harbour view q1 2016

Harbour ViewQuarter 1 2016

Featuring news from the Team at Harbour

Litigation Funding. Visit our website for

more in depth details

harbourlitigationfunding.com

6 — Groundhog day in the debate over legal costs

Michael Hartridge, Harbour Senior Director of Litigation Funding gives Harbour’s insight on the ongoing debate over the rising cost of legal services.

Page 8 – 14 — Costs Budgeting: A practical approach in an uncertain regime

Matthew Shankland and Sarah Lainchbury of Sidley Austin give an overview of the recent developments in case law and practical advice for completion of the cost budget.

Page 16 – 21 — Flexibility in funding: Not just a one trick pony

Mark King, Harbour Director of Litigation Funding outlines the range of options offered by funders to better meet the needs of the parties who can benefit from funding.

2 – 23 — Harbour News

Contents

3

Introduction

T he issue of costs is never far away from any of us engaged in litigation or arbitration. Whether the debate is at the level of

public policy or individual cases, the challenges are similar. As a funder, our aim is always to ensure budgets are set realistically and then managed to leverage the maximum benefit. This does not mean spending less but rather spending better. These ideas are picked up in this edition of Harbour View as two of our contributors tackle the subject head-on. Michael Hartridge of Harbour talks about the rising cost of legal services whilst Matthew Shankland and Sarah Lainchbury of Sidley Austin address the Costs Budgeting regime.

In the funding industry there has been a lot of interest in the many ways in which funders can provide support. There have been some headline-catching stories and so Mark King of Harbour gives an objective view of funding options. The clear message is that as litigation and arbitration specialists, funders have always created bespoke solutions. However, as awareness has grown of what we do, so too has the opportunity to apply more broadly our solution-creating skills.

To be kept informed on Harbour’s news and updates as well as previous issues of Harbour View visit www. harbourlitigationfunding.com

4

ARTICLE ONE – GROUNDHOG DAY IN THE DEBATE OVER LEGAL COSTS

Groundhog day in the debate over legal costsMichael Hartridge Senior Director of Litigation Funding

W e have been here before. In February of this year (on Groundhog Day, as chance had it), the legal press

was dominated by an issue that has rumbled on unresolved since the implementation of the Jackson reforms in 2013 – the rising cost of legal services.

The issue manifested itself in contrasting ways. At one end of the spectrum was the report from the Centre for Policy Studies1 (seized on by the national media) of City partners’ hourly rates topping £1,000 an hour. At the other, twin proposals by Lord Justice Jackson for fixed costs for cases with a claim value below £250,000 and the establishment of a Contingent Legal Aid Fund, as a response to the limited availability of legal aid.

Elsewhere in these pages, Sarah Lainchbury and Matthew Shankland discuss the practical challenges faced by litigators in preparing budgets for cases governed by the Precedent H regime (which covers cases up to a value of £10 million, and which was itself introduced as part of the Jackson reforms). As their article illustrates, litigators wrestling with that regime need to ensure that their assumptions are reasonable, and contingencies carefully considered, if a budget is to be acceptable to the

court. The adverse implications of getting it wrong were well publicised back in late 2013, when the case of Mitchell v News Group Newspapers2 gave the court an early opportunity to stamp its authority. Even after twenty months in operation, however, it seems the profession as a whole continues to struggle with the regime.

1 The Price of Law, by Jim Diamond, Centre for Policy Studies

2 [2013] EWCA Civ 1537 – Andrew Mitchell QC’s solicitors’ failure to file a properly compiled cost budget more than 7 days before the case management as required by the relevant procedural rules resulted in costs of over £500,000 being excluded.

5


It is worth pausing for a moment to consider why these measures were brought into play in the first place, and why, despite all of the changes over the last few years to the civil costs regime, the area continues to provoke so much debate.

