Search

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

A new chapter started.for collective actions with the 2020 Dutch Mass Damage Settlement in Collective Actions Act (WAMCA) and the E.U. Directive on representative actions for consumer cases. The expansion of the class action mechanism has not only raised procedural and practical questions but has also triggered debates on the funding of inherently expensive collective claims for damages. Absent appropriate public legal aid schemes, third-party litigation funding has been on the rise and commercial funding has become one of the most discussed and controversial topics in European civil justice. Developments in collective actions andfunding have prompted the Dutch Ministry of Justice to commission a study on the financing of collective actions and the desirability of establishing a litigation fund. This paper reviews Dutch collective actions and the quest for suitable funding mechanisms under the WAMCA at the background of E.U. developments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the author discusses articles within the issue, on topics including class actions and the European Union's (EU) Representative Actions Directive, consumer justice in Europe, and third party litigation funding under the compensatory collective action procedure in the Netherlands.

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]

It is not uncommon for Australian and New Zealand liquidators conducting an insolvent liquidation to identify a right to sue against a viable defendant, but for there to be insufficient assets in the liquidation to fund enforcement action. One funding option open to Australian and New Zealand liquidators in this circumstance is entry into a commercial litigation funding agreement. We undertake a comparative analysis of the key components of the Australian and New Zealand regulatory frameworks governing liquidators' entry into commercial litigation funding agreements to identify similarities and differences. These conclusions are used to assess the overall efficacy of each jurisdiction's framework and how each might be improved. We identify some similarities but a greater number of differences in the Australian and New Zealand regulatory frameworks. We assess New Zealand's framework as having greater uncertainty in its ambit which may have adverse consequences for New Zealand liquidators and funders given that several large litigation funders operate in both jurisdictions. We offer proposals tailored to each jurisdiction, but the identified differences between Australia and New Zealand mean that overall consistency in terms of legal frameworks and (it follows) outcomes will not be possible unless one jurisdiction makes an unlikely decision to embark on significant amendment of its corporate insolvency framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Although it is a very ancient phenomenon, the third-party litigation funding has only recently begun to acquire a relevant role in the European Union. The institutions have realised its implications and have introduced an ad hoc discipline in directive 2020/1828, around a broader reform on representation actions. There are three aims of this work: to analyse the directive and in particular its art. 10 on the financing of claims; to observe, from a comparative perspective, as the Spanish and Italian legal systems have addressed the transposition of the discipline, despite its critical issues; finally, reflect on the prospects of the subject, considering the latest initiatives of the European legislator. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

The third-party litigation funding market in the United States is growing at a tremendous pace. The pace of regulation, however, is far from commensurate. Third-party litigation funding, or TPLF, is currently regulated by a patchwork of state regimes that draw on usury prohibitions, bespoke statutes, and the ancient common-law doctrines of champerty and maintenance. Although TPLF is not regulated at the federal level today, the Howey Test from the U.S. Supreme Court's 1946 decision in SEC v. W.J. Howey Company provides a flexible standard through which TPLF agreements can be brought under the regulatory purview of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This Note argues that consumer TPLF agreements should be regulated as investment contracts under existing federal securities law, rather than as loans at the individual state level. [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]

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to examine the legislative changes to litigation funding of Class Actions in Australia. Method/Approach: - The approach used in this paper follows a legal form of investigation in which review and analysis is undertaken of the arguments for and against the need for special legislation dealing with Funding of Class Actions. Implications: The paper provides a review of the historical development of Class Action funding in Australia as enshrined the Corporations Amendment (Litigation Funding) Regulations 2022. [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]

Commentators have worried that third-party funding, particularly in complex litigation, may give rise to ethical concerns. In this Essay, we explore an alternative possibility: third-party funding may solve ethical problems rather than cause them. We explain why third-party funding can comply with the letter and spirit of the relevant ethical rules and why whether it causes or cures ethical problems depends on the setting. We note that if third-party funding agreements are properly structured—protecting, for example, lawyers’ independent judgment—they should not pose ethical problems. On the contrary, in some contexts third-party litigation funding may ameliorate tensions between clients and counsel. We identify two settings in which third-party litigation funding may do more good than harm: first, encouraging an optimal level of private enforcement of the antitrust laws, and second, diversifying the plaintiffs’ lawyers who pursue class actions and other complex litigation. A theme runs throughout our analysis: We should be careful to avoid a mistake that might be characterized as a variation on the naturalistic fallacy—that the practices to which we are accustomed are necessarily good. Instead, we suggest returning to first principles to determine whether third-party litigation funding is good, bad, or indifferent—a conclusion that may well vary by context. [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]

The article discusses the legal aspects of the term "Nebenjob" (part-time job) in relation to plasma donations. It is stated that the use of the term "Nebenjob" does not violate the prohibition of profit according to § 8 Abs 4 BSG, as the word does not imply an increased compensation for expenses. Furthermore, it is argued that the term "Nebenjob" in connection with the donor's professional title and the term "lifesaver" indicates the selflessness of the donation and its medical value, rather than an increased compensation for expenses. It is concluded that promoting plasma donation as a "Nebenjob" is not misleading. [Extracted from the article]