Search

The need to provide efficient access to justice has presented challenges for civilised society since such societies came into being. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Litigation funding has become an essential ingredient in collective actions for breaches of competition law brought in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). In the recent PACCAR proceedings, the Supreme Court was asked to rule on the nature and enforceability of litigation funding agreements (LFAs) between third-party litigation funders and group representatives where the success fee is determined as a percentage of the damages award. 1 The Court held with a 4:1 majority (Lady Rose dissenting) 2 that the LFAs in question are damages-based fee agreements (DBAs) and, as such, unenforceable. This judgment has wide-ranging consequences, as the CAT is unlikely to allow collective actions to proceed if the funding agreements cannot be relied on. The decision has caused uncertainty and upheaval in the funding market as a considerable number of funding agreements in collective proceedings contain DBAs. It also triggered legal challenges in collective proceedings where funders are seeking to amend the funding agreements to deal with the Supreme Court ruling. 3 The fall-out from the decision suggests that funding rules for collective actions may need more legislative attention – litigation funding was given some thought during the drafting of the opt-out action regime, but the legal framework for litigation funding remains fragmented and open to interpretation. 4 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the impact of a 2023 judgment by the UK Supreme Court on litigation funding practices in the country. The case, known as PACCAR, has sparked public interest and prompted proposed legislation by the UK government. The article provides an overview of the history of litigation funding in the UK, the PACCAR judgment, and its implications for the future of litigation funding. It highlights the significance of appropriate funding methods in promoting access to justice and raises the question of whether legislative proposals should go beyond returning to the previous status quo. The article also discusses the role of third-party funding in collective and class actions and the importance of funding options for claimants seeking redress. It examines the use of Damages-Based Agreements (DBAs) in civil litigation and the challenges associated with their implementation, emphasizing the need for improved regulations to enhance clarity and confidence in their use as a funding method. The article further delves into the PACCAR decision, which clarified the interpretation of statutory provisions related to DBAs and claims management services. The Supreme Court ruled that funders providing financial services in relation to claims fall under the definition of claims management services, impacting the enforceability of funding arrangements in collective proceedings. The article discusses the consequences of the PACCAR judgment on litigation funding in England, including satellite litigation in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) as defendants question the enforceability of litigation funding agreements (LFAs). The CAT has ruled that LFAs with a multiple of outlay return are not [Extracted from the article]

Public K-12 education plays an essential role in preparing the next generation of Americans for participation in our democracy. Funding for education comes primarily through state and local funds, with some supplementation federally. Much of the local funding for K-12 education comes through the assessment of property taxes at the local level. This leads to significant per-pupil disparities in funding both within a given state and certainly between states. This Article explores the use of school funding litigation as a tool to increase K-12 funding and to improve adequacy and equity of educational opportunities for students. The Article opens with a review of the history of school funding litigation. It then reviews research on educational outcomes in states post-successful school funding litigation on the part of litigants. The Article concludes that school funding litigation can be an important tool that can be used to improve educational opportunities for all students. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Syracuse Law Review recently published a book on Educational Access and Opportunity, which includes articles and panel discussions on various topics related to education. The publication covers recent Supreme Court decisions on race-based affirmative action and student debt relief, as well as controversies surrounding K-12 education funding, curriculum restrictions, and online instruction. The symposium emphasized the importance of promoting education access and empowering the next generation. The articles in the book address issues such as the impact of the Supreme Court's decision on race-conscious admissions policies, efforts to dismantle diversity programs, the criminalization of teaching critical race theory in K-12 classrooms, and the racial wealth gap's contribution to disparities in student loan debt. The authors provide analysis, debunk claims, and propose constitutional protections for education rights. [Extracted from the article]

The first edition of Competition Law International for 2024 covers a range of topics related to competition law. The articles discuss merger control, antitrust litigation, enforcement in labor markets, challenges faced by the European Commission, digital markets and AI, employee acquisitions, and the analysis of unilateral effects. The articles provide insights from experts in the field and offer recommendations for companies navigating these issues. The edition aims to provide readers with thought-provoking content and invites contributions for future editions. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Revista Jurídica de la Universidad Autonóma de Madrid is the property of Dykinson SL and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Portugal has transposed EU Directive (EU) 2020/1828 into its legal system through the publication of Decree-law No. 114-A/2023. The Directive aims to protect consumer rights through representative actions and establishes regulations for both national and cross-border actions. The Decree-law introduces innovations such as cross-border actions, access to third-party funding, and injunctive measures. It also establishes transparency requirements for initiating legal actions and includes an opt-out mechanism for consumers. Recent developments include a court case involving Meliá Hotels International and the ongoing growth of consumer class actions in Portugal. [Extracted from the article]

