Minnesota Law Review

Whose Claim Is This Anyway? Third-Party Litigation Funding

Third-party litigation funding, or litigation finance, is a new industry composed of institutional investors who invest in litigation by providing finance in return for an ownership stake in a legal claim and a contingency in the recovery. Its emergence has been recognized as one of the most significant developments in civil litigation today. It will transform access to justice and affect numerous areas of the law including corporate law, torts, intellectual property, environmental law, employment law, and international law. Hailing from the United Kingdom and Australia, the practice is de facto prohibited in the United States, largely through ethical rules disallowing champerty and fee-sharing among lawyers and nonlawyers. But market forces, including pressure exerted on U.S. law firms by overseas competitors with access to funding, are propelling the penetration of the industry into the United States.

The Article describes the empirical reality of the new industry, identifies and addresses the emergence of a secondary market in legal claims and the prospect of securitization of such claims, discusses third-party funding of international arbitration, and applies a bargaining analysis to understanding the systemic effects of the industry. Specifically, the Article asks what happens when, through litigation funding, litigation ceases to be expensive and uncertain, and parties “bargain in the shadow of financing.” It offers a three-step argument for a move away from a prohibition of litigation funding toward nuanced regulation of the industry. First, it offers a taxonomy of funded litigation. Second, the Article argues that the practice could radically alter the social function of courts by systemically equalizing the ability of society’s have-nots to use the courts to affect rule change via litigation. This is in contrast to the court system serving (unwittingly, perhaps) as the guardian of the status quo in favor of society’s haves. Third, the analysis reveals the agency problems that may arise due to the development of secondary markets in legal claims, as well as other features of litigation finance, and which should be addressed through regulation. The Article concludes with a framework for the suggested regulatory regime that regulators, legislators, and the judiciary can devise, and the contract-design features parties and their lawyers seeking litigation funding can employ.

:: View PDF

De Novo

  • Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte

    EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious [...]

  • Revisiting Water Bankruptcy

    REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself[1]—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]

  • Defying Auer Deference

    DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.[1]F The Court overturned the D.C. [...]