This post continues our series contrasting the terms of the contract financing the Canadian shareholder class action in Dugal with the draft model. This one looks at the terms relating to conflicts of interest and buyer’s remorse. Our draft model contract requires disclosure … Continue reading
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
The last two posts laid out what a material breach by either party is. The question then is, what happens if a party commits such a breach? While the question cannot be too narrowly and definitively answered, because parties should … 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
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
Eighteen years ago I urged that outside investors be allowed – indeed encouraged – to fund plaintiffs’ lawsuits in return for a percentage of the recovery. Litigation financing could provide plaintiffs with an alternative to contingent fee lawyers charging inflexible … Continue reading
