As noted above, it is essential for bidders involved in the trial to have full access to all funded litigation information that could be important to the litigation and the funder`s decision to fund it. These include privileged documents. One way to deal with this situation is for the corresponding dispute financing agreement to state that the applicant will be required to disclose this information and that he has knowingly agreed to waive a prerogative solely for the benefit of the funder.  A “better view”, which has also been proposed, is, however, that a procedural funder is subject to a tacit obligation to Harman and is therefore entitled to access to documents discovered by the defendants in a funded proceeding.  There was concern that commercial funders should be distinguished from the simple financial assistance of third parties, such as friends, relatives, insurance, legal aid, cooperative enterprises such as unions, creditors and shareholders of a complainant, or by the maintenance of lawyers on the basis of a conditional cost agreement.  Otherwise, security can be controlled too easily. If a distinction is required, the cost guarantee may be limited to the for-profit funder, who is entitled to a stake in a possible recovery and who does not have an existing relationship with the applicant.  However, the rules and principles outlined above provide a framework for a judge to balance all relevant circumstances, and this is also the case in the actual case. Funding for procedures does not only provide the funding needed to identify and pursue legal actions.  For example, group actions focus on the contractor who can identify the potential due diligence remedy for determining the feasibility of litigation, organize a representative party and group members, provide financial resources to finance the costs incurred, and coordinate the means necessary for a favourable settlement or judgment.
The trial funder often plays this role, although more or less supported by the representative party`s lawyers. Currently, process funders use two different business models in Australia. The first is a company founded in Australia, which draws funds invested in litigation from sources of debt and equity.