commercial arbitration

International Arbitration and Third Party Funding in Hong Kong: Q&A with the Secretary-General of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre

Marla Decker

As jurisdictions compete for status as premier international arbitration hubs, a differentiating factor (or, increasingly, a must-have factor) is whether the jurisdiction’s legal framework allows for third party funding in arbitrations seated there. We have followed the development towards a more permissive environment for third party funding in Asia closely, recently asking members of Freshfields’ international arbitration group to provide an update on developments in Asia with Singapore and Hong Kong leading the charge. Today, we focus in on Hong Kong, which on February 1, 2019, put into effect previously enacted legislative changes to permit third party funding in international arbitration. In connection with this development, the Ministry of Justice has released the Code of Practice for Third Party Funding of Arbitration, which sets out practices and standards with which third party funders are expected to comply in connection with funding of arbitrations in Hong Kong, and the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (“HKIAC”) amended its rules to harmonize with the legislative changes and to address disclosure requirements, confidentiality, and costs in third party funded matters. We asked Sarah Grimmer, Secretary-General of HKIAC to discuss the changing landscape.

Acceleration Bay Work Product Decision

Garrett Ordower

The latest work product decision in the litigation finance sphere — Acceleration Bay v. Activision Blizzard — bucks the near universal trend of courts finding that the work product doctrine shields disclosure of communications exchanged with an actual or prospective litigation funder. Probably because it used the wrong legal standard.

Litigation Finance: Work Product & Discovery in the Wake of Gharabe v. Chevron

Garrett Ordower

The closely watched case of Gbarabe v. Chevron – a class action against the oil giant based on an oil rig explosion off the coast of Nigeria – has been portrayed as a cautionary tale for the world of litigation finance. The defense attorneys’ dogged pursuit of the details of plaintiff’s outside funding, the story goes, succeeded, and aided in the attack on the adequacy of plaintiff’s counsel. The defense did successfully defeat class certification, but litigation funding ultimately played little or no role in the case’s demise.

Draft Report of the International Council for Commercial Arbitration on Third-Party Funding: What You Need Know

Marla Decker

The Draft Report of the International Council for Commercial Arbitration and the Queen Mary University of London Task Force on Third-Party Funding in International Arbitration: What You Need to Know

The international arbitration community has been a leader in the adoption and evolution of third-party funding. Continuing that trend, The International Council for Commercial Arbitration (“ICCA”) partnered with Queen Mary University of London (“QMUL”) in 2013 to establish a task force comprised of over 50 leading international arbitration experts (the “Task Force”) to “identify and study the issues that arise in relation to third-party funding in international arbitration, and to determine what outputs, if any, would be appropriate to address them.”

Litigation Finance, a Success Story

Marla Decker

More than five years after a small family-owned company based in England filed suit against U.S. construction machinery giant Caterpillar Inc. for breach of contract and trade secret misappropriation of its “Bug coupler” technology (specialized equipment used with hydraulic excavators), the journey has paid off. In December, after an eight-week trial, a jury awarded plaintiff Miller UK Ltd. (“Miller”) $74.6 million in damages (including $49.7 million in exemplary damages); an award that Miller’s attorneys contend is the largest ever under the Illinois Trade Secret Act.

The Maple Tree is Growing: Commercial Litigation Funding in Canada

Marla Decker

The litigation finance industry in the U.S. is relatively new compared to the more mature markets that exist in Australia, the U.K. and other parts of Europe. Continuing the growth trend in North America is now Canada, which has begun to adopt litigation finance on its own terms.

Like its Commonwealth sister Australia, litigation finance in Canada found its initial toehold in class action funding, in response to the ever-increasing costs of litigation and the risks of a loser-pays system. Over the last few years, Canadian courts have approved litigation funding agreements in the class litigation context despite long-standing adherence in Canada to the champerty and maintenance doctrines. In fact, the province of Quebec took the unique step of establishing a public fund that is used to finance class lawsuits as discussed by University of Montreal Professor Catherine Piché at last month’s symposium on litigation finance at NYU. Ontario has a similar fund.

Champerty, Maintenance, and Barratry

Boaz Weinstein

Champerty, maintenance, and barratry are related doctrines that trace their roots back to medieval England. The United States Supreme Court has succinctly described the three doctrines as follows: “Put simply, maintenance is helping another prosecute a suit; champerty is maintaining a suit in return for a financial interest in the outcome; and barratry is a…

What to Expect When Raising Litigation Finance

Lee Drucker

The first step in the litigation finance process typically involves a decision by a company, perhaps together with its counsel, that it makes sense to explore whether litigation finance is an attractive option. There are many reasons why a company may choose to do so. Consider, for example, a company that has been wronged but…

Contact Us

The best way for companies and their counsel to determine if litigation finance is an attractive option is to discuss it with us.

Lee Drucker drucker@lakewhillans.com