The clash between e-discovery in international arbitration and European data protection laws | Lexology

In today’s business environment, ever-increasing amounts of information are stored and communicated in electronic format. This electronically stored information (“ESI”) is not only found on computers, servers and storage devices, but also on PDAs, mobile phones and MP3 players. Unsurprisingly, such a universe of information is fertile ground for requests for document production in international arbitrations.

At the same time, the EU is concerned about the protection of third parties’ personal data, and has issued directives protecting such data. But what happens when a request to produce documents in an international arbitration would require a party to contravene an EU directive on data privacy? EU guidelines exist for data protection issues related to discovery in cross-border litigation, but the conflict between document production and EU data privacy guidelines in international arbitration remains unresolved.

via Lexology – The clash between e-discovery in international arbitration and European data protection laws.

More Attorneys Exploring Third-Party Litigation Funding | NY Law Journal

Ask Louis M. Solomon where his fees are coming from these days, and you will get a complicated answer.

Solomon, who joined Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft earlier this year, counts corporations such as Bristol-Myers Squibb and PepsiCo as part of his book of business. Yet while companies like those still are generally paying his fees, lately the source of funds is not just his clients’ corporate war chests but money they received from investors looking to take stakes in the lawsuits he files for them.

Solomon, 54, is among a handful of corporate litigators handling commercial disputes with outside, third-party litigation funding. Two litigation funds have in the last three years launched initial public offerings, and both are on the lookout for U.S. litigants who would allow them to finance their cases in return for a portion of any settlement or judgment.

Juridica Investments Limited, which launched in 2007, last month reported that through March it had committed almost $123 million to 15 investments in 22 cases, one of which is in New York, according to a spokesman. Burford Capital Ltd., which went public in October, has so far invested $40 million across 10 cases, many of them international arbitrations.

But the practice of allowing outside investors into lawsuits is not without its critics. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce in October called for the prohibition of third-party litigation financing at all levels.

Selvyn Seidel, a former Latham & Watkins partner who is chairman of the investment advisor side of Burford, said the concern is understandable given the relative newness of the investment funds in the United States.

“The industry’s biggest enemy is unawareness,” he said. “And most of the lawyers in the U.S. are unaware of it.”

Third-party litigation funding is a relatively recent phenomenon in the United States, after establishing itself in Australia, then later in the United Kingdom. Until recently, in the United States it tended to focus on consumer disputes like personal injury claims, with advances of $1,750 to $4,500 in exchange for a percentage of the recovery, according to a Juridica-funded report by RAND Corporation released last month.

The newer phenomenon has been the emergence of investors like Juridica and Burford, which finance commercial claims brought by companies against other companies. While not alone in the field — Credit Suisse has a unit that invests in litigation — Juridica and Burford are two of the largest funds dedicated solely to litigation finance. Both are publicly traded on the Alternative Investment Market in the United Kingdom, where investors are likely more familiar with these types of funds.

Burford raised about $130 million in an October IPO and is looking to invest in commercial disputes. It plans to make average investments exceeding $3 million, and expects to have its capital fully committed by October 2011. Seidel declined to provide details on a suit in which Burford has invested.

via Law.com – More Attorneys Exploring Third-Party Litigation Funding.

More Attorneys Exploring Third-Party Litigation Funding | NY Law Journal

Ask Louis M. Solomon where his fees are coming from these days, and you will get a complicated answer.

Solomon, who joined Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft earlier this year, counts corporations such as Bristol-Myers Squibb and PepsiCo as part of his book of business. Yet while companies like those still are generally paying his fees, lately the source of funds is not just his clients' corporate war chests but money they received from investors looking to take stakes in the lawsuits he files for them.

Solomon, 54, is among a handful of corporate litigators handling commercial disputes with outside, third-party litigation funding. Two litigation funds have in the last three years launched initial public offerings, and both are on the lookout for U.S. litigants who would allow them to finance their cases in return for a portion of any settlement or judgment.

