Tag Archives: litigation finance fees

Third party litigation funding of class actions in Ontario

In Houle v. St. Jude Medical Inc., 2017 ONSC 5129, Bentham IMF Capital Inc., an Australian-based litigation financing firm, entered into a financing agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Houle. They are plaintiffs in a proposed class action alleging negligent manufacture and distribution of implantable cardiac defibrillators and failure to warn of rapid, premature battery depletion.

As for contingency fee, the later the stage at which the action is resolved, the larger the payout that Bentham would receive. Justice Perell reviewed existing case law. His Honour stated that third party funding agreements could be approved only if they were legal, fair and reasonable. However, the Bentham funding agreement failed some conditions that had to be satisfied in order for a court to approve a third-party funding agreement. It ran the risk of overcompensating Bentham and interfered with the lawyer-client relationship.

Read full article at SecuritiesLitigation.blog

Summarized by Natalia Tsar.

$20 million financing deal

A $20 million financing deal has been signed with litigation boutique Lewis Baach by Woodsford Litigation Funding. It will offer clients an expedited, one-stop arrangement for the financing of high value litigation. The deal covers matters in any jurisdiction around the world where Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss offer contingency fee arrangements. Also, it will work where funding is required for the additional litigation expenses, including expert witness fees, e-discovery costs and court and tribunal fees. Brazilian funder, Leste Litigation Finance, also supports the international arrangement between the two. As part of a collaboration agreement announced in March, for any matters with a Brazilian element, Leste and Woodsford will regulate funding jointly.

Read full article at GlobalLegalPost.com

Summarized by Natalia Tsar.

Australia’s Money Max Decision Allows Litigation Funders to Collect Fees from all Class Members

In Money Max Int Pty Ltd v QBE [2016] FCAFC 148, Australia’s Full Federal Court permitted a “common fund”, which allows a litigation funder to collect a “reasonable funding commission” (the exact amount of which would determined at a later time) from all members of a particular class, including members who did not sign up to a funding agreement.

The Court also stated that no class member be worse off under the order than had the order not been made, and that all class members be given notice of the order and an opportunity to opt out. In its order, the Court sought greater access to justice.  Although uncertainties remain, this decision will most likely make litigation funding more enticing for litigation funders in Australia.

View full post at Mondaq

Summarized by Francis Michigan.