DOCSLIB.ORG

516134 George Mason JLEP 8.3 R3.Ps

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
516134 George Mason JLEP 8.3 R3.Ps Journal of Law, Economics & Policy VOLUME 8 SPRING 2012 NUMBER 3 EDITORIAL BOARD 2011-2012 Larry Pounders Editor-in-Chief Shannon Minarik Daniel J. Wisniewski Executive Editor Managing Editor John Buckley Katie Barnes Mike DeRita Senior Articles Editor Senior Notes Editor Senior Research Editor Melissa Alfano Graham Dufault Daniel Glynn Elyse Dorsey Rachel Fertig Brendan Mullarkey Andrew Galle Articles Editors Notes Editors Research Editors Dallin Glenn Laura A. Lieberman Melissa Alfano Articles Submissions Editor Publications & Outreach Editor Symposium Editor MEMBERS Jarred Bomberg Malaikah Choudhry Kay Teng Corey Carpenter Benjamin Nelson William Wiegand Christina Newton CANDIDATE MEMBERS Peter Anderson Anthony Peter Kanakis Adam Park Emily Barber Hollie Kapos Alex Payne David Brodian Juan Kassar Tom Randall Michael Brody Jason Malashevich Adam Schneider Kylie Caporuscio Louise Martin Morgan De Ann Shields Benjamin Charlton Jacob Merrill Mark Stevens Nathaniel Harris Genevieve Miller Robert Strange Carolyn Head Elizabeth Newell Mark Weiss Jennifer Johnston Lauren Wynns i 1 Journal of Law, Economics & Policy VOLUME 8 SPRING 2012 NUMBER 3 BOARD OF ADVISORS Lisa E. Bernstein Francesco Parisi James M. Buchanan Eric Posner Judge Guido Calabresi Judge Richard A. Posner Lloyd R. Cohen Roberta Romano Robert D. Cooter Hans-Bernd Schäfer Robert C. Ellickson Steven M. Shavell Richard A. Epstein Henry E. Smith Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg Vernon L. Smith Mark F. Grady Gordon Tullock Bruce H. Kobayashi Thomas S. Ulen Henry G. Manne W. Kip Viscusi A. Douglas Melamed Todd J. Zywicki ii Journal of Law, Economics & Policy VOLUME 8 SPRING 2012 NUMBER 3 Contents 405 THIRD-PARTY LITIGATION FUNDING IN EUROPE Cento Veljanovski 451 THIRD-PARTY LITIGATION FUNDING IN AUSTRALIA AND EUROPE Dr. George R. Barker 525 THIRD-PARTY FINANCING IN THE PERSPECTIVE OF GERMAN LAW—USEFUL INSTRUMENT FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEM OR SPECULATIVE IMMORAL INVESTMENT? Professor Dr. Alexander Bruns 549 FUNDING OF MASS DISPUTES: LESSONS FROM THE NETHERLANDS Professor Dr. Ianika N. Tzankova 593 IDEAL VERSUS REALITY IN THIRD-PARTY LITIGATION FINANCING Joanna M. Shepherd 613 TO FUND OR NOT TO FUND: THE NEED FOR SECOND-BEST SOLUTIONS TO THE LITIGATION FINANCE DILEMMA Jeremy Kidd, Ph.D. 645 ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF THIRD-PARTY LITIGATION FINANCING ON THE U.S. CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEM Geoffrey J. Lysaught and D. Scott Hazelgrove 673 INSURERS DEFEND AND THIRD PARTIES FUND:ACOMPARISON OF LITIGATION PARTICIPATION Michelle Boardman 701 THE ECONOMICS OF THIRD-PARTY FINANCED LITIGATION Keith N. Hylton 743 COMPARING THIRD-PARTY FINANCING OF LITIGATION AND LEGAL EXPENSES INSURANCE Michael Faure and Jef De Mot iii 2 iv 2012] 405 THIRD-PARTY LITIGATION FUNDING IN EUROPE Cento Veljanovski* INTRODUCTION Third-party litigation funding (TPLF) is where an investor otherwise unconnected with a legal action finances all or part of a claimant’s legal costs. If the case fails, the funder loses its investment and is not entitled to receive any payment. If the case succeeds, the investor takes an agreed-upon success fee. While not entirely new, the emergence of TPLF has recently been put in the spotlight with the entry of dedicated firms in- vesting in commercial litigation in the U.K., Europe, and further afield. This study aims to shed light on the reality of TPLF. It is based on in- terviews with the leading dedicated TPLF investors based in the U.K.,1 and dedicated TPLF group action investors in Europe.2 It explores the devel- opment and rationale of TPLF in Europe, with a focus on the position in England and Wales,3 and the emerging funding of group actions in Europe.4 * Managing Partner, Case Associates; IEA Fellow in Law and Economics, Institute for Economic Affairs; Adjunct Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Regulation and Market Analysis (CRMA), Univer- sity of South Australia. My thanks to Susan Dunn (Harbour), David Burstyner (Omni Bridgeway), Neil Purslow (Therium), Vicky Waye (University of South Australia), Vince Morabito (Monash University), and an anonymous referee for comments on an earlier draft. I would also like to thank Kate Majkut for her valuable research assistance. Contact: [email protected]. Other papers by the author can be viewed at http://ssrn.com/author=599490. 