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.
As the Wall Street Journal reported, established funders have substantial capital, and a number of new investors and funding companies have been entering the market.
As the largest commercial litigation funding company in Texas, Bentham IMF is often asked by attorneys in the Lone Star State about specific ethics issues and their relation to funding.
Stevens & Lee P.C. attorneys Eric Robinson and Daniel Huyett urge litigators to discuss litigation finance in an article published by Law360 today, describing it as “a subject that litigators ignore at the risk of a client relationship.”
Norton Rose recently published the results of its 2017 litigation trends annual survey, which highlighted several trends that underscore the importance of managing disputes economically.
A rising demand for litigation funding from law firms and litigants, coupled with a surge in outside investment into the industry, has fueled the rapid expansion of the U.S. litigation finance market.
In part 2 of our Friday Funding series, New York Investment Manager Jim Batson explains how law firms and claimants can benefit from utilizing litigation funding for working capital.