Call us today0800 160 1298
 
 

Advantage Litigation

Welcome to Advantage Litigation Services. We provide affordable access to commercial litigation.

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Tags
    Tags Displays a list of tags that have been used in the blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Team Blogs
    Team Blogs Find your favorite team blogs here.
  • Login
    Login Login form

Funding Options for Commercial and Business Litigation

Posted by on in Uncategorized
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 335
  • Subscribe to this entry
  • Print

Funding your commercial claim, be it for professional negligence, a contract dispute, insolvency or a shareholder dispute, is often a crucial part of you being able to pursue your case. Below is a list of the main factors in funding a claim:

• Third Party Funding – this is when a third party, usually a specialist provider, funds the legal (and other) costs should the claimant lack the funds or doesn’t want to fund the legal action themselves. In return, they expect to receive a portion of the damages or compensation recovered when the claim successfully concludes.

ATE (After The Event) Insurance – a type of legal expenses insurance taken out when pursuing a claim to cover the claimant against the defendants costs should the case fail.

• Getting Third Party Funding – access to third party funding is becoming easier and it is more common now to get funding in place at an early stage in the claim, rather than waiting until there is a large amount of evidence such as specialist reports, counsels opinion, etc, already in place. Also, third party funding is not a loan – if the case fails, the funder will lose their investment. Consequently, the costs of such funding are higher than a secured loan (or even other high-risk investments). Funding costs are usually higher the longer the case runs, particularly if the case goes to trial. Depending on the stage that the case settles at, a funder will typically seek a return of between 20% and 150% of their total funding.

• Paying for ATE Insurance – similar to third party funding, ATE (After The Event) premiums are usually payable upon successful case conclusion, and the premium is usually self insured (ie: no premium will be due) should the case fail. In a winning case, the ATE premium is paid out of the recovered funds. ATE premiums are lowest in the early stages of a claim, rising should the case progress and become more complex (and hence involve more risk to the insurer), especially should the case progresses to a court trial. Premiums vary depending upon the type of case, risk factors and stage the claim settles, with premiums typically starting at around 10% of the insured costs, rising to 60% (or more) at trial.

• What’s the difference; Funding vs ATE Insurance - third party funding is used to fund ongoing costs of litigation, whilst ATE insurance is used to cover the other sides costs (the defendants costs) should the claim fail.

If you are thinking about taking legal action against another individual or company but are worried about the costs involved, Advantage Litigation Services have the skills and expertise to help you find a way of funding commercial litigation without risking your personal finances or those of your business. Click here to contact us today or call 0800 160 1298 to see how we can help.

Get in touch

  1. Your Name(*)
    Please let us know your name.
  2. Your Email(*)
    Please let us know your email address.
  3. Company Name(*)
    Please write a subject for your message.
  4. Your Phone Number
    Invalid Input
  5. Message(*)
    Please let us know your message.
  6. Anti-Spam, please enter the characters shown
    Anti-Spam, please enter the characters shown
    Invalid Input

Latest News

  • Danish professional football – and the sports betting that is such a part of the modern game now – was thrown into disarray recently when many Danish players, including many who had performed so well at this year’s World Cup in Russia such as Christian Eriksen and Kasper Schmeichel, refused to sign a new contract governing image and commercial rights with the Danish Football Association (DBU). As well as resulting in the DBU taking extraordinary steps in calling up lower league and ‘futsal’ players to bolster the national squad ahead of their game against Slovakia, bookmakers providing odds for the game had to drastically re-think their pricing. For the game against Slovakia, a friendly, Denmark had originally been favourites at 6/4; however, once news of the contract dispute became known and the impact this would have on the team to play... Read More

  • Despite the settlement of a claim a year ago, shareholders are still waiting to receive compensation from Royal Bank of Scotland RBS. The group action claim was bought by thousands of RBS shareholders against RBS and four of its former directors, including Fred Goodwin. The legal action, the early settlement of which meant that the disgraced Goodwin would not have to give evidence in Court, alleged that the shareholders had been misled over the banks financial position when it launched a rights issued worth £12bn in 2008. The claim was settled prior to the trial commencing in May 2017, with the shareholders being awarded 82 pence per share, payable by RBS. Delays in the shareholder verification process has resulted in some investors not yet receiving compensation, although some institutional investors have received the agreed payments. One of the main claimants listed in... Read More

  • A recent judgment in a claim for solicitor’s professional negligence has highlighted the importance of appropriate expert evidence to establish whether and how any such negligence can be attributed. The claim in question alleged negligence by well-respected law firm Leigh Day in how it represented its client (a family) at an inquest. The claim was dismissed by Mrs Justice Andrews, the salient points in the judgement appearing in paragraphs 8 & 9, where the judge says: It is not enough to show that a different solicitor may have taken a different view or a different course, let alone that the client felt that the solicitor could have done more. That is why the court will rarely hold a professional to be in breach of duty in the absence of assistance from a suitably qualified expert who can explain why in his or... Read More