1 The following were interviewed mainly during July 2011 with subsequent follow-up discus- sions and emails: Neil Brennan (Chief Executive Officer, ILF Advisors), Neil Purslow (Managing Director, Therium), Nick Rowles-Davies (Consultant, Vannin Capital), Mark Wells (Managing Partner, Calunius Capital), Brian Raincock (Chairman, Commercial Litigation Funding), Ben Hawkins (Manag- ing Director, Commercial Litigation Funding), Susan Dunn (Head of Litigation Funding, Harbour Liti- gation Funding), Dr. Arndt Eversberg (Managing Director, Allianz ProzessFinanz GmbH), Christopher Bogart (Managing Director, Burford Capital), Jonathan Barnes (Director, Woodsford Litigation Fund- ing), Michael Zuckerman (Managing Partner, Redress Solutions), John Walker and Clive Bowman (Executive Directors, IMF (Australia) Ltd), Richard Fields (Juridica), Bob Gordon (1st Class Legal) and David Rae (Synergy Solutions/Axiom Legal Financing). 2 Interview with David Burstyner, Senior Legal Counsel, Omni Bridgeway (July 2011). CDC declined to be interviewed on the grounds that “it was not in its interests,” and CFI did not respond to several requests for an interview. 3 Although England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland all are part of the U.K., their legal systems differ. It is therefore necessary to distinguish these jurisdictions—though, in reality, the differ- ences are not great, and TPLF investors effectively operate across the U.K. 4 This is the first quantitative study of TPLF investors and their activities in the U.K. The only other industry-wide study, albeit largely qualitative, is by lawyers. FOX WILLIAMS, THE NEW, NEW THING: A STUDY OF THE EMERGING MARKET IN THIRD PARTY LITIGATION FUNDING (2010), available 3 406 JOURNAL OF LAW, ECONOMICS & POLICY [VOL. 8:3 Part I of the discussion below provides some background to the devel- opment of TPLF in Europe. Part II is an overview of the TPLF funders in England and Wales based on interviews conducted in the second half of 2011. Part III examines group litigation funding in Europe. Part IV dis- cusses the justification for and likely impact of TPLF, together with some of the policy issues. Part V looks at the anecdotal criticisms of TPLF that have been made by U.S. commentators and compares them to hard evi- dence. I. BACKGROUND A. Overview Economists like markets and are therefore naturally suspicious when laws impede their development. Historically, this was the legal position in common and continental European civil legal systems. Funding or support- ing the litigation of another was banned, prohibited, and outlawed. These prohibitions were abandoned in European continental civil law countries some time ago. Third parties can now finance litigation in nearly all civil law jurisdictions in Europe, apart from Greece and Portugal.5 In most common law countries, the ban on third-party funding of legal actions con- tinued until recently, and still exists in some jurisdictions. The common law torts of maintenance—where a stranger supports lit- igation in which he has no legitimate concern—and champerty—when the person maintaining another receives a share of the gains from the legal ac- tion—prevented the funding of and trading in legal claims.6 Historically, such actions were criminalized in order to prevent a frequent abuse of the legal system.7 During the Middle Ages, wealthy landowners often funded litigation in order to seize land from weaker parties. Restrictions on TPLF have progressively been removed and decrimi- nalized across common law countries. In England and Wales, the laws of maintenance and champerty were decriminalized in 1967. Since the mid-1930s, the Australian states of South Australia (1935), Victoria (1950), at http://www.lawfirmalliance.org/assets/attachments/738.pdf; LORD JUSTICE JACKSON, REVIEW OF CIVIL LITIGATION COSTS ch. 11 (2010). The Law Society of England and Wales publishes Litigation Funding each quarter. It lists TPLF funders, brokers and ATE insurance providers. 