Familiarity with litigation funding has ramped up across the legal and corporate communities in recent years, with lawyers and executives becoming comfortable with abstract concepts of how funding works.
As litigation funding rises to the mainstream, the body of case law signaling judicial acceptance of non-recourse litigation finance continues to grow.
We sat down with Nicholas Kajon to get his take on how the bankruptcy bar has reacted to the use of litigation finance since MagCorp and whether funding should be integrated by lawyers into their practice.
Kenneth Epstein, Investment Manager and Legal Counsel at Bentham IMF, and Eric B. Fisher, Partner at Binder & Schwartz, analyze and explain the benefits of utilizing commercial litigation finance in corporate bankruptcy cases in an article published by the New York Law Journal.
A Pennsylvania federal court confirms what a majority of courts have already held – that funder communications are protected by the work product doctrine.
Andrew Saker, IMF Bentham CEO and Managing Director, recently sat down with The CEO Magazine’s Adrian Flores to discuss IMF Bentham’s business strategy and what it takes to lead Australia’s largest litigation funder.
In an article that was published in Law360, Julia Gewolb, legal counsel at Bentham IMF, outlines key questions on the economics of single-case funding that all claimants should carefully consider when comparing funding terms.
ABA Model Rule 5.4 prohibits lawyers from sharing legal fees with non-lawyers except under limited circumstances like including non-lawyer employees in compensation or retirement plans.
Litigation financing can provide distinct advantages for law firms looking to grow their practice without taking on the risk and expense of a loan from a bank.
Mixing up the two types of litigation financing creates the risk of regulating in the interest of protecting consumers while limiting solutions that level the playing field for commercial enterprises.
The proliferation of litigation funding in recent years has caused some to question whether it should be allowed. However, the reality is that California courts settled that question more than 25 years ago.
In a profession that is notorious for being resistant to change, this survey is a yearly reminder of what in-house counsel deem important as well as a guide of how to tweak your approach to meet client needs.
