Posted in Arbitration Law, Litigation

Dutch Commercial Court Act

The Netherlands as a growing-business country and The Netherlands as one of the first ones to set up comemrcial courts in English to serve multinationals.

What we know so far  is that:

  • the start date has been postponed – discussion in the lwoer chamber took place on 18th July 2017,
  • This new court will be lodged within the Amsterdam Court and the Dutch Commercial Court of Appeal,
  • The cassation procedure will be held in Dutch,
  • Staff will not be exclusively Dutch but composed of international experts able to master the English language,
  • Applicability of this Court will be subject to both parties agreeing to it while consumer-relate disputes won’t be accepted,


Posted in Litigation, Privacy

Court Stops Pokémon GO Litigation

US courts are becoming more European.

A plaintiff triggered a lawsuit in Florida against the company behind Pokemon Go (Niantic Inc.) since its T&Cs were “illusory, deceptive, unfair, and/or unconscionable”.

Such privisions gave Niantic the right to unilatrally modify the agreement, to edit or delete one users’s data and similar nice stuff.

Well, the court denied protection to the plaintiff, because:

  • he had not yet suffered a damage (good work on the prevention of it, anyway)
  • the applicable law was the one from California, which could not be unapplied in Florida.


Posted in Arbitration Law, Litigation

Third-party funding of arbitration: the risks

Another trend lots of legals are not aware of  is the funding of litigation (and prisons) from third parties.

Although on the one hand it allows short-resourced parties to afford litigation, this phenomenon also sets some worrisome issues:

  • firstly, what if “investors” decide to fund only litigation where sucess’ rate is higher?
  • on top of percentages on awarded damages, additional expenses are  required (and render the process less profitable): upfront due-diligence, NDA drafting and  the funding agreement.
  • Although in English litigation, a third-party funder of an unsuccessful litigant could be liable to contribute towards the costs of the other side in proportion to the initial contribution, within arbitration boundaries, this is less clear and it may force the funder to resort to security for its costs.
  • conflict(s) of interest may arise
  • Privilege and confidentiality may vary across countries.

Further issues come along and the question is once again: is more regulation the answer?


Posted in Litigation

Litigation funding in New Zealand

Litigation funding his gaining momentum in New Zealand too.

Yet, Courts are quite reluctant on them, also because there is no set of rules to regulate such phenomenon.

The two main cases (to date) are Saunders v. Houghton (where the Court accepted the third-party funding) and Waterhouse v. Contractors Bonding (where such feature didn’t go as smooth as planned).