5 LOVELLS LLP, AT WHAT COST? A LOVELLS MULTI JURISDICTIONAL GUIDE TO LITIGATION (2010), available at http://www.hoganlovells.com/files/Publication/c940bb4b-a67f-4e63-a5b8- ced6198b2125/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/fff33267-29d5-4230-a140- cf2eeb7d4a05/LitigationCostsReport.pdf. 6 Max Radin, Maintenance and Champerty, 24 CALIF. L. REV. 48, 58-64 (1935). 7 Percy H. Winfield, History of Maintenance and Champerty, 35 Law Q. REV. 50, 57-68 (1919). 2012] THIRD-PARTY LITIGATION FUNDING IN EUROPE 407 New South Wales (1993), and the Australian Capital Territory (2002)8 have decriminalized them as well. They have also been removed in many states in the U.S. Today, there is growing support for TPLF as a means of providing in- creased access to justice. The costs and complexity of litigation can dis- courage many meritorious claimants from seeking redress through the courts. Only those who feel particularly aggrieved or determined—or with deep pockets and a sufficient stake—will be inclined to embark on litiga- tion. Thus, many see easing the path to litigation as attractive, believing it will achieve a number of goals, including greater access to justice. This is particularly true in common law jurisdictions where there is a growing concern over the high costs of litigation. The Oxford Study9 pro- vided estimates of the legal and court costs for a “large commercial case”10 involving a complex breach of contract with a €7 million (USD 6 million) lost profits claim in twenty-seven countries. The joint costs of pursuing this claim to full trial in the English and Welsh courts were estimated at USD 3 million, or 50% of the value of the claim.11 According to the study, the legal costs of suing in England and Wales were by far the largest, by many orders of magnitude, of all twenty-seven countries (e.g., thirty times greater than in Germany).12 The Jackson Committee in the U.K.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Extent to Which the Common Law Is Applied in Determining What
    THE AMERICAN LAW REGISTER, APRIL, 1867. THE EXTE'N"IT TO WHICH THE COM ON LAW IS APPLIED IN DE- TERMINING WHAT CONSTITUTES A CRIME, AND THE NATURE AND DEGREE OF PUNISHMENT CONSEQUENT THEREUPON. PART III. (Concluded from the January.umber.) 1. Subject of Third. Part stated. 2. Statement by .Mr. Wheaton on tie question. 3. Exceptional states as to common-law application. 4-6. With what qualifications the common law has been adopted. 7-9. Felonies provided for by statute. Reasoning in relation thereto. 10, 11. Early and important case on the question. 12-18. Acts of public evil example; acts tending to breach of peace; con- -piracy, &c., indictable at common law. 19-21. Offences against Christianity; against the marital relation; obscenity, &c., also been held indictable. 22-24. Cases peculiar to this country also brought within common-law influence. 25, 26. 'Numerous acts of malicious mischief that are punishable at common law. 27-30. Also nuisances ; disturbing the peace; acts tenxding to defeat public justice. and various miscellaneous offences. 31, 32. Other instances named of common-law influence. 33-36. Brief review of the treatise; and 38. Conclusion. 1. IF a satisfactory conclusion has been reached in reference to the vexed question which has now been considered, and which has given rise to such strongly-conflicting opinions, by jurists of the highest eminence and ability, the remaining question, where, with one or two narrow exceptions, the eases and opinions are in VOL. XV.-21 (321) APPLICATION OF THE COMMON LAW almost perfect accord, cannot be attended with much difficulty.
