NHB Legal’s Post

Curious about the rising demand of legal finance in the Netherlands? Financiers have flocked towards Dutch collective actions—claims for damages under the Resolution of Mass Damages in Collective Action (WAMCA)—but the Dutch market is an attractive one to legal finance providers more generally. Learn more in the blog post below by Philipp Leibfried and Charlie Rooke. https://lnkd.in/e-6gEW4W    #legalfinance #litigationfunding #BurfordCapital 

The British Virgin Islands (BVI) government has introduced important amendments to the BVI Business Companies Act, 2004 (As Revised) that are contained in the BVI Business Companies (Amendment) Act, 2024 (the Amendment Act). Peter Vas of Spencer West LLP discusses recent amendments to the BVI Business Companies Act that introduce stricter requirements for corporate transparency and compliance in line with international standards. 📲 Sign up for the latest updates in the legal industry: https://lnkd.in/g3brrPdM #lawdotasia #ablj #iblj #cblj #asia #offshore #britishvirginislands #legalcompliance #corporatelaw #legaladvice #inhousecounsel #business #legalprofession #lawfirms #lawyers #legal #law

The British Virgin Islands (BVI) government has introduced important amendments to the BVI Business Companies Act, 2004 (As Revised) that are contained in the BVI Business Companies (Amendment) Act, 2024 (the Amendment Act). Peter Vas at Spencer West LLP summarizes recent amendments to the BVI Business Companies Act, detailing new compliance requirements for BVI companies. Visit Asia Business Law Journal for more legal intelligence. 📲 Sign up for the latest updates in the legal industry: https://lnkd.in/gE3VgXQx #ablj #asia #offshore #britishvirginislands #legalcompliance #corporatelaw #legaladvice #inhousecounsel #business #legalprofession #lawfirms #lawyers #legal #law #lawdotasia

𝐆𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐀𝐫𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧? Recently the Ministry of Finance has released an Office Memorandum being Guidelines for Arbitration and Mediation in Contracts for Domestic Public Procurement. The Memorandum notes, the problems that works contracts have been facing with arbitration being: 1. Process of Arbitration takes long and is very expensive, contrary to quickness envisaged. 2. Reduced Formality of #arbitration leads to wrong decision on facts and improper application law. 3. Lack of accountability for decisions taken by arbitrators. 4. Lack of finality of awards on ground, as all awards are challenged in Courts. Instead of reducing litigation an additional layer has been added in the final resolution. 5. Due to adversarial process realistic claims and/or counterclaims are replaced by inflated claims. In view of the above, few of the guidelines issued are as follows: 1. Arbitration should not be included routinely or automatically in procurement contracts/tenders, especially in large contracts. 2. As a norm, arbitration may be included with in contracts with dispute value less than INR 10 crores. 3. If beyond this dispute value, arbitration is included as a dispute resolution methodology, then it has to be by application of mind and recording of reasons, with approval of Secretary of concerned government ministry (or delegate), Or Managing Director of CPSE/PSB/Financial Instruction. 4. In matters of #arbitration, institution arbitration has to be given preference. 5. The decision to challenge/appeal every decision against the government/PSU should not be taken in a routine manner, but only when the case genuinely merits going for challenge/appeal and there are high chances of winning in court/higher court. 6. Government entitites should amicably settle as many disputes as possible using mechanisms available in contract. 7. government entities to take up #mediation or negotiation for amicable settlement of disputes, eg. where the disputes are high value. 8. In long duration works contracts, public interest may be best served by a re-negotiation of the terms by placing it before a High Level Committee. etc. Here's the link to the Memorandum: https://lnkd.in/gbKb_cQd #CCDQ #CCDQbygunjan Divyansha Agrawal

✨ Legitimate and Effective use of Third Party Funding: 🔎 Meaning of third-party funding: An arrangement whereby a third party who has no other connection to a dispute conducted in litigation or arbitration finances some or all of the legal costs of a party to that dispute in exchange for a share (whether fixed or by way of percentage) of the proceeds if the claim is successful. 🤔 The question is, where is the risk of Third-Party Funding if it eases the way for accessing justice for those who can't afford payments for litigation or arbitration? (TPF), Like any other financial arrangement, it carries certain risks and may be subject to unfair practices. 👉 Funders may seek excessive control over the litigation process or attempt to garner excessively high returns. Conflicts of interest may arise between funders and funded parties. 👉 Litigation or Arbitration may even be pursued abusively in that it is driven by the financial interests of funders. 👉 Issues may also occur if courts or counterparties to litigation or arbitration are unaware of the involvement of a third-party funder. So, The ELI has identified four core objectives that lie at the heart of the search for legitimate and effective use of Third Party Litigation Funding (TPLF). Those objectives are: • Facilitating and increasing access to justice; • Identifying and meeting valid concerns about TPLF; • Levelling the playing field internationally between the parties; • Informing regulatory or legislative responses and assisting courts. 📃 The European Law Institute made this guide of principles governing the third-party funding of litigation to balance between access to justice and the public interest in the due administration of justice and the interests of those outside the funding relationship. 🧑⚖️ The Principles have been drafted to provide aid to litigants, beneficiaries, courts, administrative authorities, arbitration bodies, legislators, funders, and their representative bodies. ✨ These principles are fundamental to read to know the approach for Legitimate and Effective use of Third Party Funding. 🔗 Feel free to share. Thank you!! #Arbitration #LegalFramework #ٍTPF #Third_Party_Funding #DisputeResolution #InternationalArbitration

