It is one thing to claim that you are transparent but it is another thing to be transparent. In this blog we've taken a selfie together with our parent company in Australia. We discuss two recent investments in cases that have been realized and where litigation funding provided access to justice.
Since its launch in 2001, Bentham IMF has served as a thought leader for the commercial litigation finance industry. This past year, Bentham IMF in the US has initiated a series of roundtables, where distinguished academics and lawyers discussed critical issues and best practices for the industry. In the first half of 2014, Bentham IMF co-hosted a roundtable at Stanford University’s Center for the Legal Profession. The results of our thinking coming out of this roundtable were interesting.
You can take it with you, or perhaps you cannot take it with you. Is unfinished business the property of a defunct firm that has closed involuntarily and therefore subject to attachment by creditors or is unfinished business the property of the partners of a firm that closed voluntarily and who have moved on to a new firm? We’ve reviewed four decisions where the circumstances of a firm’s closing impacts the right to unfinished business profits.
In the fall of 2013 Bentham IMF invited Professor Charles Silver and a group of distinguished academics, senior litigators and commercial litigation funders to discuss the evolution of litigation funding, the ethical and legal issues in the field and the efforts to increase acceptance. Professor Silver holds the Roy W. and Eugenia C. McDonald Endowed Chair in Civil Procedure at the School of Law at the University of Texas at Austin. In these interviews he discusses the similarities and differences between litigation funding and liability insurance.
Bentham IMF agrees with the recent article "Claims Without Merit are the Problem, Not Trolls" published in the April/May 2014 issue of GENERAL COUNSEL by Marla R. Butler, a partner at Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP. The article takes attention surrounding patent litigation reform away from patent trolls to focus on the real issue at hand -- meritless claims. Ms. Butler gives a succinct summary and explanation on those activities that lend to meritless, problematic claims and identifies how individual States are taking action.
In previous blogs we have discussed whether or not availability of funding means that there will be an increase of frivolous law suits. Certainly from reviewing Bentham’s track record, we believe that the courts feel that Bentham is funding meritorious claims. Now we turn to a discussion of whether or not the relaxing of ‘loser pays’ rules in the United States will increase the demand for litigation funding. Whether or not we see an increase of patent claimholders seeking to share in the risk of a potential ‘loser pays’ scenario, we note that for the past twelve years, Bentham has been funding cases in Australia where the ‘loser pays’ scenario applies to all litigation.
Jim is the newest addition to the Bentham IMF team. It will be obvious to you once you read his bio why we are so excited to have him. Not only is he a seasoned litigator but he has financed litigation and consulted to a litigation finance firm. What you won't know until you meet him in person is that he is very tall. At 6'4" and an athlete, he will be a powerful team member if anyone challenges the Bentham group to a game of basketball, tennis or baseball.
The DNA of liability insurance shares some genes with commercial litigation finance, yet the "cousins" have different genes as well. We usually speak of the evolution of living species and how one population of a species changes over time. Here we compare the evolution of the acceptance of liability insurance with the evolution of commercial litigation finance – a newer tool to protect liability -- and its growing acceptance.
Ralph Sutton was invited to give a presentation on litigation funding to an august group of mediators and arbitrators at the 16th annual JAMS owners conference in Miami. JAMS mediators and arbitrators handle cases ranging in size, complexity and industry. Of course, their first choice is to successfully resolve cases without going to litigation. When successful, this route is often more efficient, less expensive and more private than the alternative – litigation. However, sometimes things do not work out as planned and the two sides move on to litigation. Everyone involved in the case should be aware of the opportunities that litigation financing might present to get the case resolved on what might be considered Plan B.
In the fall of 2013 Bentham IMF invited Professor Charles Silver and a group of distinguished academics, senior litigators and commercial litigation funders to discuss the evolution of litigation funding, the ethical and legal issues in the field and the efforts to increase acceptance. Professor Silver holds the Roy W. and Eugenia C. McDonald Endowed Chair in Civil Procedure at the School of Law at the University of Texas at Austin. In these interviews he discusses the similarities and differences between litigation funding and liability insurance.
Professor W. Bradley Wendel is a Professor of Law at Cornell Law School. His experience has been as a litigator, judicial law clerk and educator. Brad joined the Cornell faculty in 2004, after teaching at Washington and Lee Law School from 1999-2004. Before entering graduate school and law teaching, he was a product liability litigator at Bogle & Gates in Seattle and a law clerk for Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. His teaching interests are in the regulation of the legal profession and torts, and his research focuses on the application of moral and political philosophy to problems of legal ethics.
Although you may never meet Stephanie in person, you will certainly come in contact with her by phone or email. As head of US operations for Bentham IMF, Stephanie’s outreach includes claimholders and lawyers who are looking for commercial litigation funding, vendors and new hires.
With the opening of an office in London, Bentham IMF Ltd can now claim that it is the only commercial litigation funding company that has working offices on three continents. Being a global company with 8 offices around the globe means that the Bentham IMF companies are accessible to more claimholders who require financing for their cases.
Commercial litigation funding and liability insurance are in many ways strikingly similar and in many ways they are very different. You can consider them mirror images of each other. While both are designed to help the party deal with the consequences of litigation by shifting the costs and risks to someone else, commercial litigation helps the plaintiff; liability insurance helps the defendant.
You are not sleeping at night. You are anxious. You have a meritorious large commercial claim. You are cowed by your opponent’s deep pockets. You may need operating money for your business or just to feed your family. You need help. You need alternative litigation financing. YOU NEED BENTHAM.
Jeremy Bentham advocated litigation funding as a means for providing access to justice for people who cannot afford the cost of litigation. His beliefs live on as does his body. It is not every day that you can see mummified bodies of great thinkers of the world. At the end of the South Cloisters of the main building of University College of London, in a closet the size of a telephone booth is Jeremy Bentham, the Auto-Icon. How unusual is that!
Commercial litigation funders have been raising money the “old-fashioned way” via personal meetings or telephone calls with individual investors, family offices, hedge funds and large institutions. A recent example of crowdfunding to support a pro bono case shows that advances in the use and acceptance of social media might change the way money is raised and from whom it is raised.
Your business has been wronged. You file suit and pursue your day in court, but the tenacious, deep-pocketed defendant that has wronged you is now draining all your resources. You turn to a litigation funder to help you keep fighting. Do you need to reveal your financial arrangement with the other side to prove you are still the “real party in interest”? Judge Cole of the Northern District of Illinois says, “No.”
Your business has been wronged. You file suit and pursue your day in court, but the tenacious, deep-pocketed defendant that has wronged you is now draining all your resources. You turn to a litigation funder to help you keep fighting. Do you need to reveal your financial arrangement with the other side to prove you are still the “real party in interest”? Judge Cole of the Northern District of Illinois says, “No.”
Not a bad idea to interview several commercial litigation funders before choosing one to work with, but be sure to execute an NDA with each one at the start of talks. The plaintiff in Miller v. Caterpillar interviewed several commercial litigation funders, but did not heed this advice. The Court ordered Miller to produce certain exchanges with funders that were covered by an NDA, while those discussions that were pursuant to an NDA were protected. The moral of the story is clear.
