Member Spotlight: Wendie Childress

The risk taken by litigation funders reflects the inherent uncertainty of any given case. However, there are rare examples where that risk is compounded by the potential for improper conduct by the law firm entrusted with a funder's financial resources.

An article in Reuters covers the approval of a settlement between MMA Law Firm (formerly McClenny Moseley & Associates) and two litigation funders, which will see the bankrupt law firm sell more than 6,000 cases to repay debts owed to the funders. Equal Access Justice Fund and EAJF ESQ Fund had sued MMA in Texas state court, and under the new settlement will receive a minimum of $18 million from the sale of the cases. The settlement brings the dispute between the funders and law firm to a close, following years of court battles over MMA’s filing of lawsuits on behalf of people it did not represent.

The settlement, which was approved by Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Eduardo Rodriguez, requires that 75% of the proceeds from the sales go to the two funders, with the remaining percentage of proceeds distributed to MMA’s other creditors. The $18 million figure set as a minimum return for the funders under the settlement is still significant below the nearly $38 million that they claim to be owed by MMA. The mass tort cases include claims related to pharmaceutical drug, a weed killer, and a baby formula.

The troubles facing MMA go back several years, with LFJ reporting back in 2023 on a petition lodged by the same two funders in a Louisiana court over MMA’s improper filing of claims on behalf of property owners who suffered damage to their properties from hurricanes. The law firm and its founder, Zach Moseley, were reported to be under investigation by the FBI over these filings of claims but there is currently no update as to the status of that investigation. 

The settlement also allows MMA and Moseley to continue working on other cases on its books, on the condition that the latter does not receive any form of salary increase or bonus before the funders have been repaid.

The prolonged duration of investor-state treaty disputes often means that updates on these claims are few and far between. However, the presence of litigation funding allows these claims to proceed at their own pace without the claimant being concerned over the significant financial resources needed to support these disputes. 

In an announcement released today, Panthera Resources Plc provided an update on the arbitration claim being brought by its subsidiary company, Indo Gold Pty Ltd (IGPL), against the Republic of India over the Bhukia project. The announcement revealed that IGPL has issued its Memorial to the arbitration tribunal, which includes a claim for damages totalling $1.58 billion. 

The filing of the memorial and statement of claim to the tribunal follows IGPL’s formal issuance of a Notice of Arbitration to India in July 2024, and the tribunal’s later order to file the memorial by 16 May 2025.

As LFJ previously reported in August 2023, Panthera Resources has secured litigation funding through LCM Funding, a subsidiary of Litigation Capital Management. The funding agreement provides for up to $13.6 million in financing to support the dispute through to a conclusion.

The claim being brought by IGPL centres on alleged breaches of the 199 Australia-India Bilateral Investment Treaty, claiming that the Government of Rajasthan ‘denied and frustrated’ IGPL’s right to be granted a prospecting license over the Bhukia mining project. Furthermore, IGPL’s claim alleges that it suffered a total loss of investment following the passing of new legislation in 2021 which amended the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act of 2015 and thereby revoked the preferential right to a prospecting license and mining lease.