    [Show full text]
  • Vania Is Especi
    THE PUNISHMENT OF CRIME IN PROVINCIAL PENNSYLVANIA HE history of the punishment of crime in provincial Pennsyl- vania is especially interesting, not only as one aspect of the Tbroad problem of the transference of English institutions to America, a phase of our development which for a time has achieved a somewhat dimmed significance in a nationalistic enthusiasm to find the conditioning influence of our development in that confusion and lawlessness of our own frontier, but also because of the influence of the Quakers in the development df our law. While the general pat- tern of the criminal law transferred from England to Pennsylvania did not differ from that of the other colonies, in that the law and the courts they evolved to administer the law, like the form of their cur- rency, their methods of farming, the games they played, were part of their English cultural heritage, the Quakers did arrive in the new land with a new concept of the end of the criminal law, and proceeded immediately to give force to this concept by statutory enactment.1 The result may be stated simply. At a time when the philosophy of Hobbes justified any punishment, however harsh, provided it effec- tively deterred the occurrence of a crime,2 when commentators on 1 Actually the Quakers voiced some of their views on punishment before leaving for America in the Laws agreed upon in England, wherein it was provided that all pleadings and process should be short and in English; that prisons should be workhouses and free; that felons unable to make satisfaction should become bond-men and work off the penalty; that certain offences should be published with double satisfaction; that estates of capital offenders should be forfeited, one part to go to the next of kin of the victim and one part to the next of kin of the criminal; and that certain offences of a religious and moral nature should be severely punished.
    [Show full text]
  • Abolishing the Crime of Public Nuisance and Modernising That of Public Indecency
    International Law Research; Vol. 6, No. 1; 2017 ISSN 1927-5234 E-ISSN 1927-5242 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Abolishing the Crime of Public Nuisance and Modernising That of Public Indecency Graham McBain1,2 1 Peterhouse, Cambridge, UK 2 Harvard Law School, USA Correspondence: Graham McBain, 21 Millmead Terrace, Guildford, Surrey GU2 4AT, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Received: November 20, 2016 Accepted: February 19, 2017 Online Published: March 7, 2017 doi:10.5539/ilr.v6n1p1 URL: https://doi.org/10.5539/ilr.v6n1p1 1. INTRODUCTION Prior articles have asserted that English criminal law is very fragmented and that a considerable amount of the older law - especially the common law - is badly out of date.1 The purpose of this article is to consider the crime of public nuisance (also called common nuisance), a common law crime. The word 'nuisance' derives from the old french 'nuisance' or 'nusance' 2 and the latin, nocumentum.3 The basic meaning of the word is that of 'annoyance';4 In medieval English, the word 'common' comes from the word 'commune' which, itself, derives from the latin 'communa' - being a commonality, a group of people, a corporation.5 In 1191, the City of London (the 'City') became a commune. Thereafter, it is usual to find references with that term - such as common carrier, common highway, common council, common scold, common prostitute etc;6 The reference to 'common' designated things available to the general public as opposed to the individual. For example, the common carrier, common farrier and common innkeeper exercised a public employment and not just a private one.
    [Show full text]
  • Litigation Funding: Status and Issues
    Centre for Socio‐Legal Studies, Oxford Lincoln Law School LITIGATION FUNDING: STATUS AND ISSUES RESEARCH REPORT Christopher Hodges, John Peysner and Angus Nurse January 2012 sponsored by 1 Summary Litigation funding is new and topical. It has the capacity to significantly alter the litigation scene. It gives rise to particular issues that need understanding and attention. It is relevant only in certain situations, and while it is not a possible solution to all types of claims it has the potential to significantly increase opportunities to pursue certain claims. The basic model of litigation funding is an investment business based on securing an appropriate return on investment. It is not a banking loan as no interest is charged, and not insurance as no premium is charged. Investment is made in any case that has a sufficient prospect of success on its merits, and has a strong legal team with a convincing case strategy. In some types of offering, however, the model of litigation funding can appear to be more like the provision of legal services. This is where a funder, sometimes from a legal services background, conducts a detailed assessment of the legal merits of a case (including obtaining or providing specialist legal advice on the case) prior to agreeing to funding. Funders determine the risk, and ultimately the extent of the investment, based on an assessment of the merits of the case, the solvency of the defendant (or, in the case of a funded defendant, the resources of the claimant) and the size of the claim and likely return. However, during this research the contrary view that litigation funding is part of the legal services market has been raised.