At base, the developments in this area point towards two relatively simple objectives: a desire on the part

of litigants for greater certainty about the cost of litigating; and a keenness that the cost of litigation should not end up overwhelming the substance of the dispute itself. Whilst most seem agreed that those objectives are desirable, the profession as a whole seems no nearer to finding a solution to either.

Move the focus away from the legal profession for a moment, and (notwithstanding the application of Precedent H to relevant cases, or new proposals

around fixed costs) it is hard to imagine the same tolerance being extended to a practice of providing an estimate for work with the caveat that the final bill might be double the number you first thought of.

Sadly, we see that all too frequently in our role as litigation funders. A constant challenge that we encounter in assessing the viability of potential claims is the inability of law firms to predict with any accuracy the likely cost of a matter at the outset. We are not alone in this space. The same report by the Centre for Policy Studies mentioned above included observations from peer funders about the issues they face with budgets prepared by law firms. Poor budgeting (and in particular the lack of sufficient detail in a budget) undermines funders’ ability to assess the risks of funding a case, which means in turn that otherwise promising cases may be rejected. And once in progress, poor budget management – bluntly, firms’ inability to stick to budgets that they themselves have put together – is all too common a feature of life.

These observations are more concerning given how long the debate has been running, not to mention the increasing insistence by law firms that sophisticated in-house technology helps to inform their expectations for preparing budgets for new matters. Whilst that technology may exist, the learnings from it are not yet making their presence felt in a meaningful way, to clients’ detriment. Too often, clients are confronted with a larger than expected fee note, a regretful explanation that the work took longer than anticipated, and expected simply to accept that this is an unavoidable fact of litigation.

Lord Justice Jackson’s recent suggestion regarding the application of fixed costs for cases with a value below £250,000 has certainly

6

provoked some debate, and should probably be considered as a starter for ten in the latest round of discussions on the cost of litigating. The general principle behind the proposal - that the cost of pursuing or defending a claim should be kept in proportion to its value - is a hard one to argue with. Whilst there will be cases from time to time where the principle at stake (and the cost of establishing that principle) exceeds the value of the claim in which it is raised, the pragmatic nature of litigation as a discipline means that those cases are likely to be less rather than more frequent. And the issue of dealing with costs in those limited circumstances can surely be dealt with by appropriate case management.

The fact remains though that the current situation is less than satisfactory for protagonists on both sides of the courtroom. Reasonable certainty on the cost of litigation, relative affordability, and access to justice seem as far away as ever, and it’s far from clear that initiatives like Precedent H have made any real difference.

On the contrary, if the significant increase in funding inquiries that we receive is any indicator (and in particular from corporate claimants), the cost of litigating is steadily escalating out of reach of all but the most cash-rich protagonists.

There was a certain irony in the fact that Lord Justice Jackson’s suggestions were aired on Groundhog Day. Over in the United States, the Americans’ own weather-forecasting rodent predicted an improvement in the weather. Back here in the UK, Groundhog Day on the costs debate has left many thinking “Here we go again” with no immediate prospect of any change for the better.

6


7

“If, at the conclusion of a case more costs are claimed than are budgeted for, they

will (probably) not to be recoverable.”

8

Costs Budgeting: A practical approach in an uncertain regime

A lthough costs budgeting has now been in place for over 20 months, the detailed implementation of the scheme is still

relatively untested” per Warby J in Yeo v Times Newspapers Ltd [2015] EWHC 209 (QB).

The costs budgeting regime has been operating in some form for almost three years. Its scope was extended in April 2014 and now covers cases up to £10 million in value. There are a number of issues which should be considered by clients and their practitioners in the cost budgeting process, and, while Yeo gave some much needed guidance on the issues, the position remains unclear in many respects. This article provides an overview of the recent developments in case law and practical advice for completion of the cost budget.

The overriding factor to remember when preparing a cost budget is that if, at the conclusion of a case, more costs are claimed than are budgeted for, they will (probably) not be recoverable. It is, therefore, imperative to ensure that careful thought goes into preparing the budget in order that the risk of exceeding it in the future is minimised.

