Manager – Hong Kong and member of the MARC Court, recently attended the first Mauritius Arbitration Week organised by the MCCI Arbitration & Mediation Center (MARC) in Port Louis.
Across Australia, IMF Bentham has participated in the Governance and Risk Management Forum 2018 panel discussions on insights into Directors & Officers insurance, changing market conditions, continuous disclosure, securities class actions and how the Australian D&O insurance market impacts the boardroom.
Litigation funding is gaining in popularity among plaintiffs, especially corporate litigants who could fund their own litigation but are looking at litigation funding as a form of project finance. This is because the business community and their legal advisors have begun to see litigation as a project or an asset class—one which they can unlock by using litigation funding.
This week, IMF Bentham’s US operations received top-tier recognition from Chambers and Partners, which selected us as one of only two “Band One” litigation funding companies in the United States.
Chambers and Partners has selected Bentham IMF as one of only two “Band One” litigation funding companies in the United States. We are honored by the feedback that our clients and friends shared with the publication about their experiences working with us.
In an article featured in the April issue of the TMA’s Journal of Corporate Renewal, Bentham IMF's Ken Epstein explains how practitioners and bankruptcy courts are using litigation funding with increasing frequency to help boost creditor recoveries.
Bentham IMF opines on The Litigation Funding Transparency Act of 2018, which would require disclosure of litigation funding arrangements in any federal class action and any federal claim that is aggregated into a federal multi-district litigation (MDL) proceeding.
Lawyers across Canada have taken note of Aird & Berlis v. Oravital Inc., a case in which Ontario’s highest court has provided guidance on lawyers’ duty to advise clients about litigation prospects and risks.
Litigation funding has evolved into a tool that funders also use to help law firms and companies finance portfolios of litigation, including occasional defense-side matters, to reduce risk and maximize potential recoveries.
For in-house counsel, litigation funding is a powerful corporate finance tool—one that can help them transform legal claims into revenue-generating assets rather than anchors dragging down the bottom line.
Get creative with alternative fee arrangements by using litigation finance for hybrid portfolios of plaintiff and defense side matters. We explain in the final segment of our four-part Case Studies series.
We explore how funding enables law firms to offer their clients a broader array of fee arrangement options while also boosting firm revenues and profits and reducing the risks associated with traditional contingency arrangements.
At two class action conferences held in Melbourne and Sydney last week, ALRC chair Justice Sarah Derrington announced some of the Australian Law Reform Commission’s preliminary ideas. The formal submission stage will take place in June / July before the final report is submitted in December 2018.