    [Show full text]
  • Old-Time Punishments
    Presented to the UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY by the ONTARIO LEGISLATIVE LIBRARY 1980 (\V\ 7- OLD-TIME PUNISHMENTS. WORKS BY WILLIAM ANDREWS, F.R.H.S. Mr. William Andrews has produced several books of singular value in their historical and archaeological character. He has a genius for digging among dusty parchments and old books, and for bringing out from among them that which it is likely the public of to-day will care to read. Scotsman. Curiosities of the Church. A volume both entertaining and instructive, throwing much light on the manners and customs of bygone generations of Churchmen, and will be read to-day with much interest. Nftitbery House Magazine. An extremely interesting volume. North British Daily Mail. A work of lasting interest. Hull Kxaminer. Full of interest. The Globe. The reader will find much in this book to interest, instruct, and amuse. Home Chimes. We feel sure that many will feel grateful to Mr. Andrews for having produced such an interesting book. The Antiquary. Historic Yorkshire. Cuthbert Bede, the popular author of "Verdant Green," writing to Society, says: "Historic Yorkshire," by William Andrews, will be of great interest and value to everyone connected with England's largest county. Mr. Andrews not only writes with due enthusiasm for his subject, but has arranged and marshalled his facts and figures with great skill, and produced a thoroughly popular work that will be read eagerly and with advantage. Historic Romance. STRANGE STORIES, CHARACTERS, SCENES, MYSTERIES, AND MEMORABLE EVENTS IN THE HISTORY OF OLD ENGLAND. In his present work Mr. Andrews has traversed a wider field than in his last book, "Historic Yorkshire," but it is marked by the same painstaking care for accuracy, and also by the pleasant way in which he popularises strange stories and out-of-the-way scenes in English History.
    [Show full text]
  • Heuristics, Biases, and Consumer Litigation Funding at the Bargaining Table
    Heuristics, Biases, and Consumer Litigation Funding at the Bargaining Table I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 262 II. CURRENT LANDSCAPE OF CONSUMER LITIGATION FUNDING ........................................................................... 264 A. Snapshot of the Blooming Consumer-Litigation- Funding Business .................................................. 265 B. Consumer-Litigation-Funding Concerns ................ 267 1. Consumer-Protection Concerns ................... 267 2. Judicial-System Concerns ........................... 268 C. Judicial and Regulatory Responses ........................ 270 1. Responses to Consumer-Protection Concerns ..................................................... 271 2. Responses to Judicial-System Concerns ...... 273 III. CONSUMER LITIGATION FUNDING AND SETTLEMENT .......... 275 A. Standard Law-and-Economics Model of Settlement .......................................................... 278 B. Behavioral Law-and-Economics Framework for Settlement ......................................................... 280 1. From Optimistic to Overoptimistic: Litigation Funding and the Self-Serving Bias ............................................................. 281 2. Winner or Loser? Litigation Funding and Framing ...................................................... 284 IV. DEFLATING OVEROPTIMISM AND REFRAMING FAIR SETTLEMENT OFFERS ........................................................ 289 A. Pure Paternalism: Banning Litigation Funding ..... 290 B. System
    [Show full text]
  • Unusual Punishments” in Anglo- American Law: the Ed Ath Penalty As Arbitrary, Discriminatory, and Cruel and Unusual John D
    Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy Volume 13 | Issue 4 Article 2 Spring 2018 The onceptC of “Unusual Punishments” in Anglo- American Law: The eD ath Penalty as Arbitrary, Discriminatory, and Cruel and Unusual John D. Bessler Recommended Citation John D. Bessler, The Concept of “Unusual Punishments” in Anglo-American Law: The Death Penalty as Arbitrary, Discriminatory, and Cruel and Unusual, 13 Nw. J. L. & Soc. Pol'y. 307 (2018). https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njlsp/vol13/iss4/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy by an authorized editor of Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Scholarly Commons. Copyright 2018 by Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law `Vol. 13, Issue 4 (2018) Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy The Concept of “Unusual Punishments” in Anglo-American Law: The Death Penalty as Arbitrary, Discriminatory, and Cruel and Unusual John D. Bessler* ABSTRACT The Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, like the English Bill of Rights before it, safeguards against the infliction of “cruel and unusual punishments.” To better understand the meaning of that provision, this Article explores the concept of “unusual punishments” and its opposite, “usual punishments.” In particular, this Article traces the use of the “usual” and “unusual” punishments terminology in Anglo-American sources to shed new light on the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. The Article surveys historical references to “usual” and “unusual” punishments in early English and American texts, then analyzes the development of American constitutional law as it relates to the dividing line between “usual” and “unusual” punishments.
