Judging third-party funding

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Third-party funding is an arrangement whereby an outside entity finances the legal representation of a party involved in litigation or arbitration. The outside entity-called a "third-party funder"-could be a bank, hedge fund, insurance company, or some other entity or individual that finances the party's legal representation in return for a profit. Third-party funding is a controversial, dynamic, and evolving phenomenon. The practice has attracted national headlines and the attention of the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Advisory Committee). The Advisory Committee stated in a recent report that "judges currently have the power to obtain information about third-party funding when it is relevant in a particular case," but the Committee did not provide any additional guidance on how to determine the relevance of thirdparty funding. What information should be obtained, and from whom? This Article offers that needed guidance by setting forth revisions and reinterpretations of procedural rules to provide judges and arbitrators with disclosure requirements and a framework for handling known issues as they arise. By revising and interpreting the procedural rules as suggested in this Article, judges and arbitrators will be able to gain a better sense of the prevalence, structures, and impact of third-party funding and its effects (if any) on dispute resolution procedures. Over time, these observations will reveal the true systemic impact of third-party funding and contribute to developing more robust third-party funding procedural regulations.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)388-448
Number of pages61
JournalUCLA Law Review
Volume63
Issue number2
StatePublished - Feb 1 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

funding
finance
insurance company
arbitration
bank
profit
regulation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law

Cite this

Judging third-party funding. / Sahani, Victoria.

In: UCLA Law Review, Vol. 63, No. 2, 01.02.2016, p. 388-448.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Sahani, V 2016, 'Judging third-party funding', UCLA Law Review, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 388-448.
Sahani, Victoria. / Judging third-party funding. In: UCLA Law Review. 2016 ; Vol. 63, No. 2. pp. 388-448.
@article{689aedb599704685a48fef7753442774,
title = "Judging third-party funding",
abstract = "Third-party funding is an arrangement whereby an outside entity finances the legal representation of a party involved in litigation or arbitration. The outside entity-called a {"}third-party funder{"}-could be a bank, hedge fund, insurance company, or some other entity or individual that finances the party's legal representation in return for a profit. Third-party funding is a controversial, dynamic, and evolving phenomenon. The practice has attracted national headlines and the attention of the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Advisory Committee). The Advisory Committee stated in a recent report that {"}judges currently have the power to obtain information about third-party funding when it is relevant in a particular case,{"} but the Committee did not provide any additional guidance on how to determine the relevance of thirdparty funding. What information should be obtained, and from whom? This Article offers that needed guidance by setting forth revisions and reinterpretations of procedural rules to provide judges and arbitrators with disclosure requirements and a framework for handling known issues as they arise. By revising and interpreting the procedural rules as suggested in this Article, judges and arbitrators will be able to gain a better sense of the prevalence, structures, and impact of third-party funding and its effects (if any) on dispute resolution procedures. Over time, these observations will reveal the true systemic impact of third-party funding and contribute to developing more robust third-party funding procedural regulations.",
author = "Victoria Sahani",
year = "2016",
month = "2",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "63",
pages = "388--448",
journal = "UCLA Law Review",
issn = "0041-5650",
publisher = "American Statistical Association",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Judging third-party funding

AU - Sahani, Victoria

PY - 2016/2/1

Y1 - 2016/2/1

N2 - Third-party funding is an arrangement whereby an outside entity finances the legal representation of a party involved in litigation or arbitration. The outside entity-called a "third-party funder"-could be a bank, hedge fund, insurance company, or some other entity or individual that finances the party's legal representation in return for a profit. Third-party funding is a controversial, dynamic, and evolving phenomenon. The practice has attracted national headlines and the attention of the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Advisory Committee). The Advisory Committee stated in a recent report that "judges currently have the power to obtain information about third-party funding when it is relevant in a particular case," but the Committee did not provide any additional guidance on how to determine the relevance of thirdparty funding. What information should be obtained, and from whom? This Article offers that needed guidance by setting forth revisions and reinterpretations of procedural rules to provide judges and arbitrators with disclosure requirements and a framework for handling known issues as they arise. By revising and interpreting the procedural rules as suggested in this Article, judges and arbitrators will be able to gain a better sense of the prevalence, structures, and impact of third-party funding and its effects (if any) on dispute resolution procedures. Over time, these observations will reveal the true systemic impact of third-party funding and contribute to developing more robust third-party funding procedural regulations.

AB - Third-party funding is an arrangement whereby an outside entity finances the legal representation of a party involved in litigation or arbitration. The outside entity-called a "third-party funder"-could be a bank, hedge fund, insurance company, or some other entity or individual that finances the party's legal representation in return for a profit. Third-party funding is a controversial, dynamic, and evolving phenomenon. The practice has attracted national headlines and the attention of the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Advisory Committee). The Advisory Committee stated in a recent report that "judges currently have the power to obtain information about third-party funding when it is relevant in a particular case," but the Committee did not provide any additional guidance on how to determine the relevance of thirdparty funding. What information should be obtained, and from whom? This Article offers that needed guidance by setting forth revisions and reinterpretations of procedural rules to provide judges and arbitrators with disclosure requirements and a framework for handling known issues as they arise. By revising and interpreting the procedural rules as suggested in this Article, judges and arbitrators will be able to gain a better sense of the prevalence, structures, and impact of third-party funding and its effects (if any) on dispute resolution procedures. Over time, these observations will reveal the true systemic impact of third-party funding and contribute to developing more robust third-party funding procedural regulations.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84962225667&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84962225667&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:84962225667

VL - 63

SP - 388

EP - 448

JO - UCLA Law Review

JF - UCLA Law Review

SN - 0041-5650

IS - 2

ER -