Legal funding is front in center in a battle between Viamedia, a New York-based TV advertising business, and Comcast. On June 30, a Chicago federal judge denied Comcast's motion to compel disclosure of documents that Viamedia may have shared with prospective litigation firms, and said that the documents should remain protected under the "work product doctrine."
There has been a year-long battle brewing between Apple and Qualcomm, stemming from Apple's claim that Qualcomm has been both selling chips and then demanding royalties on the iPhones. Recently it surfaced that Apple has been dabbling in defense-side litigation financing as well, funding the four iPhone manufacturer's defense against Qualcomm.
This article examines a particular Georgia Court of Appeals case, Cherokee Funding v. Ruth. In this case, the Georgia Court of Appeals refused to extend the definition of a loan to litigation funding contracts, instead insisting that the legislature is the proper arena. The judge in this case concluded what many funders have been stating for years-- litigation funding more closely resembles an investment contract than a loan.
Legal funding, particularly commercial litigation finance, continues to gain acceptance internationally.
It's not smooth sailing everywhere, though. Recently the supreme court of Ireland shot down any chance of legal funding, and "confirmed that third-party litigation funding by an entity with no independent interest in the underlying proceedings is prohibited under Irish law." All of this affects US and Canada in three unique ways:
Best and worst states for litigation financing: Part 2, and Part 1 for those who missed it
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form. Please reload the page and try again or email us at firstname.lastname@example.org