Archive

Archive for the ‘Shannon, Victoria’ Category

Prof. Sahani presents at NYU Litigation Funding Conference

November 19, 2015 Leave a comment
Prof. Victoria Shannon

Prof. Victoria Shannon

On Friday, November 20, Professor Sahani will present her forthcoming article, Judging Third-Party Funding, at a litigation funding conference hosted by the NYU School of Law’s Center on Civil Justice.  Professor Sahani’s panel will focus on litigation funding in the context of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and will be moderated by Professor Arthur Miller of the NYU School of Law, who is a Faculty Co-Director of the Center on Civil Justice.  The conference is free and open to the public, and CLE credit will be offered.

For more information and to register, please visit: http://www.law.nyu.edu/centers/civiljustice/2015-fall-conference.

Professor Sahani’s article will be published in the UCLA Law Review in February 2016.

From the abstract:

Third-party funding is an arrangement whereby an outside entity finances the legal representation of a party involved in litigation or arbitration.  The outside entity—called a “third-party funder”—could be a bank, hedge fund, insurance company, or some other entity or individual that finances the party’s legal representation in return for a profit.  Third-party funding is a controversial, dynamic, and evolving phenomenon.  The practice has attracted national headlines and the attention of the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Advisory Committee).  The Advisory Committee stated in a recent report that “judges currently have the power to obtain information about third-party funding when it is relevant in a particular case,” but the Committee did not provide any additional guidance regarding how to determine the relevance of third-party funding, what information to obtain, or from whom to obtain that information.  This Article provides that needed guidance by setting forth revisions and reinterpretations of procedural rules to provide judges and arbitrators with disclosure requirements and a framework for handling known issues as they arise.  By revising and interpreting the procedural rules as suggested in this Article, judges and arbitrators will be able to gain a better sense of the prevalence, structures, and impact of third-party funding and its effects (if any) on dispute resolution procedures.  Over time, these observations will reveal the true systemic impact of third-party funding and contribute to developing more robust third-party funding procedural regulations.

 

Profs. Parella and Sahani Present at 2015 ASIL Research Forum

October 25, 2015 Leave a comment

On October 23-24, 2015, Washington and Lee law professors Kish Parella and Victoria Sahani presented their latest works-in-progress at the American Society of International Law (ASIL) 2015 Research Forum hosted by American University’s Washington College of Law in Washington, DC.  Professor Parella presented her latest draft of “The Value of Failed Treaties” and Professor Sahani presented her latest draft of “Reshaping Third-Party Funding.”  They are among 70 participants selected for presentation based on a blind review process involving nearly 200 submissions worldwide.

 

From Prof. Parella’s abstract:

The scale of international agreements under negotiation, their controversial provisions and increasing opposition to them increases the risks that these potential treaties may fail. This Article seeks to lower the stakes by illustrating the beneficial effects of even failed treaties. Specifically, when treaties target the behavior of corporations and other business enterprises, international and national industry groups and corporate actors may improve the quantity and quality of their self-regulation through private standard-setting, monitoring and compliance activities. It is these “spillover effects” on industry self-regulation that changes corporate behavior and that may occur even in the absence of a treaty that enters into force.

This Article illustrates this new approach to treaty governance with a case study of another treaty that may likely fail: the international treaty on business and human rights. Drawing upon corporate reports, statements, industry manuals and guidelines, press releases and interviews, this Article illustrates the positive effects of failed or failing treaties on the industry self-regulation of business and human rights performed by the International Chamber of Commerce, International Organization of Employers, United States Council on International Business and other industry actors.

