Russ To be fair to IPR read the following, its more of an...

Russ To be fair to IPR read the following, its more of an informed opinion which reflutes what you have rabbited on about

The case of QPSX Pty Ltd v Ericsson Australia Pty Ltd arose as a result of a litigation funding arrangement entered into between technology commercialisation company QPSX Limited and Insolvency Management Fund Ltd (“IMF”), a publicly listed company which provides funding of legal claims and other related services. IMF agreed to fund QPSX’s litigation against Ericsson for breach of contract in return for royalties of 24 percent of any settlement and 17 per cent if settlement occurred before trial.
Ericsson applied to stay the proceeding as an abuse of process on the basis that under the funding arrangement, IMF had the power to control or influence the direction of the litigation in ways that would serve its own financial interests. The Federal Court of Australia refused to stay the proceeding as Ericsson had not shown that IMF was inappropriately interfering in the case. Rather, the Federal Court considered that the arrangements between QPSX and IMF had been organized in a way that allowed QPSX to maintain effective control of the litigation. QPSX’s obligation to pay IMF a percentage of the court-awarded damages did not amount to any power to control or influence on the part of IMF.
This funding arrangement was upheld as an acceptable mechanism to allow access to justice and a legitimate resource and risk allocation business strategy for a party in litigation.