The team at Woodsford explains why litigation funding is such a great fit for antitrust matters, and provide insight into the softer benefits of litigation funding, including an additional layer of diligence at an early stage of the process, leading to greater rigour in risk and cost-benefit assessments.

Ryan Schultz of Woodsford shares that a US District Court recently ruled that communications between a plaintiff’s law firm and litigation funders, including those funders that ultimately did not fund the opportunity, were protected under work product privilege, rejecting arguments by Samsung that the documents were not privileged because they were not created with a primary purpose of the present litigation but rather for obtaining funding.

Deborah Mazer of Woodsford describes the recent explosion in mass tort bankruptcies and urges tort claimants to be as strategic as debtor companies that use the bankruptcy courts to address this liability by seeking out litigation funding to pursue their claims in bankruptcy.

Brendan Dyer of Woodsford explains why partnering with a funder at a late stage of litigation is often a great solution in situations of fee fatigue, where a client has been involved in protracted litigation and is evaluating whether the potential recovery justifies the additional time and money required to prevail, as well as for "accidental contingency situations", where the scope of the matter has crept beyond the expectations of the funder and the client, and the funder faces the specter of significant financial risk once the budget runs out.

Bob Koneck of Woodsford argues that instead of just being ESG targets, companies can reap both financial benefit and potentially improve the state of the world in a meaningful way by becoming plaintiffs against ESG offenders, giving examples such as opt-out antitrust litigation, abbreviated new drug application litigation and breach of contract claims related to labour laws.