Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 23 JANUARY 2024

Update On English Litigation Funding Agreements Since PACCAR

Crowell & Moring LLP
Crowell & Moring LLP
Contributor
Crowell & Moring LLP

Crowell & Moring LLP

Crowell & Moring’s Doha office is a full service legal practice that serves as the firm’s regional...

View firm profile
Explore more from Crowell & Moring LLP

In this alert we discuss recent developments in the regulation of third party funding since R (on the application of PACCAR Inc & Ors) v Competition Appeal Tribunal & Ors [2023] UKSC 28...

United KingdomAntitrust/Competition Law

What You Need to Know

Key takeaway #1

Litigation funding agreements which suitably tailor their payment mechanisms to make damages-based elements at most optional may avoid damages-based agreement pitfalls.

Key takeaway #2

More scrutiny into LFAs from the Competition Appeal Tribunal is expected shortly.

Key takeaway #3

The Government is moving to allow damages-based LFAs in competition opt-out proceedings, but a return to wider DBA reform has not yet been tabled.

In this alert we discuss recent developments in the regulation of third party funding since R (on the application of PACCAR Inc & Ors) v Competition Appeal Tribunal & Ors [2023] UKSC 28, ("PACCAR") which we discussed in our prior alert. In Alex Neill Class Representative Limited v Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Limited et al. [2023] CAT 73, the first analysis of a third-party litigation funding agreement ("LFA") to take place since PACCAR, finding that an optional

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from