 

From Prof. Sahani’s abstract:

Third-party funding is an arrangement whereby an outside entity finances the legal representation of a party involved in litigation or arbitration.  The outside entity – called a “third-party funder” – could be a bank, hedge fund, insurance company, or some other entity or individual that finances the party’s legal representation in return for a profit.  Third-party funding is a controversial, dynamic, and evolving phenomenon.  The structure of the third-party funding transaction often is depicted as a triangle shape connecting the funder, attorney, and client.  This Article challenges the paradigmatic triangular or V-shaped representation of the third-party funding transaction between the funder, client, and attorney.  It proposes other transaction structures that would be better suited to addressing potential problems, such as conflicts of interest, evidentiary privileges, and the funder’s exercise of control over the process.  The Article argues that the uncertainty surrounding the effect of those and other potential problems creates risks for the funder, client, and attorney.  Those risks in turn inflate the price of third-party funding capital.  Reshaping the structure of the third-party funding transaction to mitigate those risks will reduce the price of third-party funding capital.  This will give potential clients wider access to third-party funding and more bargaining power to keep a larger share of their winnings while still benefiting from third-party funding capital. 

In addition, reshaping the third-party funding transaction will help guide legislative choices by better defining the funder’s role and the legal relationships that the laws aim to regulate and encourage.  Furthermore, reshaping the transaction will give guidance to funders regarding appropriate transactional structures and will give attorneys a clearer sense of their obligations under their professional ethics rules.  Moreover, clients will be better informed regarding the baseline structural choices that they should make when deciding whether to hire a particular funder.  Finally, exploring multiple transaction structures for third-party funding will allow for flexibility in creating bespoke third-party funding arrangements and will better protect less sophisticated clients and parties.           

Professor Victoria Sahani Kicks off Iowa Innovation, Business & Law Colloquium

September 11, 2015 Leave a comment
Prof. Victoria Shannon

Prof. Victoria Shannon

On September 3, 2015, Washington and Lee law professor Victoria Sahani presented her latest work-in-progress, Reshaping Risk in Third-Party Funding, at the Iowa Innovation, Business & Law Center at the University of Iowa College of Law.  Professor Sahani’s talk launched the Innovation, Business, & Law Colloquium (IBL Colloquium) hosted by the Center.  The Fall 2015 IBLC Colloquium features six nationally renowned scholars in antitrust, business, and intellectual property law, including Professor Sahani, who will present their work around the theme “Intangible Assets and the Firm.”

From the abstract:

Third-party funding is an arrangement whereby an outside entity finances the legal representation of a party involved in litigation or arbitration. The outside entity – called a “third-party funder” – could be a bank, hedge fund, insurance company, or some other entity or individual that finances the party’s legal representation in return for a profit. Third-party funding is a controversial, dynamic, and evolving phenomenon. The structure of the third-party funding transaction often is depicted as a triangle shape connecting the funder, attorney, and client. The lines between each of the points on the triangle represent signed contracts between those participants in the funding transaction. Academic literature and state legislators have attempted to solve the potential problems of third-party funding while working within the confines of this seemingly immutable triangle structure. As this Article explains, however, the reality is that there is no triangle in third-party funding. Current law allows contracts between only two of the three participants (funder, client, and attorney) in any given third-party funding transaction. Thus, in reality, the existing third-party funding transaction looks more like a V shape, not a triangle.

This Article challenges the paradigmatic triangular or V-shaped representation of the third-party funding transaction between the funder, client, and attorney. It proposes other transaction structures that would be better suited to addressing potential problems, such as conflicts of interest, evidentiary privileges, and the funder’s exercise of control over the process. The Article argues that the uncertainty surrounding the effect of those and other potential problems creates risks for the funder, client, and attorney. Those risks in turn inflate the price of third-party funding capital. Reshaping the structure of the third-party funding transaction to mitigate those risks will reduce the price of third-party funding capital, which will in turn create more competition among funders in the third-party funding market and encourage individual funders to fund a larger number of cases to meet their revenue goals. Increased competition among more funders funding a larger number of cases will give potential clients wider access to third-party funding and more bargaining power to keep a larger share of their winnings while still benefiting from third-party funding capital.

