News Litigation Behind the law Litigation shake-up By The Lawyer 5 August 2009 12:59 17 December 2015 16:11 Sign in or register to continue reading. It's FREE Sign in Email Password Keep me logged in Forgot your password? Not registered? It's FREE! Register now Register with The Lawyer Mark Andrews CEO Maxima 6 August 2009 at 12:03 Comments regarding the case of Stone & Rolls seems to be taking presumption to a new level. They presume a funder does not plan forward or make prudent reserves to do so. Indeed, they do and whilst it is difficult to know exacting arrangements there is a danger that this speculation obscures a very busy market place handling many cases because of one headline case and one funder. IM are one of the oldest in the market. They have run many cases in the past both winning and losing. It has traded and receipted returns before and during Stone & Rolls. This case does not sit in isolation for them. Without doubt if any funder refused to pay out at the end of an unsuccessful case when they are contracted to do so that would be wrong. However, to suggest that would be a death blow to a whole market is exaggerating the point. There are many other funders running many other cases. When an ATE insurer declines to pay out , do we perceive the market collapsing? In the last two months, I know cases have been lost by funders. None have backed out of obligations or to my knowledge sort too. Matters have been settled and they move on to the next. James Delaney and others strike a good point. Much is often made of the cost of third party funding but few comment on the risk and cost to them they face long before a successful outcome. I would disagree they always “cherry pick” as this case proves. The case of Stone & Rolls may prove the huge value funding has for litigants, unable to seek justice on financial grounds they have been supported but unsuccessful. The headline might be reading that the client’s face a huge bill! If I were Moore Stephens I would be relieved they have a funder, not the client facing their claim for costs. It also allows the claimant to walk away undamaged (financially) from a case he will have thought he would win. I cannot agree with Nick Bird it will cause concern, because to my knowledge it has not, certainly not at Maxima who are an Independent advisor and broker of funding. There could be other headlines today about wins and losses for funders, it is part of the process and it would not work, if there were not wins and losses. Ultimately, the only loser from this is the funder and that’s their job and because of that all other parties come away from litigation unscathed financially. Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.