Application of the new regimeThe costs budgeting regime is governed by Section II of Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules (‘CPR’) and

supporting Practice Direction 3E. CPR 3.12 requires parties to proceedings to file and exchange costs budgets in a specific format (‘Precedent H’) in all Part 7 multi-track cases unless:

• the claim is commenced after 22 April 2014 and the value of claim is more than £10 million; or

• the matter is subject to fixed or scaled costs (prescribed by CPR 45, e.g. uncontested cases, small claims and enforcement proceedings); or

• where the Court, in its discretion, otherwise orders.

The emerging position, however, is that the first two limitations should not be enforced too strictly and should always be subject to the Court’s discretion. See, for example, Coulson J’s comments in CIP Properties v Galliford Try [2014] EWHC 3546 where he stated that, even where exceptions might apply, the use of costs management should be considered and cost budgets are “generally regarded as a good idea and a useful case management tool”. In this case, the Claimant had served a number of unexpected expert reports, and the Defendant therefore made an application for the costs budgeting regime to apply so as to preclude the Claimant from conducting proceedings in the same costly manner going forward.

In emphasising the importance of the Court’s discretion, Coulson J gave an example of a

ARTICLE TWO – COSTS BUDGETING: A PRACTICAL APPROACH IN AN UNCERTAIN REGIME COSTS

Mathew Shankland (Partner) and Sarah Lainchbury (Associate) of Sidley Austin LLP

9

party “framing” their claims for simply £1 more than £10 million in order to avoid any consideration by the Court of the proposed costs (no matter how disproportionate or inflated they may be). Accordingly, in circumstances where the value of the claim itself is disputed, parties can, and, in appropriate cases, should apply for an order that costs budgeting apply. This is particularly so where there is a risk that the costs of the proceedings could become disproportionate to the actual value of the claim1. As a matter of good practice, it is suggested that clients and their practitioners consider proportionality of the costs to the dispute from the outset. As we understand from Harbour, they have seen an increasing number of their £10 million plus cases being submitted to the costs budgeting process.

Precedent H

W here the regime applies, the entire case must be budgeted unless the Court orders otherwise. Clients

and practitioners should also bear in mind that, save in exceptional circumstances: (i) the recoverable costs of initially completing Precedent H shall not exceed the higher of £1,000 or 1% of the approved budget; and (ii) all other recoverable costs of the budgeting and costs management process shall not exceed 2% of the approved budget.

Precedent H is broken down into eleven distinct phases, each of which must include the parties’ incurred costs (i.e. costs actually incurred including WIP) and estimated future costs.


10

“As a matter of good practice, it is suggested that clients and their practitioners consider proportionality of the

costs to the dispute from the outset.”

11

Making the right assumptions and planning for contingencies

Compiling the estimated costs sections of Precedent H is more challenging.It is not always clear what costs fall

within each of the distinct phases of Precedent H. The Guidance Notes are instructive, but the individual practitioner’s drafting approach will, of course, vary. Under ‘Disclosure’, for instance, the Guidance Notes provide that “reviewing documents” and “correspondence... about the scope of disclosure and queries arising” should be included in the figures for that phase; however, sums in relation to any application for specific disclosure are specifically excluded from the estimated costs.

It appears then that parties have three options: (i) to include an application for specific disclosure as a ‘contingency’; (ii) to include an ‘assumption’ in relation to the scope of the opposition’s disclosure; or (iii) revise the budget later down the line.

The distinction between each of these options (whatever procedural aspect is being dealt with) is important, and care should be taken when drafting and deciding which particular option to pursue. Clients and practitioners should pay close attention to the provisions of Practice Direction 3E and the relevant case law which strongly suggests that parties should not over-caveat with extensive assumptions2. Any contingent costs which are included must be anticipated and foreseen as more likely than not to be required. Striking the right balance

between the different options is therefore fundamental to successful budgeting.

Assumptions• Assumptions are imperative in allowing the

Court and other parties to understand how the budget has been created and provides a benchmark upon assessing the budget’s reasonableness.

