Litigation Finance in New Jersey
New Jersey courts have stated unequivocally that the state’s law has never recognized the doctrine of champerty. Indeed, those courts
Read moreNew Jersey courts have stated unequivocally that the state’s law has never recognized the doctrine of champerty. Indeed, those courts
Read moreNew Hampshire courts have long disregarded the doctrine of champerty, opening the door for litigation finance agreements. Although New Hampshire
Read moreEvery state has usury laws that limit the amount of interest that a lender can charge a borrower. Because litigation
Read moreLike many other states, North Carolina does not prohibit a third party from providing financial support to a party that
Read moreNew York provides a hospitable environment for litigation finance. New York courts recognize the doctrine of champerty, but they only
Read moreMichigan is one of the relatively few states that have directly addressed the question whether litigation finance agreements are enforceable,
Read moreAs more courts recognize the legality of litigation funding, and as more litigants discover its benefits, there are fewer questions
Read moreIn a poorly reasoned decision arising from a set of unusual facts, a federal district court in Kentucky recently ruled
Read moreWhen a law firm has a contingency fee practice, it often has a problem with effectively using its capital. The
Read moreThird-party legal funding is becoming a more powerful force in the market for legal services, as more and more litigants
Read more