Juridica Investments Limited, which launched in 2007, last month reported that through March it had committed almost $123 million to 15 investments in 22 cases, one of which is in New York, according to a spokesman. Burford Capital Ltd., which went public in October, has so far invested $40 million across 10 cases, many of them international arbitrations.

But the practice of allowing outside investors into lawsuits is not without its critics. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce in October called for the prohibition of third-party litigation financing at all levels.

Selvyn Seidel, a former Latham & Watkins partner who is chairman of the investment advisor side of Burford, said the concern is understandable given the relative newness of the investment funds in the United States.

“The industry’s biggest enemy is unawareness,” he said. “And most of the lawyers in the U.S. are unaware of it.”

Third-party litigation funding is a relatively recent phenomenon in the United States, after establishing itself in Australia, then later in the United Kingdom. Until recently, in the United States it tended to focus on consumer disputes like personal injury claims, with advances of $1,750 to $4,500 in exchange for a percentage of the recovery, according to a Juridica-funded report by RAND Corporation released last month.

The newer phenomenon has been the emergence of investors like Juridica and Burford, which finance commercial claims brought by companies against other companies. While not alone in the field — Credit Suisse has a unit that invests in litigation — Juridica and Burford are two of the largest funds dedicated solely to litigation finance. Both are publicly traded on the Alternative Investment Market in the United Kingdom, where investors are likely more familiar with these types of funds.

Burford raised about $130 million in an October IPO and is looking to invest in commercial disputes. It plans to make average investments exceeding $3 million, and expects to have its capital fully committed by October 2011. Seidel declined to provide details on a suit in which Burford has invested.

via Law.com – More Attorneys Exploring Third-Party Litigation Funding.

Australia’s position as an International arbitration centre to be enhanced – Deacons

The Australian position in relation to international arbitration has always been complicated by virtue of its federal system of laws which allows parties to choose to resolve their dispute “under arbitral laws other than in accordance with the internationally accepted Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).” This creates confusion and not insignificant legal difficulties concerning the interaction of different laws. Additionally, the finality sought by parties to an international arbitration is not always certain by virtue of the appeal/review powers contained in the State and Territory Commercial Arbitration Acts.  As well, there has been in recent years a general concern about the trends surrounding the nature of international arbitration with the widespread view that arbitration has become too litigious with proceedings increasingly resembling those of a court. Such complications and trends had led many to believe that Australia was unlikely to establish itself as a major player in the field of international arbitrations. In light of a new Bill currently before Parliament, all of this could now change.

In an effort to counter such trends, overcome the difficulties with Australia's federal system and in a bid to promote Australia as a centre for international arbitration and dispute resolution, the International Arbitration Amendment Bill 2009 was introduced into Parliament on 25 November 2009, following the Commonwealth Government's year long review of international commercial arbitration in Australia.

via Legal update: Australia’s position as an International arbitration centre to be enhanced – Deacons.

Lawyers gear up for new rules on arbitration – The New Lawyer

AUSTRALIA’S arbitration bodies and lawyers are gearing up for changes in the litigation climate, with new laws now set to be passed.

The Australian Centre for Commercial International Arbitration (ACICA), the Institute of Arbitrators & Mediators Australia (IAMA) and the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Australia (CIArb) have signed a memorandum of co-operation in which they plan to promote the use and education of arbitration in the Asia-Pacific region.

The agreement was struck following amendments to the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) introduced into Parliament by Attorney General, the Hon Robert McClelland.

Australian Centre for Commercial International Arbitration president Douglas Jones told The New Lawyer the reform is long overdue.

He said new legislation would encourage both Australian and non-Australian parties to have their international arbitrations held in Australia.

“We as a country have got significant advantages I think, with a well developed legal system and very competent practitioners to take advantage of that,” he said.

“Arbitration is a multi-billion industry in other places – in SIngapore, Hong Kong, London, all of them see that it adds huge value to the local economy in a range of areas,” said Jones.

The global financial crisis has seen an increase of commercial disputes but because

international investors want to avoid the uncertainty of litigation in a foreign court

system, the ACICA said.

via Lawyers gear up for new rules on arbitration – The New Lawyer.