In addition to bringing down prices and expanding access, reshaping the third-party funding transaction will help guide legislative choices by better defining the funder’s role and the legal relationships that the laws aim to regulate and encourage. Furthermore, reshaping the transaction will give guidance to funders regarding appropriate transactional structures and will give attorneys a clearer sense of their obligations under their professional ethics rules. Moreover, clients will be better informed regarding the baseline structural choices that they should make when deciding whether to hire a particular funder. Finally, exploring multiple transaction structures for third-party funding will allow for flexibility in creating bespoke third-party funding arrangements and will better protect less sophisticated clients and parties.

 

Professor Sahani Presents Works-in-Progress at Vanderbilt Law School and Seattle University School of Law

July 22, 2015 Leave a comment
Prof. Victoria Shannon

Prof. Victoria Shannon

On July 9-12, Professor Sahani presented her latest work-in-progress, Reshaping Third-Party Funding, at the Ninth Annual Lutie Lytle Black Women Law Faculty Writing Workshop hosted by Vanderbilt Law School.  This article challenges the traditional triangular representation of the third-party funding transaction between the funder, client, and attorney and proposes other transaction structures that would be better suited to addressing potential problems, such as conflicts of interest, evidentiary privileges, and the funder’s exercise of control over the case. 

 

On July 15-18, Professor Sahani presented her forthcoming article, Judging Third-Party Funding, at the First Annual Civil Procedure Workshop, hosted by Seattle University School of Law.  This article proposes revisions to and reinterpretations of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, evidentiary privileges, and international arbitration procedures to address issues relating to third-party funding such as disclosures, evidentiary privileges, conflicts of interest, cost allocation, sanctions, and class actions.  The full text of the current draft is available here.  The article will be published in the UCLA Law Review in early 2016.

Professor Victoria Shannon Sahani Publishes Blog Post at Kluwer Arbitration Blog

July 13, 2015 Leave a comment
Prof. Victoria Shannon

Prof. Victoria Shannon

Washington and Lee Law professor Victoria Shannon Sahani recently contributed to the Kluwer Arbitration Blog published by Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.  Professor Sahani’s blog post, titled The Impact of Third-Party Funders on the Parties They Decline to Finance was published on July 6, 2015.

Professor Victoria Shannon Sahani Publishes Blog Post at Oxford University Press

July 1, 2015 Leave a comment
Prof. Victoria Shannon

Prof. Victoria Shannon Sahani

Washington and Lee Law professor Victoria Shannon Sahani was recently featured by Oxford University Press on their Investment Claims homepage.  Professor Sahani’s blog post, titled The Structural Challenge of Investment Arbitration Viewed through the Lens of Third-Party Funding was published on June 10, 2015.

Prof. Shannon Debates the Merits of “Issue Conflicts” in International Arbitration at the ASIL Annual Meeting

April 17, 2015 Leave a comment
Prof. Victoria Shannon

Prof. Victoria Shannon

On Thursday, April 9, Professor Victoria Shannon debated the merits of arbitrator disqualification due to “issue conflicts” during a session entitled “ASIL-ICCA Task Force on Issue Conflicts in International Arbitration: Briefing and Discussion” at the American Society of International Law (ASIL) Annual Meeting in Washington, DC.  The term “issue conflicts” refers to the increasing number of proposals to disqualify arbitrators in international arbitration disputes on the ground of bias arising from views expressed in prior decisions and scholarship. ASIL and the International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA) created a joint task force to explore the question of “issue conflicts” with the aim of developing some form of guidance for the international arbitration community. The Task Force has finalized its draft report, which is now posted on the websites of ASIL and ICCA for comments. This session at ASIL featured a mock debate about the merits of “issue conflicts” in which Professor Shannon served as one of the debaters.  The session also invited participants in the ASIL Annual Meeting to comment on and discuss the draft report.

Categories: Shannon, Victoria
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 342 other followers