Tag Archives: litigation

Woodsford Litigation Funding in the US

The opening of the first United States office was announced by Woodsford Litigation Funding in July 2017. The funder follows the steps of other investors in the market such as Bentham IMF, Vannin Capital and Burford Capital. The funder said the expansion was a natural outcome of having already funded a number of US cases.

Woodsford managed to employ a team of experienced litigators to its US advisory panel. Many of them are former members of the federal judiciary. And it is a common case, in the US, for them to take up posts within law firms. For instance, Shira Scheindlin, former US District Court judge for the Southern District of New York, said that she was pleased to join Woodsford as it brings its international expertise to the United States.

Read full article at cdr-news.com

Summarized by Natalia Tsar.

UK’s Commercial Court permits Third Party Litigation Funding Costs in Arbitration Proceedings

essar-v-norscotIn CL-2016-000188 Essar Oilfield Services Limited v. Norscot Rig Management Pvt Limited, the United Kingdom’s Commercial Court upheld a decision to reward litigation funding costs to the victor of an arbitration proceeding. The Court’s decision to award litigation funding costs was based on the Arbitration Act 1996, which states that an Arbitrator “may determine by award the recoverable costs of the arbitration”, including “the legal or other costs of the parties.”

This is seen as a landmark decision that will draw third-party funded parties more towards arbitration  than litigation.

See full article at Lexology

Summarized by Jonathan Winsley

 

Litigation funding company commits $1.7 million to a case against Chevron

therium-litigation-funding-icLitigation funders’ traditional cloak of confidentiality was recently ordered to be removed from a litigation funding firm by a federal judge presiding over the putative class action Gbarabe v. Chevron. 

The District Court for the Northern District of California granted Chevron’s motion seeking to require the plaintiff to produce a funding agreement between attorneys for the putative class and Therium Litigation Funding IC, whereby Therium invested $1.7 million in the outcome of the litigation.

In light of the class action nature of the litigation, the Court adopted Chevron’s argument that disclosure of the information regarding third-party funding was necessary to evaluate the adequacy of class counsel, which is one of the elements that a Court considers in determining whether a lawsuit should proceed as a class action.

See full article at LegalNewsLine.

Summarized by Jonathan Winsley