In 2023, the CA decided judges can stay proceedings and order parties to engage in non-court dispute resolution (‘NCDR’) without their consent. Since then, many family lawyers have questioned whether the family court will adopt the same strict approach towards the use of NCDR. Various changes were made to the Family Procedure Rules towards the end of April 2024. The purpose of such changes was to promote NCDR within financial remedy and private law children proceedings. Almost four months later, practitioners are wondering whether the new rules actually have any teeth… The new rules include the following:- 1. The definition of NCDR has been expanded to include mediation, arbitration, collaborative law, and evaluation by a neutral third party. 2. Parties will be required to file and serve Form FM5 at least seven working days before a hearing. The purpose of the form is to explain whether the party has attended NCDR, which type they have attended, and why they are seeking a court order despite attending NCDR. 3. A court can decide to adjourn proceedings without the parties agreement if they feel NCDR should be further explored. 4. Before making an application to court, ordinarily an applicant must attend an appointment to discuss mediation (‘MIAM’). The exceptions to this requirement have been narrowed. 5. Within financial remedy proceedings, refusing to engage in NCDR might provide a sufficient reason for the court to penalise the refusing party with a costs sanction. There certainly appears to be active encouragement by the court to use NCDR. However, will the implemented changes go far enough? Whilst I am optimistic, it is probably too early to confirm whether the changes have made a positive difference yet. #Familylaw #ADR #NCDR #mediation #Familyprocedurerules

It is good that The Law Society has listened and backed down in their changes to the TA6. However this proposal for both versions to be acceptable during a consultation period, creates a legal problem. In professional negligence the standard of care is based, ultimately, on what is regarded as acceptable practice in the profession. The TA6 form is a very good indication of what is within the scope of a solicitor’s duty. So with two versions of the form currently standard, what would be the position now if a firm faced an allegation of negligence in relation to any matters related to inadequate enquiries on issues covered by the material information obligations? I am not saying it is a big issue nor that there are many potential issues of negligence at that stage. But it is incumbent on The Law Society as the primary representative body of lawyers to think these things through properly. https://lnkd.in/eyz8dHxY

The evidence observed during the Law Society consultation on a new disclosure procedure for residential property sales is overwhelmingly in favour of a big re-think on how the legal profession as a whole needs to respond (if at all) to National Trading Standards Guidance and consumer protection regulations. When the Law Society decided to endorse and underpin the NTSELAT Guidance, using (some would say abusing) the influence it has through its Conveyancing Quality Scheme accreditation, it threw conveyancers nationwide into a whirling vortex of uncertainty and indecision for the best part of a year. What happened to caveat emptor? Must sellers now disclose what materials were used in the construction of their property? Must sellers tick a box to say whether the property is a house, a bungalow or a flat? Really? The Property Lawyers Alliance, acting on behalf of all conveyancers, took courageous action that prompted a 3-month long consultation. This has now concluded, and the outcome is awaited. Meanwhile the PLA is calling again for the TA6 5th edition to be withdrawn. A TA6 6th edition, incorporating the best of both disclosure forms, may be the way forward. It is abundantly clear that hard pressed Conveyancers facing constant change and increased regulatory burdens need a period of stability to recover from the temporary imposition of a new and ill thought through disclosure process. It is now high time TLS discontinued use of its TA6 5th edition Property Information Form. Instead, let's take a step back, and see how the NTSELAT Guidance is bedding down with home sellers, home buyers, and with their estate agents. Remember, the NTSELAT Guidance that gave rise to a 32 page TA6 (with 22 pages of explanatory notes) was directed at those marketing property, to help estate agents fulfill their responsibilities not to omit, mislead or conceal Material Information, to reduce fall throughs and reduce transaction times. Is the NTS theory working in practice? #TLS #CQS #NTSELAT #CPR #PropertyInformationForm #PIQ #BASPI #Conveyancing #MI #HBSC #PLA #PropertyLawyersAlliance #TA6

Where now with the seller's duty to disclose Material Information under consumer protection regulations, and Caveat Emptor? Is the National Trading Standards Estate and Letting Agency Team Guidance helping or subverting residential property sales?

My Burford Capital colleague Philipp Leibfried and I have written an article on the use of legal finance in the Netherlands. Click on the link below to read it in full. #legalfinance #litigationfunding #BurfordCapital