• Making good use of this feature appears to give parties some scope to revise budgeted figures later3.

• Examples include: “there will be no (further) amended pleadings”, “trial will be 5 days”, “it is intended that witness evidence be taken from X, Y and Z; if any potential witness is unavailable when called upon the additional expense involved in locating a new witness can be reflected in a revised budget”.


1 This was the case in CIP Properties v Galliford Try [2014] EWHC 3546.

2 See, for example, Coulson J’s comments in CIP Properties where he noted that the excessive use of assumptions is a “wholly illegitimate exercise in avoiding the certainty and clarity that comes from case management orders; it is designed to undermine the whole basis of such orders”.

“Assumptions are imperative in allowing

the Court and other parties to understand how the budget has

been created.”

12

Contingencies• A contingent cost is marked in Precedent

H as an additional phase and, according to the Guidance Notes, must reflect “anticipated costs” which do not naturally fall within one of the pre-set phases.

• In Yeo, Warby J stated that work should

be included as a contingency “only if it is foreseen as more likely than not to be required”. He added that, “if work that falls outside one of the main categories is not thought probable, it can reasonably be and should be excluded from the budget”. Contingencies should therefore be drafted clearly and realistically.

The importance of regularly reviewing the budget

Clients and practitioners must conduct a regular review of all costs of the proceedings as they develop against the approved budget.

Revisions to budgets should be considered as soon as

a cost which is not budgeted for becomes reasonably likely to be incurred. Crucially, budgets should not be revised after that cost is actually incurred as the risk is that the Court will not allow it4.


3 Clearly any application to vary the budget will be considerably assisted if parties are able to demonstrate that the reasonable assumptions on which the budget is based have been departed from.

4 See Venus Asset Management Limited v Matthews & Goodman LLP [2015] EWHC 2896 (Ch) which provides useful summary of the degree of diligence required in this regard.

13

In Venus Asset Management Limited, both parties applied for retrospective revisions to their approved budgets on the basis that the costs actually incurred were greater than the budgeted figures. In refusing the application, Chief Master Marsh held that the language used in the CPR clearly pointed to “the court’s costs management powers being limited to future costs”. Paragraph 7.3 of Practice Direction 3E provides that the Court “will not undertake a detailed assessment in advance”. Similarly, in the Commercial Court Users’ Group Committee update dated 16 October 2015, on analysing recent developments in case law (and, in particular, Yeo), HHJ Waksman QC (Mercantile Court) noted that, where parties have a costs budget and see an “overshoot looming”, an application to revise the budget should be made promptly and before the budgeted figure is exceeded.

Pursuant to paragraph 7.4 of Practice Direction 3E, if, by the time the costs management process takes place, substantial costs have been incurred, the Court may “record its comments on those costs” and the Court will “take those costs into account when considering the reasonableness and proportionality of all subsequent costs”.

Revising budgets for unforeseen interim applications

The provisions of paragraph 7.9 of Practice Direction 3E state that, if interim applications are made which, reasonably,

were not included in a budget, then the costs of such interim applications shall be treated as additional to the approved budgets. Warby J in Yeo also noted that, should the “improbable” occur,

parties should utilise this provision and, should a “significant development” in the proceedings occur, a revised budget should be prepared in line with paragraph 7.4 of Practice Direction 3E (which is then agreed or approved).

Whether there is good reason to depart from the approved budget in any given case is likely to depend, among other things, on how the proceedings have been managed, whether they have developed in a way that was not foreseen when the relevant case management orders were made, and whether the costs incurred are proportionate to what is in issue5.

In preparing a budget, parties should assume that their opposition will comply with the CPR and conduct proceedings in accordance with the order for directions (making adverse assumptions about the opposition’s possible future behaviour are unlikely to be viewed as justified). Equally, parties should not include a contingency (for example, for an interim application) unless it is reasonably foreseeable. It is therefore suggested, in any event, that parties use the provisions of paragraph 7.9 of Practice Direction 3E in relation to interim applications.

