2013
DOI: 10.5131/ajcl.2012.0017
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Justice for Profit: A Comparative Analysis of Australian, Canadian and U.S. Third Party Litigation Funding

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 3 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, a relatively new market for litigation financing has emerged, wherein third‐party financiers unaffiliated with a legal case provide upfront financing to plaintiffs and/or law firms in exchange for a cut of the recovery. These financial relationships have restructured which cases firms will take (Kalajdzic et al, 2013; Skiba & Xiao, 2017), potentially exacerbating inequalities in access to justice. In addition, there is evidence that symbiotic financial relationships have aided the privatization of prisons in the United States: banks – including JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America – recently came under scrutiny for decades‐long commercial credit agreements with private prisons (Habibi et al, 2019).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, a relatively new market for litigation financing has emerged, wherein third‐party financiers unaffiliated with a legal case provide upfront financing to plaintiffs and/or law firms in exchange for a cut of the recovery. These financial relationships have restructured which cases firms will take (Kalajdzic et al, 2013; Skiba & Xiao, 2017), potentially exacerbating inequalities in access to justice. In addition, there is evidence that symbiotic financial relationships have aided the privatization of prisons in the United States: banks – including JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America – recently came under scrutiny for decades‐long commercial credit agreements with private prisons (Habibi et al, 2019).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%