    [Show full text]
  • SUPREME COURT STATE of COLORADO 2 East 14Th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 on Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals Hon
    SUPREME COURT STATE OF COLORADO 2 East 14th Avenue Denver, CO 80203 On Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals Hon. John D. Dailey, Steven L. Bernard, and Richard L. Gabriel, Judges, Case No. 2012CA1130 District Court, City and County of Denver Hon. Brian Whitney and Edward D. Bronfin, Judges, Case No. 2010CV8380 OASIS LEGAL FINANCE GROUP, LLC; OASIS LEGAL FINANCE, LLC; OASIS LEGAL FINANCE OPERATING COMPANY, LLC; and PLAINTIFF FUNDING HOLDING, INC., d/b/a LAWCASH, ♦ COURT USE ONLY A Petitioners, Case No. 2013SC0497 v. JOHN W. SUTHERS, in his capacity as Attorney General of the State of Colorado; and JULIE ANN MEADE, in her capacity as the Administrator, Uniform Consumer Credit Code, Respondents. David R. Fine, #16852 MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP 1400 Wewatta Street, Suite 700 Denver, Colorado 80202-5556 Tel: (303) 634-4000 Fax: (303) 634-4400 ATTORNEY FOR AMICI CURIAE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND DENVER METRO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ADDENDUM TOAMICI CURIAE BRIEF OF CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE DENVER METRO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS ADDENDUM EXHIBIT 1 Lawsuit FinancingFinancing Terms Terms and and Conditions Conditions I Oasis I Oasis Legal Legal Finance Finance Page 11 ofof 33 Oasis 1-877-333-6675 Legal Final/COFinance'. WELIVE CHAT 1 1=CHAT itall= Lawsuit fundingFunding Structured settlements Setttements Resources About Oasis Attorneys Site Search: : SEARCH Ver esteeste sitiositio en en espalloi espanol Select Language Language V Start YourYour FREEFREE ApplicationApplication Nowt Nowt Oasis Legal Legal Lawsuit Lawsuit Financing Financing Terms Terms and andConditions Conditions Al Fields are RewiredRequired FistFirst Name: Name: • Oasis specializesspecialzes inIn lawsuitlawsuit financing financing for for individual individual plaintiffs.
    [Show full text]
  • Court of Appeals, State of Colorado
    COURT OF APPEALS, STATE OF COLORADO Colorado State Judicial Building 2 East 14th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Appeal from the Denver County District Court Honorable Edward D. Bronfin, District Court Judge Civil Action No. 10CV8380 Plaintiffs-Appellants: OASIS LEGAL FINANCE GROUP, LLC; OASIS LEGAL FINANCE, LLC; OASIS LEGAL FINANCE OPERATING COMPANY, LLC; and PLAINTIFF FUNDING HOLDING, INC., d/b/a LAWCASH, v. Defendants-Appellees: JOHN W. SUTHERS, in his capacity as Attorney General of the State of Colorado; and LAURA E. UDIS, in her capacity as the Administrator, Uniform Consumer Credit Code. COURT USE ONLY Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants: Case Number: 12CA1130 Names: Jason R. Dunn, #33011 Karl L. Schock, #38239 Address: Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP 410 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2200 Denver, Colorado 80202 Phone No.: (303) 223-1100 E-mail: jdunn @bhfs.com [email protected] APPELLANTS' OPENING BRIEF CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I hereby certify that this brief complies with all requirements of C.A.R. 28 and C.A.R. 32, including all formatting requirements set forth in these rules. Specifically, the undersigned certifies that: The brief complies with C.A.R. 28(g). Choose one: It contains 6,672 words. The brief complies with C.A.R. 28(k). X For the party raising the issue: It contains under a separate heading (1) a concise statement of the applicable standard of appellate review with citation to authority; and (2) a citation to the precise location in the record, not to an entire document, where the issue was raised and ruled on. s/ Jason R. Dunn Jason R.