“Cost budgeting is becoming a core part of

the litigation process and accurate forecasting is therefore imperative.”


14

Proportionality and approval of budgets

The cases to date do not provide a coherent approach to the questions of reasonableness and proportionality in

budgeting terms. In Yeo, it was suggested that, whilst the Court’s primary consideration when approving budgets is whether the total costs proposed for each phase of the proceedings are reasonable and proportionate, it may also be appropriate to consider the hourly rates and number of hours claimed or forecast. In the authors’ experience, the usual judicial approach is to focus more on the total costs claimed than the detailed build up of that number (the balance of cases support this). However, in all cases, an objective approach should be taken to consider whether the estimated costs can be justified as reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.

83rd update to the CPR, April 2016

The 83rd Update to the CPR Rules6 includes important changes to the costs budgeting regime. Notably, for all claims (irrespective

of value), where parties file and exchange budgets they must also file an agreed budget discussion report no later than seven days before the case management conference. The budget discussion

report must set out the figures which are agreed and those which are not agreed for each phase and a brief summary of the grounds of dispute.

Conclusions

Producing a proper budget can take considerable time (and can, therefore, cost more than the amount recoverable for it

under the CPR). Costs budgets can, however, greatly assist parties in managing costs to resolution. Cost budgeting is becoming a core part of the litigation process and accurate forecasting is therefore imperative for the reasons set out above. The importance of proper costs budgeting for parties in all forms of litigation should not be underestimated.

Matthew Shankland and Sarah Lainchbury Sidley Austin LLP


5 See Henry v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 3 and Murray & Anor v Neil Downlman Architecture Ltd [2013] EWHC 872 (TCC).

6 See: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil

15

“Funders are providing an increased

range of options in a bid better to meet the needs of parties

who can benefit from funding.”

16

Third party funding is historically and most commonly understood as the funding of a claimant’s claim where they

do not have the funds to do so by themselves or where they would rather not take the risk of the legal costs involved. However, as it evolves it is quickly demonstrating that it is not a one trick pony – funders are providing an increased range of options in a bid better to meet the needs of the parties who can benefit from funding, and also to set themselves apart from the competition.

Harbour’s own experience has included offering portfolio funding, working with solicitors so that

they too can share in the success of a claim by sharing in the proceeds and funding the adverse costs of a claim. Elsewhere, the market has also seen BT agree a portfolio funding arrangement with Burford Capital, and that same funder has also entered into a joint venture with the competition law specialist, Hausfeld, in order to focus on funding claims in Germany. These events are testimony to the fact that market forces are at work in the third party funding sector as the supply of funding evolves to meet new demand from the increasingly diverse range of claimants who now use funding.

Mark King, Director of Litigation Funding at Harbour

Flexibility in funding: Not just a one trick pony

ARTICLE THREE – FLEXIBILITY IN FUNDING: NOT JUST A ONE TRICK PONY

17

The purpose of this article is to walk through some of the main third party funding options available, explaining what they are, key issues to be considered for each and how they may be better suited to parties’ particular circumstances than other existing funding options.

Single case funding

This is funding in its most traditional form and one which most will think of when asked to describe third party funding.

This is understandable as it is the most common form and its popularity is arguably due to its simplicity. At the most basic level, it is where a funder agrees to fund all the claimants’ costs of a case, including covering adverse costs, in return for a share of the proceeds if the claim is successful. This is attractive to claimants as it provides a clear and straightforward method of funding the legal costs of bringing a claim.

This type of funding is usually for one claimant with a single claim, a number of claims arising from one dispute or a class action where there may be many claimants all with the same or very similar claims. Funding class actions is relatively common in many jurisdictions such as England and Wales, the USA, Australia and New Zealand. One of the reasons for this is because claimants by themselves do not have sufficient funds to pursue their claim and/or their claim value alone would not make funding it economic for many funders. However, if grouped with a number of claimants who have similar claims, the ‘global’ claim value can be significant and funding the legal costs for all claimants becomes proportionate. Common examples of class actions ripe for portfolio funding

include product liability cases (e.g. where a number of claimants have incurred loss and damage from a product manufactured by one defendant) or shareholder disputes.

