Third-party funding (TPF) is now widely used in litigation and arbitration. It allows companies and individuals to pursue meritorious claims that otherwise may not have been pursued. This could either be because they cannot afford litigation costs or they are unwilling to divert resources from their normal business operations. Equally, it can be used as a risk-sharing and/or financing tool for corporates.
The growth of TPF has been particularly notable in the realm of international arbitration. As Dan Craddock, Chairman of Vannin Capital comments, “the funding of international arbitration (…) was relatively unknown in 2012, whereas now it makes up roughly 50% of our business and is the fastest growing area for our industry1”. Arbitration funding is now lawful in England & Wales, the US, Australia, Canada, Germany, France, the Netherlands, and more recently Singapore and Hong Kong.
A little known fact is that there is a possibility to use TPF in South America, in particular in Brazil. TPF raises similar issues in most countries in which it is used. In this article, we focus on the impact of TPF on quantum experts and enforcement strategies, both from English and Brazilian perspectives. Our panel includes a Brazilian barrister, a Brazilian funder and a forensic accountant.
This article is divided into three parts and looks at the impact of TPF on the involvement of quantum experts (Part 1), enforcement strategies (Part 2) and the independence of quantum experts (Part 3).
- From a panel discussion, ‘Litigation funding report: broader appeal’ reported by Natasha Bernal (The Lawyer, 6 June 2016)