    [Show full text]
  • Reshaping Third-Party Funding
    Washington and Lee University School of Law Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons Scholarly Articles Faculty Scholarship 2-2017 Reshaping Third-Party Funding Victoria Sahani Washington and Lee University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlufac Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Victoria Shannon Sahani, Reshaping Third-Party Funding, 91 Tul. L. Rev. 405 (2017). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Articles by an authorized administrator of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TULANE LAW REVIEW VOL. 91 FEBRUARY 2017 NO. 3 Reshaping Third-Party Funding Victoria Shannon Sahani* Third-party funding is a controversial business arrangement whereby an outside entity—called a third-party funder—finances the legal representation of a party involved in litigation or arbitration or finances a law firm’s portfolio of cases in return for a profit. * © 2017 Victoria Shannon Sahani. Associate Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law; J.D., Harvard Law School; A.B., Harvard University; coauthor of the book THIRD-PARTY FUNDING IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION (forthcoming 2017) (with Lisa Bench Nieuwveld); member of the Third-Party Funding Task Force (http://www.arbitration-icca.org/projects/Third_Party_Funding.html); member of the Advisory Council of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC Legal Funding) (http://arclegalfunding.org/). The author would like to thank Catherine Rogers, Tony Sebok, Maya Steinitz, Jason Rantanen, Renee Jones, Nicola Sharpe, Shaun Shaughnessy, Margaret Hu, Brant Hellwig, Chris Drahozal, Angela Onwuachi-Willig, Tai- Heng Cheng, Jean Y.
    [Show full text]
  • Critics Duped by Reds' Propaganda WASHINGTON (AP) — Eagleton's Past Psychiatric Is Vietnam, and Nixon In- President Said
    Court Challenge SEE STORY BELOW The Weather THEDAILY FINAL Partly cloudy today, mgn around 80. Fair tonight. Most- ) Red Bank, Freehold ~T~ ly sunny tomorrow and Sun- I Long Branch 1 day, little temperature EDITION change. 24 PAGES Momnoutli Comity's Outstanding Home Newspaper VOL.95 NO.24 RED BANK, NJ. FRIDAY, JULY 28,1972 TENCENTS ' McGann Voids Common-Scold By HALLIE SCHRAEGER "A man might be 'trouble- took a swipe a( New Jersey's carry a pocket edition of for his definition of a common Judge McGann commented S. A. 2A:85-1 purports to make some and angry' and, by his "catch-all" statute (N. J. S; Blackstone with him." scold: "a public nuisance to in a footnote that the specified criminal the common law of- FREEHOLD — Finding the 'brawling and wrangling A. 2A:85-1), which, he said, is Sir William Blackstone her neighborhood, for which penalty constitutes cruel and fense of being a common ancient common law charge among' his 'neighbors, break "all that the average person (1723-1780), the most famous, offense she may be indicted unusual punishment.) scold, it is void because of its of being a "common scold" the' peace, increase discord^ has to guide his conduct." of English jurists, was the au- and, if convicted, shall be sen- "To a die-hard male chau- vagueness and is con- outmoded, unconstitutionally and become a nuisance to the Judge McGann said that thor ofi "Commentaries on the tenced to be placed in a cer- vinist, the public utterances of stitutionally unenforceable," vague and discriminatory, Su- neighborhood,' yet he could statute tells the average per- Laws of England" (1775) still tain engine of correction a dedicated woman's liber- be said.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Law Act 1967
    Criminal Law Act 1967 CHAPTER 58 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I FELONY AND MISDEMEANOUR Section 1. Abolition of distinction between felony and misdemeanour. 2. Arrest without warrant. 3. Use of force in making arrest, etc. 4. Penalties for assisting offenders. 5. Penalties for concealing offences or giving false information. 6. Trial of offences. 7. Powers of dealing with offenders. 8. Jurisdiction of quarter sessions. 9. Pardon. 10. Amendments of particular enactments, and repeals. 11. Extent of Part I, and provision for Northern Ireland. 12. Commencement, savings, and other general provisions. PART II OBSOLETE CRIMES 13. Abolition of certain offences, and consequential repeals. PART III SUPPLEMENTARY 14. Civil rights in respect of maintenance and champerty. 15. Short title. SCHEDULES : Schedule 1-Lists of offences falling, or not falling, within jurisdiction of quarter sessions. Schedule 2-Supplementary amendments. Schedule 3-Repeals (general). Schedule 4--Repeals (obsolete crimes). A Criminal Law Act 1967 CH. 58 1 ELIZABETH II 1967 CHAPTER 58 An Act to amend the law of England and Wales by abolishing the division of crimes into felonies and misdemeanours and to amend and simplify the law in respect of matters arising from or related to that division or the abolition of it; to do away (within or without England and Wales) with certain obsolete crimes together with the torts of maintenance and champerty; and for purposes connected therewith. [21st July 1967] BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:- PART I FELONY AND MISDEMEANOUR 1.-(1) All distinctions between felony and misdemeanour are Abolition of abolished.
    [Show full text]