Single case funding is best placed for directly funding a claimant to pursue a single claim, set of claims or class action, particularly high value expensive claims where law firms are unwilling or unable to offer Conditional Fee Agreements (“CFAs”) or Damages Based Agreements (“DBAs”) for some or all of the legal costs. It can also be coupled with a suitable After the Event (“ATE”) insurance policy to cover the adverse costs risk, as Harbour does in the majority of its cases.

The funder’s recovery is from the proceeds upon success (i.e. monies recovered) and provides a clear, fixed and accessible recovery with nothing to pay if the claim is not successful and no monies are recovered.

Portfolio funding

Portfolio funding is becoming increasingly common in the funding market and usually takes one of two forms.

First, it may be that a funding agreement is made with a claimant directly for a number of claims which they have or may have in the future (most suited to large corporations and financial institutions with a large book of litigation). The corporation/institution then has no costs for pursuing good claims unless the claim is successful when they pay the funder the agreed success fee. That way monies which would have been used for legal costs can be used elsewhere in the business instead.


18

“There is a great deal of f lexibility in what can be

offered to a party in a dispute.”

19

Second, it may be that a law firm is able to refer a number of similar claims which it considers suitable for funding, from various clients. Agreements can also be made to fund a specific list of claims which meet pre-agreed criteria. The law firm may also seek co-funding in conjunction with its own CFAs or DBAs which it may already have in place for claims in a portfolio, in order to share the risk and also share in the success of the claim (see partnership funding below).

Regardless of the forms that portfolio funding may take, the key considerations for the funder will be how to assess the overall risk of what is presented. In such circumstances, a pre-determined checklist of issues (e.g. creditworthiness of each defendant, minimum value of each claim, maximum costs for each claim, particular type of dispute etc.) will be used by the funder better to understand the risk posed and the budget for funding the portfolio as a whole will be an important consideration. Typically, the level of risk will decrease as the portfolio broadens (in number of claims, projected costs, merits of each claim etc.) but so too will the rate of return sought by the funder.

Partnership funding with the law firm

As this article is focused upon the role of a third party funder, it is not intended to provide an in depth analysis of

funding which might be offered by the legal representatives instructed on particular claims such as CFAs and DBAs.

These funding options demonstrate that it is not just the claimants who can benefit from third party

funding. Solicitors can also utilise funding (whether on a full or partial basis) as an effective risk management tool in the operation of their business where they do not necessarily have the appetite to operate on a full DBA with all the third party costs that entail. Harbour has also developed its own hybrid DBA to work with law firms, having obtained advice from three QCs that it complies with the current regulations. Given the confines of this article, it is not intended to address such issues in detail but their importance as a consideration of using third party funding by legal representatives should not be underestimated.


“Parties and representatives should not assume that their

case is not appropriate for funding until they have had a discussion

with a funder.”

20

Funding of adverse costs risk only

I t may be that a claimant only wants to cover its adverse costs risk presented by pursuing their claim (for example, it has

already entered into a CFA or DBA with its legal representatives which provides it with sufficient funding for own side costs). This could either be through the funder providing a cash indemnity or by the funder purchasing an ATE policy to cover that risk. The latter is typically more cost effective, particularly where a funder has an exclusive facility with ATE Insurers (as is the case at Harbour) and can obtain such cover on more competitive terms than if a claimant approached a broker or underwriter directly.

Equity finance

Some funders can also provide capital to companies by purchasing equity in the company to provide it with funds to pay

the costs of its claim (for example, through a contractual joint venture). It allows the claimant to utilise the goodwill and value of the company as consideration for the funding agreement, in addition to the potential value in the claim.

