Illinois allows litigation funding in pre-trial ruling
On Jan. 10, Illinois joined Texas, South Carolina, Massachusetts and Florida in a growing group of states that allow plaintiffs and defendants to accept outside money for legal activity
January 13, 2014 at 05:34 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
For decades the ability to invest in litigation was taboo in the United States, with laws and rules in place to discourage outside parties from backing parties in legal contention. But those rules are starting to thaw, and in multiple states the ability for a private company to offer money in return for a cut of courtrooms earnings is alive and well.
On Jan. 10, Illinois joined Texas, South Carolina, Massachusetts and Florida in a growing group of states that allow plaintiffs and defendants to accept outside money for legal activity.
The ruling to allow this activity was the result of a pretrial discovery dispute in which a federal magistrate judge in Illinois ruled that Miller U.K. Ltd had the right to accept money from other sources in its lawsuit against Caterpillar Inc. Despite Caterpillars attempts to obtain details about the arrangement, the judge has rejected that they should be made available.
Caterpillar claimed during pre-trial that the use of outside money violated Illinois statues that protect against “officious intermeddling,” the Wall Street Journal reports. It also asserted that the documented details of the funding should be made available because they would not be protected under standard attorney-client privilege.
“Caterpillar tried to use the fact that there was litigation investment as an attack on the party suing them for trade secrets. That failed,” said Anthony Sebok, a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University in New York, in an interview with the WSJ.
Opponents of litigation funding argue that it could give outside entities undue influence over the workings of a particular lawsuit, and say that it could lead to frivolous lawsuits as investors look to cash in. But outside the United States, the practice is widespread, and those in favor of outside funding say that it allows litigants who may not have the funds to sue to pursue issues with deeper pocketed defendants.
The move from the Illinois judge could act as a bellwether for litigation investment in the United States.
For more on the economics of litigation check out these InsideCounsel stories.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCoinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
- 1Class Certification, Cash-Sweep Cases Among Securities Litigation Trends to Watch in 2025
- 2Buchanan Ingersoll Launches in Chicago With 17-Lawyer Team From Locke Lord
- 3$2M Settlement for Woman Struck by New Jersey Transit Bus
- 4BREAKING: Donald Trump to Face Sentencing on January 10, Judge Rules
- 5Samuel M. Lehrer, Retired Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge, Dies
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250