Thanks R100. My understanding from what IMF and the CA lawyers...

Thanks R100. My understanding from what IMF and the CA lawyers have communicated is that the size of the CA's claim already takes into account the proportionate liability. From our perspective of course.

My spirits get buoyed with hope to read articles from law firms attempting to denigrating litigation funders. "Profit motive" eh! Exactly. And also exactly why partners of law firms wanted to incorporate. They wanted profit on top of their salaries. In this article, Jones Day seem to have omitted mentioning that not only is e.g. Slater & Gordon incorporated, that "firm" is listed on the ASX (Code SGH). Just like IMF. But the law profession sticks fast to their holier than thou sales pitch.

Litigation funding is the best thing to have happened to our Adversarial legal system in 650 years. It has opened the gates to any Australian to profit from the racket that is our "Rolls Royce of legal systems". Or as Evan Whitton calls it, the Rolls Royce of Rackets. (See http://netk.net.au/whittonhome.asp.)

Litigation Funding shareholders are now in direct competition with shareholders/partners of law "firms". And the partners of law firms hate it. We're moving in on their turf. Well they should have though twice about trashing the shrewd legacy of their predecessors by seeking to be more like companies.

ASIC's role in PIF investor pain is that it helped revive the mutual funds industry in this legal environment to the glee of the racketeers. An industry the hand of the free market had thrown into a dark corner. But there was ASIC, putting up flags in treacherous waters. The ASIC website is STILL at it with it's MoneySmart.gov.au. Feeding Australians into the Rolls Royce of Rackets. Dressing up wolves as sheep.

The only time anyone has stripped the sheep's clothing from this racket for me was Wayne Swan when answering a question about PIF from the floor at the London School of Economics on 13 March 2009. We PIF investors "made an investment in a market linked investment proposal which didn't have the security that an investment in a APRA regulated institution would have because [we] were looking for higher returns and sadly the worst has happened. … but there is nothing the Australian government can do for those people who unfortunately lost their money in those market linked schemes ..."

I.e. if it's not an APRA regulated institution (i.e. important to the stability of the nation as a whole and hence too big to fail) then you're on our own in an adversarial legal system. Better get a lawyer son, better get a real good one.

Swan's un-scripted words were in complete contrast to what ASIC's FIDO was leading readers to believe about such investments at the time.

Additional Reading:

From Evan Whitton's must read 'The Rolls Royce of Rackets'

"Chief Judge Richard Posner said lawyers, judges and academics (from
the late 18th century) have always been a cartel. For example, in will cases
from the 17th century lawyers were paid, not by clients, but from the
deceased estates. Chancery judges held hearings but refused to finalise
cases for decades, and lawyers periodically turned up to loot the estates.
Jennens v Jennens, the model for Dickens’ Jarndyce v Jarndyce, involved an
estate worth $1.5 billion today. The case began in 1798 and ran for 117
years. It ended in 1915 when the last of the estate had been “devoured”.
In New South Wales, lawyers are still paid from deceased estates. I hope
your wills are safe from lawyers and judges. "