Headline Dec 09, 2014/

''' LAW & JUSTICE : 


FAT RETURNS  for those who help companies take legal action:

Returns are impressive enough to have drawn in both  hedge funds and  traditional financial companies.

Allianz, A German insurer,  built a profitable  lawsuit funding unit before running into conflicts of interest with suits aimed at its insurance customers. It closed shop. Credit Suisse built and then spun off its litigation-finance.

The potential profits can be seen in the results of three public companies specialise in funding litigation:  Burford  and  Juridica,  both listed in London but focusing on America,  and  IMF,  the first public litigation funder, based in Australia.

Juridica,  which released results on March 15th, 2013, MADE  $38 million in cash profits on $256 million  under  investment. 

Juridica concentrates on  monetising court wins and settlements,  and immediately returning the cash to shareholders. In  2012 , it offered the highest yield on London's AIM  market,  which specialises in smaller companies.

The biggest risk, says  Richard Fields  Juridica's founder and chief executive, is not the quality of cases. He says the company invested in 30 of some  1,200  it considered, and has profited from all that have been concluded. 

The risk is timing:  courts gears grind slowly before suddenly producing results, so cashflow is ''lumpy''.

With that, I move on to the other case reasoning of,  Law and Justice.   

TO BE FAIR,  here in Pakistan,   the FTA 2013 does provide a criterion as per which the High Court Justice must judge the application for issuance of a warrant.

Among other things, the Justice must be satisfied that the material is not frivolous, is credible and there will be  no  ''undue interference''  with the privacy of the individual against whom the warrant is issued.

The term  ''undue interference'' ,  however, is open to interpretation and there are no guidelines on this. Ideally,  an  individualised   'proportionality'  assessment will guide discretion here.

The length of the warrant can be up to 60 days and this period can be extended.
If the warrant is denied, the relevant state actor can appeal the decision.

BUT what if the warrant is granted?

YOU ARE DAMN RIGHT  -the citizen will never know till the evidence is actually brought in a criminal trial against him/her.

The execution of the warrant takes place by serving it on the relevant service provider :
.- your cell phone
.- Internet service provider

They are indemnified against any action and are under a duty to comply with the warrant  -failure to comply with the warrant causes a penalty of  10 million rupees.

KEEP IN MIND that this is not the usual warrant that so many of us familiar with. This is not a cop knocking on your door. producing a warrant and searching your home.

This is the state digging everything about you online and in your electronic communication with the others.

Is there the danger of abuse of information? OF COURSE.

Now, the  FTA  2013 does factor that in and mentions  punishments  for misuse as well as unauthorised use of information regarding an individual but the bigger question is this:

Does the state of  Pakistan  have the capacity to ensure that the abuse will not occur?

Are people even trained for this?

How long will  data  be stored and how will it be destroyed?  More importantly, who will destroy it?

These are extremely important questions   -and we need to debate these.

With respectful dedication to the Chief Justice of Pakisan, and all the Judges of the Supreme Court, and 

Lawyer Dr M Jawaid Khan, Rabo,  Lawyer Zainab Khan/ Kings College, Dee, Mariam, Salar,  Faizan Paras, Sorat, Eman,  Haanyia, Meriam, Maynah,

With respectful dedication to all the elements of the Justice Systems in the world. See Thou and Ya  on !WOW!  -the World Students Society Computers-Internet-Wireless:

''' The Era Of Reasoning '''

'''Good Night and God Bless

SAM Daily Times - the Voice of the Voiceless


Post a Comment

Grace A Comment!