The Canadian contract we posted last week (used by the plaintiffs in the Dugal matter) addresses information sharing in slightly different ways than our draft model, presumably because privilege law is different. It is not obvious which contract mandates greater disclosure. In … Continue reading →

For the reasons in our essay on securitizing claims, the model contract draft prohibits securitization. However, as pointed out by Edward Reilly of Themis Capital in a comment to yesterday’s post, securitization poses unique issues not raised by arms length deals … Continue reading →

Once a funder has decided to invest, it is possible the parties will simply rely on the common interest doctrine and share attorney-client privileged information freely. The draft model contract does not take that approach largely because under New York … Continue reading →

Attorney-client privilege is a thorny issue regardless of deal structure, since neither plaintiff nor funder wants the plaintiff to waive privilege, but the funder wants access to all material information before deciding to fund. In New York giving potential (instead of … Continue reading →

What happens to a party’s duty to maintain confidentiality if a person with the ability to enforce its demands–say, a prosecutor–asks one of the parties for Confidential Information? The model requires the party that received the request to notify the … Continue reading →

As discussed by this week’s guest commentators, what information is confidential and how information is disclosed are key issues in litigation funding contracting that raises serious issues. The model contract offers a definition of Confidential Information with two alternate approaches … Continue reading →

This article was co-authored by Selvyn Seidel and Sandra Sherman. The early stage industry that is Third Party Financing operates, to an extent, in something of a regulatory vacuum, particularly as to “corporate governance”.  In brief and in general, industry … Continue reading →