The Fall of Champerty and the Future of Litigation Funding
The ancient doctrine of champerty, as it is typically defined, bars “strangers” to a lawsuit from funding litigation fees and
Read moreThe ancient doctrine of champerty, as it is typically defined, bars “strangers” to a lawsuit from funding litigation fees and
Read moreDelaware, although small in size, greatly influences the legal system. Many companies are formed in Delaware, and as such, Delaware
Read moreLitigation financing has evolved from a nearly unknown and relatively secluded practice to a well-known and thriving industry. Several factors
Read moreWhen someone wants to argue that litigation financing is either immoral or illegal, they often invoke the common-law doctrines of
Read moreWashington is another state with an appropriately progressive attitude towards litigation financing. Although Washington courts have not ruled on the
Read moreTexas has a long tradition of promoting entrepreneurship and economic innovation. That tradition is carried forward in the way in
Read moreSouth Carolina recognizes that banning litigation financing is not necessary to prevent frivolous litigation and abuse of process. In 2000,
Read moreOregon is another state that recognizes that the reasons for champerty doctrine ended long ago, making it an archaic relic
Read moreWhen courts want to rule that litigation finance agreements are improper or unlawful, they often rely on the common-law doctrine
Read moreIn a recent ruling, the Irish High Court held that third-party litigation funding is unlawful because it is contrary to
Read more