Competing Opinions Favor Regulation Of Lawsuit Funding, Differ On Interest Rate Cap

Competing Opinions Favor Regulation Of Lawsuit Funding, Differ On Interest Rate Cap

Two separate opinion pieces in the Albany, New York, Times-Union newspaper take up the issue of regulation of litigation funding.  As to regulation generally, they are in agreement that new governance of the business is called for.  But the commentators differ on a key point: one says that an interest rate cap in such deals is necessary, while the other says it would hurt individual claimants.

The two pieces are as follows:

  • A November 15, 2018 op-ed, “New York Must Conserve Access To Consumer Legal Funding“, by Mercer University School of Law Professor Jeremy Kidd, here (referring to a recent Georgia Supreme Court opinion, and indicating that when New York legislators, as expected, again take up litigation funding regulation in 2019, they should look to states with “limited and targeted laws” governing such practices so that individuals have ready access to such companies); and
  • A November 30, 2018 letter to the editor, “Predatory Contracts Hurt Most Vulnerable Citizens“, by Adam Morey, Public Affairs Manager of the Lawsuit Reform Alliance Of New York, here (stating that Colorado law provides that litigation funding is subject to usury laws, and that, if these are assignments of personal injury claims, they are already prohibited by New York, which “considers the sale or assignment of a personal injury claim to be unlawful”).

The Kidd op-ed refers to a Georgia Supreme Court opinion that was the subject of Secondary Insurance Market Blog posts:

Comments are closed.