State courts regularly enter in school finance decision making. School finance court cases have proceeded one or more times in all but two states. Plaintiffs ask the courts to rule that the existing funding formula is unconstitutional under state constitutions, and the defendants call for continuation of the existing finance formula. By compiling and analyzing the universe of such cases, we can accurately describe the nature of the cases, the decisions made, and the long run impact on overall financing of schools. Defendants win a slight majority of decisions with, surprisingly, their victories coming most frequently in low spending states and in low achieving states. And, while plaintiff victories on average yield an immediate increase in funding, they have no influence on long run growth in school spending. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 1978, Congress created a new federal bankruptcy law that has since become a key part of the American capital markets. I examine how large companies and their investors contract to make bankruptcy more or less likely, how distressed firms negotiate with creditors outside of bankruptcy, and how companies plan for a Chapter 11 filing and navigate the bankruptcy system. I also survey the strategic moves, ranging from litigation to financing, that activist investors deploy to improve their bargaining power and earn higher returns. The American bankruptcy system is evolving constantly, and prevailing accounts of bankruptcy law quickly become stale, creating a constant need for new empirical research to establish a foundation for policy making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Third Party Funding (TPF) is presented as a tool to help fund the cost of expensive litigation. In the context of Investment Arbitration, however, TPF has instead led to the commodification of justice, and raises concerns around its assetization. Arbitration often comes at a net loss for States, and the extraordinary expenditures required may pique the interest of third party funders who wish to profit from suing States. A two-fold movement contributed to the assetization process of TPF. The first movement was to package TPF as a tool to ensure access to justice, and the second was to assert a 'funding gap' in access to justice that ad hoc TPF alone could not address. TPF leads to more claims and riskier claims against States and increases the risk of crippling compensation. This requires States to allocate public funds to the cost of litigation, rather than to other necessary public services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines dividend policy issues in the European pharmaceutical industry. This sector is of particular interest because of the high research and development expenditures and the associated risks characterizing the business models of many firms in this industry. In fact, from the perspective of corporate finance theory, this is a particular challenge for the managers of these corporations that may also have implications for the dividend policy implemented by the firms forming this sector. Moreover, the level of internal financing and litigation risks also seem to be high in the pharmaceutical industry. These facts could also affect the payout policy of the firms. Employing techniques of time series analysis, there is no evidence for dividend signaling and clear evidence for dividend smoothing in the European pharmaceutical industry. Given that dividend increases under certain assumptions can negatively affect the firms' ability to finance new investments in general and research and development projects in particular, these results of our empirical investigations could be described as highly plausible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Close-out netting has been, and remains, crucial to the success of capital markets transactions such as OTC derivatives. A key credit risk mitigant, it has significant regulatory capital impact for prudentially regulated financial firms if they have obtained reasoned legal opinions confirming the enforceability of the close-out provisions of the relevant master trading agreement. These legal opinions are, however, complex and extremely nuanced, resulting in excessive costs in reviewing and (sometimes incorrect) application of the advice they provide. This paper considers the inherent challenges in the review and application of these legal opinions and whether they could perhaps be partly expressed in formal logic to address these challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article provides information on federal tax developments that took place in April 2023. It covers topics such as the determination of reasonable amounts for food and drink expenses under the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act, rectification directions for self-managed superannuation funds, proposed anti-avoidance measures for multinational tax integrity related to intangible assets, and a draft guideline for calculating the cost of electricity for home charging of electric vehicles.

