ARBITRATION FINANCE By now, in spring 2017, we can all agree that third party litigation and arbitration finance is firmly established globally and recognised as an accepted and valuable tool for facilitating litigation risk sharing and providing better access to justice. Recent, and very welcome, developments in the world of international arbitration are further evidence of litigation funding’s move into the global legal mainstream. In recent months, Singapore has passed legislation to permit third party funding in arbitration, with Hong Kong likely to follow suit shortly. Each of these jurisdictions believes that it would be at a significant competitive disadvantage in the international dispute resolution market if it did not. Indeed, arbitral bodies – including the ICC’s International Court of Arbitration – have clearly signalled that third-party funding is a positive force in dispute resolution. These unambiguous endorsements have been applauded by the entire funding community. The litigation and arbitration finance market has matured, and begun to expand its investor base beyond its historical reliance on high-net-worth individuals and one or two funds. Today, banks and hedge funds are far more willing to invest in litigation than previously. Many now regard litigation funding as a relatively low-risk asset class, given its potentially impressive, non-correlated headline returns. The growing willingness of additional sources of finance to enter the market is, in turn, enabling the litigation funding market to expand. Given that litigation funding allows both firms and their clients to effectively manage and mitigate risk, there is now growing evidence that at least some managing partners, corporate chief financial officers and general counsel ‘get it’. Law firms benefit from the finance, which enables them to take on more contingency fee work. In the corporate sector, litigation funding allows businesses to run claims that they otherwise would not, because they lack either the legal budget or the risk appetite. For corporates, litigation funding also has an advantage over selffinancing from an accounting perspective. Under standard accounting rules, any additional legal expense will be clearly recognised, while the proceeds of any successful claims may well be treated as ‘exceptional items’. Litigation funding can remove significant costs from the balance sheet while delivering a steady stream of risk-free returns, explaining why it is increasingly viewed as corporate finance for law. Litigation funding clearly has much to offer the legal and corporate sector. But we should not lose sight of the important role that litigation funding plays in improving access to justice, ensuring that claimants who may not otherwise have the resources for litigation are able to pursue their case. Litigation and arbitration should not just be the preserve of the wealthy and well-resourced. In fact, litigation and L IT IG A T IO N F U N D IN G A P R IL 2 01 7
到目前为止，2017年春天，我们都同意第三方诉讼和仲裁融资在全球已经牢固建立，并被公认为促进诉讼风险分担和提供更好的司法途径的公认和有价值的工具。国际仲裁领域最近可喜的发展进一步证明，诉讼资金正进入全球法律主流。最近几个月，新加坡通过立法，允许第三方为仲裁提供资金，香港可能很快也会效仿。这些司法管辖区都认为，如果不这样做，它将在国际争端解决市场上处于明显的竞争劣势。事实上，仲裁机构——包括国际刑事法院(ICC)的国际仲裁法院(International Court of Arbitration)——已明确表示，第三方资金是解决争议的一股积极力量。这些明确的支持得到了整个资助界的赞赏。诉讼和仲裁金融市场已经成熟，并开始扩大其投资者基础，超越了以往对高净值个人和一两家基金的依赖。如今，银行和对冲基金比以前更愿意投资于诉讼。许多人现在将诉讼融资视为风险相对较低的资产类别，因为其潜在的令人印象深刻的、不相关的总体回报。越来越多的资金来源愿意进入市场，反过来又使诉讼融资市场得以扩大。鉴于诉讼融资能让律所及其客户有效地管理和降低风险，现在越来越多的证据表明，至少一些管理合伙人、企业首席财务官和法律总顾问“明白”了这一点。律师事务所从金融中受益，这使他们能够承担更多的应急费用工作。在企业部门，诉讼资金使企业能够进行索赔，否则它们不会这样做，因为它们要么缺乏法律预算，要么缺乏风险偏好。从会计角度来看，对企业来说，诉讼融资也比自我融资有优势。根据标准会计准则，任何额外的法律费用将被清楚地确认，而任何成功索赔的收益很可能被视为“特殊项目”。诉讼融资可以从资产负债表上去除大量成本，同时提供稳定的无风险回报，这解释了为什么它越来越被视为法律的企业融资。诉讼资金显然对法律和企业部门大有裨益。但是，我们不应忽视诉讼资金在改善诉诸司法方面发挥的重要作用，确保那些可能没有诉讼资源的索赔人能够继续他们的案件。诉讼和仲裁不应只是富人和资源充足者的专利。事实上，法律诉讼与法律诉讼的关系已在《中华人民共和国法律诉讼法》2007年1月1日开始
{"title":"Unlocking Potential","authors":"Anna S Herrmann, Deborah Bruce, Clare Barstow","doi":"10.7748/ns.16.21.17.s30","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7748/ns.16.21.17.s30","url":null,"abstract":"ARBITRATION FINANCE By now, in spring 2017, we can all agree that third party litigation and arbitration finance is firmly established globally and recognised as an accepted and valuable tool for facilitating litigation risk sharing and providing better access to justice. Recent, and very welcome, developments in the world of international arbitration are further evidence of litigation funding’s move into the global legal mainstream. In recent months, Singapore has passed legislation to permit third party funding in arbitration, with Hong Kong likely to follow suit shortly. Each of these jurisdictions believes that it would be at a significant competitive disadvantage in the international dispute resolution market if it did not. Indeed, arbitral bodies – including the ICC’s International Court of Arbitration – have clearly signalled that third-party funding is a positive force in dispute resolution. These unambiguous endorsements have been applauded by the entire funding community. The litigation and arbitration finance market has matured, and begun to expand its investor base beyond its historical reliance on high-net-worth individuals and one or two funds. Today, banks and hedge funds are far more willing to invest in litigation than previously. Many now regard litigation funding as a relatively low-risk asset class, given its potentially impressive, non-correlated headline returns. The growing willingness of additional sources of finance to enter the market is, in turn, enabling the litigation funding market to expand. Given that litigation funding allows both firms and their clients to effectively manage and mitigate risk, there is now growing evidence that at least some managing partners, corporate chief financial officers and general counsel ‘get it’. Law firms benefit from the finance, which enables them to take on more contingency fee work. In the corporate sector, litigation funding allows businesses to run claims that they otherwise would not, because they lack either the legal budget or the risk appetite. For corporates, litigation funding also has an advantage over selffinancing from an accounting perspective. Under standard accounting rules, any additional legal expense will be clearly recognised, while the proceeds of any successful claims may well be treated as ‘exceptional items’. Litigation funding can remove significant costs from the balance sheet while delivering a steady stream of risk-free returns, explaining why it is increasingly viewed as corporate finance for law. Litigation funding clearly has much to offer the legal and corporate sector. But we should not lose sight of the important role that litigation funding plays in improving access to justice, ensuring that claimants who may not otherwise have the resources for litigation are able to pursue their case. Litigation and arbitration should not just be the preserve of the wealthy and well-resourced. In fact, litigation and L IT IG A T IO N F U N D IN G A P R IL 2 01 7","PeriodicalId":226632,"journal":{"name":"Prison Writing and the Literary World","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127370951","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-10-27DOI: 10.4324/9781003105787-14
Mohamedou Ould Slahi, L. Siems
{"title":"Scribo Ergo Sum","authors":"Mohamedou Ould Slahi, L. Siems","doi":"10.4324/9781003105787-14","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003105787-14","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":226632,"journal":{"name":"Prison Writing and the Literary World","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116993487","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：