争夺(集体)诉讼的更大部分

R. Gamble
{"title":"争夺(集体)诉讼的更大部分","authors":"R. Gamble","doi":"10.1177/1473779516677212","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Both third-party litigation funders and plaintiff lawyers have attempted to improve their competitive positions in the class action market. First, in an environment with very little regulation, litigation funders have sought court approval for the introduction of a ‘common fund’ that would dramatically tilt the cost-benefit calculus in favour of the funder, providing them with far greater certainty about the risks involved in funding a particular action. Second, entrepreneurial lawyers have tested some questionable strategies designed to circumvent the prohibition on lawyers charging contingency fees. To date, neither has succeeded but their efforts have prompted discussion about the way class action litigation should be funded, who should be allowed to fund it and the need for greater regulation.","PeriodicalId":87174,"journal":{"name":"Common law world review","volume":"46 1","pages":"20 - 3"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1473779516677212","citationCount":"16","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Jostling for a larger piece of the (class) action\",\"authors\":\"R. Gamble\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1473779516677212\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Both third-party litigation funders and plaintiff lawyers have attempted to improve their competitive positions in the class action market. First, in an environment with very little regulation, litigation funders have sought court approval for the introduction of a ‘common fund’ that would dramatically tilt the cost-benefit calculus in favour of the funder, providing them with far greater certainty about the risks involved in funding a particular action. Second, entrepreneurial lawyers have tested some questionable strategies designed to circumvent the prohibition on lawyers charging contingency fees. To date, neither has succeeded but their efforts have prompted discussion about the way class action litigation should be funded, who should be allowed to fund it and the need for greater regulation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":87174,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Common law world review\",\"volume\":\"46 1\",\"pages\":\"20 - 3\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1473779516677212\",\"citationCount\":\"16\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Common law world review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1473779516677212\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Common law world review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1473779516677212","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

摘要

第三方诉讼出资人和原告律师都试图提高自己在集体诉讼市场中的竞争地位。首先,在监管很少的环境下,诉讼出资人寻求法院批准引入“共同基金”,这将使成本效益计算大幅向出资人倾斜,使他们对资助某一特定诉讼所涉及的风险有更大的确定性。其次,创业律师已经测试了一些有问题的策略,这些策略旨在规避律师收取应急费用的禁令。迄今为止,这两家公司都没有取得成功,但它们的努力引发了有关集体诉讼融资方式、应允许谁为其提供资金以及加强监管必要性的讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Jostling for a larger piece of the (class) action
Both third-party litigation funders and plaintiff lawyers have attempted to improve their competitive positions in the class action market. First, in an environment with very little regulation, litigation funders have sought court approval for the introduction of a ‘common fund’ that would dramatically tilt the cost-benefit calculus in favour of the funder, providing them with far greater certainty about the risks involved in funding a particular action. Second, entrepreneurial lawyers have tested some questionable strategies designed to circumvent the prohibition on lawyers charging contingency fees. To date, neither has succeeded but their efforts have prompted discussion about the way class action litigation should be funded, who should be allowed to fund it and the need for greater regulation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信