The regulation of the interfaces of private and public interests is a central and recurrent issue of modern law. The centrality of the distinction and the manifold conceptual and practical problems associated with it has moreover been exacerbated over the past fifty years through the dominance of the twin-episteme of law constituted by law and economics and human rights law. Against this background, an alternative approach to and concept of law, transformative law, is briefly introduced. An approach which implies replacing the notions of private and public interests with the concepts of legally constituted public power and societal power. In order to analyse the potential and limits of transformative law, five legal phenomena, central to the other contributions to this special issue, are analysed: public interest litigation; legal mobilisation in the preliminary ruling procedure; bankruptcy proceedings; third-party litigation and the Meta Oversight Board. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conceived as a human right, access to justice is part of the rule of law, well recognised in several international instruments (Arts. 8 and 10 of the UDHR; Arts. 2.3 and 14 of the ICCPR; Arts. 6 and 13 of the ECHR and Art. 47 of the CFR). The present fulfilment of this right includes forms of privatisation like private insurance covering the costs of litigation, contingency-fee arrangements between lawyers and clients, crowdfunding applied to support the costs of litigation, and third-party litigation funding (TPLF). In the present article, I will restrict my analysis to TPLF as a private form of investment designed to finance access to justice. The aim of this article is to provide arguments in support of the regulation of TPLF as well as normative guidelines to inform that regulation. For this purpose, I will start by presenting different approaches to TPLF and will then assess -- from the human rights perspective -- examples of regulation. This evaluation intends to determine to what extent these regulations are in line with the human rights matrix of obligations: namely, the duty to respect, to protect and to fulfil human rights. Finally, I will present conclusions following the results of this evaluation and suggest guidelines to improve future regulations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the application of third-party litigation funding (TPLF), also referred to as commercial litigation funding, in insolvency litigation by way of a comparison of the legal position in Australia and South Africa. It proposes that TPLF could offer significant benefits by enabling liquidators of insolvent estates to pursue and enforce claims through civil proceedings with the aim of swelling the assets of the insolvent estate, ultimately to the advantage of the creditors. Since both jurisdictions share elements of English law, both were confronted with the English law doctrines of champerty and maintenance initially being regarded as impediments to the development and/or use of TPLF. Currently, and mainly due to developments in terms of case law, the concept of TPLF has in principle been accepted in both jurisdictions. However, in Australia the development originally transpired in the field of insolvency litigation. In South Africa the context was more in the confines of general litigation. It is submitted that the South African system could benefit by considering various aspects of the Australian system regarding the use of TPLF in insolvency litigation. It remains a question whether or not the respective systems would benefit by adopting comprehensive regulatory measures to regulate TPLF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper uses the historic 1979 California Supreme Court decision in Royal Globe Insurance Company v. Superior Court to examine the effects of expanding insurers' legal liability in claims disputes. The decision expanded insurers' good‐faith duty to settle liability claims to the injured third‐party claimant, extending the set of eligible plaintiffs to those with the greatest incentive to sue. The legal environment created by this decision changed payoffs for insurers and claimants in third‐party claims negotiations with potential effects for insurance claiming and compensation. Using data on automobile bodily injury liability claims, we make use of the quasi‐experimental nature of this decision to examine these effects. We find that Royal Globe led to larger claimed amounts of loss and higher claim payments for claims involving only minor strain injuries. Such claims were also more likely to involve attorney representation and were less likely to be closely examined by insurers after Royal Globe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal für Medizin- und Gesundheitsrecht (JMG) is the property of Verlag Oesterreich GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Thus, for example, the current interchange fee for Mastercard in the United Kingdom for a contactless consumer credit card transaction is 0.3%.[6] The current Mastercard interchange fee for government payments is 0.2% with a fee cap of £1 per transaction. United Kingdom • Follow-On Damages Actions: An Example of When They Might Not Occur? Keywords: follow-on damages; sector regulator; card services; cartel; private litigation EN follow-on damages sector regulator card services cartel private litigation 345 349 5 12/27/22 20221001 NES 221001 The Payment Systems Regulator (PSR), a sector regulator in the United Kingdom, has powers to apply provisions of the Competition Act 1998. The essence of the cartel related to the interchange fee.[11] Based on the information provided in the CAT Sainsbury case, the counterfactual interchange fee was on average 56% of the cartel interchange fee for credit cards. [Extracted from the article]

The article presents the discussion on lawyer based on their individual performance-related factors. Topics include important parts of the legal profession such as firm culture, professional norms, and third parties' perception of the profession; and changing the practice of law in ways remaining relevant to the contemporary American lawyer.

