Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Litigation (2)
- Antidumping (1)
- Australia (1)
- Behavioral Economics (1)
- Competitition-blocking litigation (1)
-
- Contigency Fee (1)
- Finance (1)
- Injunctive settlements (1)
- International arbitration (1)
- Law & Economics (1)
- Legal Ethics (1)
- Legal Profession (1)
- Licensing (1)
- Litigation Finance (1)
- Litigation Funding (1)
- Litigation finance (1)
- Litigation funding (1)
- Options (1)
- Patent (1)
- Patent infringement (1)
- Pricing (1)
- Property rights (1)
- Reverse settlements (1)
- Settlement (1)
- Staged Funding (1)
- Standard settlements (1)
- Third Party Funding (1)
- Third party funding (1)
- Third-party funding (1)
- United Kingdom (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
How Much Is That Lawsuit In The Window; Pricing Legal Claims, Maya Steinitz
How Much Is That Lawsuit In The Window; Pricing Legal Claims, Maya Steinitz
Faculty Scholarship
This article poses the question: How should parties to litigation finance agreements – third party funding or contingency fees – deal with the inherent difficulty in pricing legal claims? It answers that a practical solution would be to use staged funding. Staged funding side-step the impossibility of accurately pricing litigation ex ante by allowing re-pricing and exit that are pegged to information disclosure. Done right, staging allows all parties to minimize the effects of uncertainty, better price their bargain, optimize the distribution of the proceeds of litigation between its different investors – far beyond practices common today. Staged funding also …
Injunctive And Reverse Settlements In Competition-Blocking Litigation, Keith N. Hylton, Sungjoon Cho
Injunctive And Reverse Settlements In Competition-Blocking Litigation, Keith N. Hylton, Sungjoon Cho
Faculty Scholarship
We distinguish standard settlements, in which the status quo is preserved, and injunctive settlements, which prohibit the defendant's activity. The reverse (payment) settlement is a special type of injunctive settlement. We examine the divergence between private and social incentives to settle and policies that would minimize socially undesirable injunctive and reverse settlements (e.g., banning reverse settlements). The results are applied to competition-blocking litigation, such as patent infringement and antidumping.
Recent Developments In Third-Party Funding, Victoria Sahani
Recent Developments In Third-Party Funding, Victoria Sahani
Faculty Scholarship
This article addresses recent developments in third-party funding that occurred during late 2012 and early 2013 in the three leading jurisdictions: Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. The most important developments are the following. On 22 April 2013, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) issued regulatory guidelines clarifying the status of funders with respect to ASIC’s regulations and detailing how funders should manage conflicts of interest and handle certain provisions of their funding arrangements. In the United Kingdom, the Jackson Reforms took effect on 1 April 2013, bringing sweeping changes to the allowable fee agreements, discovery rules …
The Patent Litigation Explosion, James Bessen, Michael J. Meurer
The Patent Litigation Explosion, James Bessen, Michael J. Meurer
Faculty Scholarship
This Article provides the first look at patent litigation hazards for public firms during the 1980s and 1990s. Litigation is more likely when prospective plaintiffs acquire more patents, when firms are larger and technologically close and when prospective defendants spend more on research and development ("R&D"). The latter suggests inadvertent infringement may be more important than piracy. Public firms face dramatically increased hazards of litigation as plaintiffs and even more rapidly increasing hazards as defendants, especially for small public firms. The increase cannot be explained by patenting rates, R&D, firm value or industry composition. Legal changes are the most likely …