Report Procedural Fund for Collective Actions
News
Webinar: Law in Public Interest: Collective Redress, Funding & Climate Regulation
Our Vici team organises an online seminar titled ‘Law in the Public Interest: Collective Redress, and Litigation Funding and Climate Change Regulation’ on 19 November from 15-17 hrs (CET).
The event will explore the intersections between legal frameworks and the public interest in a time of increasing concerns about climate change, corporate responsibility, and the cost barriers to pursuing collective justice. As climate change becomes a global priority, regulatory frameworks and climate litigation are holding governments and corporations accountable for their environmental impact. Collective redress and litigation funding also fulfil this role and are gaining prominence in recent years with the adoption of legislation such as the EU Representative Actions Directive and the Dutch WAMCA and with high-profile cases like the Post Office litigation in the UK.
Esteemed speakers are: Eva van der Zee (University of Hamburg, Germany) on Behavioural Insights on Climate Change Law; Koen Rutten (Finch, Netherlands) on Is Funding Collective Litigation still Affordable? and Flora Page (23ES, United Kingdom) on What the Bates v Post Office Litigation reveals about the Pros and Cons of Litigation Funding. Introduction and moderation by Adrian Cordina and Xandra Kramer
Register before 19 November for free here.
Published: September 14, 2023
On request of the Ministry of Justice, Xandra kramer conducted a study on a procedural fund for collective actions, together with Jos Hoevenaars (Council for the Judiciary/Erasmus University Rotterdam), and Ianika Tzankova and Karlijn van Doorn (Tilburg University).
We carried out research to map developments in collective actions, did quantitative research on WAMCA cases and qualitative research on the funding of collective actions, including on developments in the market and regulation of third party litigation funding in the Netherlands and several other countries. Noteworthy is that all claims for damages so far rely on third party funding. The key question we looked into is to what extent a revolving litigation fund could provide a solution to bottlenecks in the funding of collective actions and how such a procedural fund could be designed. Considering the relatively small number of cases for damages that have been brought under the WAMCA so far and uncertainties in legal practice and regulation, coupled with the complexities to set up such a fund, we conclude that the introduction of a revolving litigation fund seems premature. We make a number of suggestions for further research. The report is available here.
We are preparing an English version of the report to be published by Eleven International Publishing - coming soon!