Equity finance can be preferable where the company requires the capital to stay afloat and therefore keep its claim alive or alternatively where the outcome of the litigation may result in a non-monetary outcome which would increase the value of the funder’s equity.

Loan

A loan can either be repayable in instalments or when the claim is resolved. The key difference to the

non-recourse funding in traditional single case funding is that the funder’s recovery is the interest incurred upon the loan rather than a return of the proceeds ultimately recovered. This would also be repayable regardless of whether the claim succeeds or fails. By its nature, it would be best suited to funding claims of a relatively modest value and consideration should also be given as to any regulatory issues which may arise and/or whether security should be obtained as part of the terms of the loan.


21

Novation/buying the claim

A funder may also consider buying or taking an assignment of a claim. Not all claims can be bought or assigned so the

legalities of this need to be carefully considered. A key consideration here is the extent to which the novating party is required to continue to assist the funder in pursuing the claim (for example, in terms of providing disclosure and witness evidence) after a claim has been novated. The key concern of a funder in this scenario is that they do not end up making a substantial upfront payment to a claimant who is then dis-incentivised to make the necessary commitment to see the case through to a successful conclusion because they have already been paid.

Conclusion

The variety of different options set out above demonstrate that there is a great deal of flexibility on what can be

offered to a party involved in a dispute. This is not an exhaustive list of the options available. New options will continue to emerge as the funding landscape continues to develop. The key message is that funding can be flexible and that parties and their representatives should not assume that their case is not appropriate for funding until they have had a discussion with a funder.


22

Harbour news

HARBOUR NEWS - NEWS FROM INSIDE HARBOUR LITIGATION FUNDING

Harbour operates globally having funded in 12 jurisdictions and 4 arbitral forums. From our bases in London and Hong

Kong, the team ranges widely to ensure we can be present where there is interest in and demand for funding

In February, Litigation Director, Matthew Knowles was in Singapore and Perth meeting with corporates, liquidators, law firms and barristers. The demand for our services in the Asia Pacific region is significant and Ruth Stackpool-Moore, Head of our Hong Kong office is spending more

of her time on the ground in Australia. News of further expansion of our regional presence will be announced shortly.

Susan Dunn travelled to Bermuda, the British Virgin Isles and to Kuala Lumpur to reinforce our local contacts. Again, these are areas where there is considerable interest in litigation and arbitration funding.

We continue to spread the funding message by attending and speaking at worldwide conferences. Litigation Director, Rocco Pirozzolo demonstrates

Harbour Around the World

23

In Brief

HARBOUR NEWS - NEWS FROM INSIDE HARBOUR LITIGATION FUNDING

Look out for a few changes to our website in coming weeks and news of further team expansion. Harbour continues to grow to meet the needs of our clients

For more information on Harbour Litigation Funding call +44 20 3829 9320 or visit www.harbourlitigationfunding.com

the scope of our engagement – he spoke at the February Solicitors’ Costs Conference on the subject of funding development before covering funding insolvency litigation for the Association of Business Recovery Professionals, offering a funder’s perspective on mediation for the Trust Mediation Seminar and, finally, addressing the Litigation Funding and Insurance Seminar in Dublin.

Others in the Team were equally active. Susan presented to the RICS conference on National Dispute Resolution in Construction and the 12th Annual Leading Arbitrators’ Symposium on the conduct of International Arbitration in Vienna. Ruth spoke on gender diversity in arbitration in Hong Kong, on class actions for the My Platform Rules conference on the Gold Coast of Australia and at the Dispute Resolution Conference in Beijing. In print Mark King can be found in the April to June edition of Corporate Disputes Magazine addressing the subject of alternative risk management by third party funding.

During the next quarter, in addition to our normal presence in the Asia Pacific region you will also find Harbour in the Middle East, Malaysia and Austria.

Featuring news from the Team at Harbour

Litigation Funding. Visit our website for

more in depth details

harbourlitigationfunding.com

harbour view q1 2016

Documents