Notwithstanding, and although there are pending appeals, the Competition Court has already rejected this argument in I Ius Omnibus v Mastercard i and in I Ius Omnibus v Super Bock i , showing that third-party litigation funding is not relevant to affecting active legitimacy[9]. V. Litigation Funding - Brief Mention In some of these popular actions, litigation funding is present, such as in I Ius Omnibus v Mastercard i (no 19/20.5YQSTR) and I Ius Omnibus v Super Bock i (no 20/20.9YQSTR). Keywords: private enforcement; Portugal; consumer redress; third-party litigation funding EN private enforcement Portugal consumer redress third-party litigation funding 266 270 5 10/07/22 20220701 NES 220701 I. Introduction It is about 21 years since the famous CJEU Ruling in case C-453/99 I Courage and Crehan i which clarified the right to compensation for damages of any person deriving from the infringement of European competition law. [Extracted from the article]

On the one hand, the financial support that a litigant can obtain in order to bear the costs that litigation would entail would considerably facilitate the party's access to justice, but, on the other hand, precisely this difficult situation in which can find a litigant, can also be seen as a business opportunity for specialized companies that aim to make investments under the most conveniant conditions. The present article proposes a brief analysis of some aspects regarding a new trend in today's litigation funding which, at least at first sight, proves to be attractive and interesting: third party litigation funding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents a critical assessment of how blockchain technology is disrupting the monetisation of litigation claims through tokenization – and consequently further shaking up a revolutionary area in litigation financing. The significance in litigation financing is chiefly because tokenization presents securities to the general public in a far more accessible way than was previously the case – and even might enable non-accredited investors to participate in certain litigation financing investments for the first time (or with reduced barriers to entry). The assessment also considers the implications of a litigation pool that was already growing towards USD 20 billion, potentially now getting even larger. We further consider the regulatory challenges and the new moral hazards created in this fast-moving space. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Financial costs, which accompany the pursuit of legal redress is one of the impediments, which deter litigants from seeking legal rights, redress, or remedies. However, this domain of discussion, which pervades finance and law, is not very common in research literature. Objective: Accordingly, this paper aims to provide a conceptual understanding on the concept of litigation financing and a framework therefrom. Prior work: the paper relies on prior literature theorisations of litigation financing. Approach: The approach is conceptual with reliance on critical review of extant research discussions and culminates in a brief conceptual framework for further research on litigation finance. Findings: litigation financing is emerging in the investment arena and in legal practice. It holds potential for rewarding financial returns to investors (funders) if the risks are minimized. Implication: it offers practical, theoretical, and academic implications for legal policy makers, attorney firms, litigation investors (funders), and scholars of finance and law in business schools and law faculties. Value: it conceptualises litigation financing by adopting an interdisciplinary stance - crisscrossing the law and finance, and development of a novel conceptual framework of litigation financing for further research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores why third-party litigation financing or third-party funding (TPF) is well-suited for companies in difficulty or already placed in insolvency proceedings. It also explores the obstacles third-party funders face under French insolvency law as amended by Ordinance No 2021-1193 of 15 September 2021, and further to Ordinance No 2021-1192 of 15 September 2021, which reformed French law relating to security interests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Litigation finance is a rapidly growing niche asset class focused on debt and equity investments in litigation claims and law firms. We find that in-sample returns in the space have been in excess of 20% annually, with limited correlation to other investment areas. This apparent excess return may be due to information asymmetry and barriers to entry in the space. Our findings highlight the opportunities and risks for investors in this nascent asset class, and suggest the excess returns are due in part to limits to the speed with which efficient markets take hold. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The future regulation of third-party funding in Europe: The right of access to civil justice continues to be constrained by the cost, complexity and delays of litigation and the decline in public legal aid. Private litigation funding methods like third-party litigation funding (TPLF) have been developing in Europe and other jurisdictions as a result of these challenges. The debate on whether and to what extent TPLF should be regulated has also been gathering pace. On the one hand, proponents of TPLF argue that it facilitates access to civil justice whilst, on the other hand, critics of TPLF say that there may be risks of abuse. These issues were critically discussed at the conference 'The Future Regulation of Third-Party Funding in Europe' held on the 22 June 2022, concluding the online seminar series on 'Trends and Challenges in Costs and Funding of Civil Justice' organised by the Vici team at Erasmus School of Law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]