Blog

The benefits of using a litigation funder's money, and not your own, to pursue a meritorious claim.

In recent years, the legal industry has seen a dramatic increase in demand for alternative fee arrangements (AFAs).

Whilst 2016 was a somewhat discombobulating year across the globe, it was also a year of new beginnings, terrific opportunity and achievement.

Vaughn Walker, retired Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and a member of Bentham’s Investment Committee, sat with ALM’s Ben Hancock for a podcast interview where he took industry critics to task as well as discussed the benefits of litigation finance.

Bentham IMF Legal Counsel Julia Gewolb discusses the Singapore Parliament’s recent passage of legislation allowing the use of litigation finance in international arbitration cases.

On 10 January 2017, the Civil Law (Amendment) Bill (38/2016) passed its second reading before the Parliament of Singapore. The Bill abolishes the torts of maintenance and champerty, and for the first time makes it expressly lawful for a third party to fund dispute resolution proceedings in Singapore.

In the United States, the litigation finance industry is more mature than in Canada; American law firms and clients often use funding to pursue meritorious commercial litigation. At the same time, the U.S. market is evolving quickly. In just five years since Bentham opened its first U.S. office, it represents approximately 50% of our cases worldwide.

Bentham IMF’s New York Investment Managers and Legal Counsel, Dave Kerstein and Jim Batson explain how Bentham structures its financing deals to enable risk sharing while delivering simplicity, fairness, and transparency.

The benefits to businesses, big and small, of taking the risk of litigation off balance sheet to free up capital for use elsewhere.

Supporting whistleblowers and their lawyers in cases exposing fraud committed against the government is a priority for Bentham IMF.

Law360 published an expert analysis column written by Bentham IMF’s Chief Investment Officer, Ralph J. Sutton, which sets forth several predictions about major commercial litigation funding trends to watch in the new year.

Every century or so, the legal industry evolves to help parties deal with the ever-increasing costs of litigation.

Law.com published an article written by Bentham IMF Legal Counsel, John Harabedian, regarding the assortment of notable legal decisions relating to litigation funding that were handed down in 2016.

A jaw-dropping 59% of firms reported that “non-hourly” fee projects were as profitable or more profitable than standard hourly billing.

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.

Involving an experienced litigation funder at an early stage can give clients a significant strategic advantage, certainty about how their litigation will be resourced, and eliminate adverse costs risk.

Litigation funding may provide an effective alternative to selling receivables for law firms looking to quickly improve cash flow, enhance profitability, and preserve future revenue.

Law firm portfolio funding is a form of litigation finance involving a third-party investment in several cases on which the same law firm has been engaged on a contingency basis.

Claim value is unquestionably a key factor in the funding decision. A $1 million claim can be as complex and expensive to run as a $5 million claim. As claim value moves below $1 million it is likely to be less commercially viable to fund. An inflection point is reached where the costs and risks approach or exceed potential recoveries. In the insolvency context, Court approval, if required, may depend upon the Insolvency Practitioners demonstrating that pursuing the claim is in the creditors’ interests. To that end Courts have regard to claim value and likely return to creditors .

In 2006 the High Court of Australia, by a majority in the renowned Fostif decision, approved of a litigation funder agreeing by contract to meet the costs of a legal proceeding in return for a share of any sums recovered. This chapter examines the growth, developments and regulation of the litigation funding industry.