Trending Now
Case Developments Commercial

Balancing Risk and Reward in Litigation Finance: Lessons from High-Profile Case

By Jeff Manely |

The following is a contributed piece by Jeff Manley, Chief Operating Officer of Armadillo Litigation Funding.

The allure of substantial returns from mass tort litigation has historically tempted law firms and their third-party financiers to commit resources to speculative cases. While investing strongly in speculative torts certainly has its time and place, prevailing trends highlight the necessity of certain risk management practices. The unpredictable outcomes of high-profile cases, like the Camp LeJeune water contamination lawsuits, accentuate the imperative for a discerning approach to case selection and the strategic diversification of portfolios.

Balancing Opportunity and Prudence in Speculative Torts

Early-stage speculative torts like the Zantac litigation represent a blend of potential and caution. (In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation, 2021). Initially, Zantac cases drew significant attention from law firms with projections of substantial compensation figures. However, the legal complexities and subsequent valuation adjustments highlighted the disparity between initial projections and actual compensation figures realized, reinforcing the need for meticulous risk assessment in speculative torts. While similar cases have captivated law firms and financiers with their substantial projections, they also underscore the importance of an exhaustive risk assessment—demonstrating how initial excitement must be tempered with diligent legal analysis and realistic valuation adjustments.

Navigating the Complex Terrain of Camp Lejeune Litigation

The Camp Lejeune water contamination lawsuits represent promising ventures for financiers and mass tort firms to affirm their moral duty by advocating for those who served our country. However, these cases also carry lessons on the pitfalls of overzealous investment without careful scrutiny. The drawn-out nature of the litigation serves as a reminder that while the pursuit of justice is noble, it must be balanced with sound risk management to ensure long term firm stability.

Endurance in Talc Litigation: A Testament to Long-Term Vision

The protracted legal battles surrounding talcum powder’s health risks underscore the necessity for long-term strategic planning in mass tort litigation. Firms must factor in the operational demands and the financial foresight to manage compounded interest on borrowed capital over extensive periods. Simultaneously, it’s critical to sustain investment in new torts, ensuring a balanced portfolio that accommodates both ongoing cases and emerging opportunities. This balanced approach underpins the stamina needed to endure through a decade-long commitment, as exemplified by the talc litigation.

Understanding Returns in the 3M Earplug Litigation

The 3M earplug litigation concluded within a standard timeframe, yet the distribution of settlements spans several years, offering more modest financial returns than many anticipated. This outcome serves as a pragmatic reminder of the nuanced nature of mass tort settlements, where significant payouts are not always immediate or as substantial as predicted. Nonetheless, this reinforces the value of prudent risk management strategies that account for longer payout terms, ensuring a stable financial forecast and the firm’s resilience in the face of lower-than-expected returns.

Strategic Portfolio Diversification

Given these varied experiences, it is imperative that law firm owners and financial backers craft a robust case portfolio strategy. By balancing the mix of cases from speculative to those with a more established settlement trajectory, firms can better manage risk and ensure operational stability. Strategic diversification is not just wise—it’s a vital tactic to maintain resilience in the evolving landscape of the mass tort industry.

The Value of Expert Financial Partnerships

Choosing a reputable and experienced litigation finance partner is essential for law firms aiming to effectively balance their case portfolios. A seasoned funding partner provides invaluable guidance in evaluating potential cases, assessing financial risks, and optimizing investment strategies. Their expertise in navigating the nuanced terrain of litigation finance is a critical asset.

Adopting a balanced portfolio strategy—carefully curated to include a variety of torts at different development stages—provides a more stable foundation than pursuing an “all-in” strategy on a single high-potential tort. This method not only reduces dependency on the success of any single case but also positions the firm more favorably in the eyes of prudent lenders.

Recent high-profile cases in the mass tort arena, like those mentioned above, serve as potent reminders of the inherent uncertainties in litigation finance. For law firm owners and their financial backers, the path forward demands a nuanced view of risk, underscored by strategic portfolio diversification and the cultivation of partnerships with experienced financing entities. By adopting these principles, stakeholders can safeguard their investments against the capricious nature of mass litigation, securing a resilient and prosperous future in the challenging yet rewarding domain of legal finance.

Case Developments

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Montero Reaches $27M Settlement with Tanzania in Dispute Funded by Omni Bridgeway

By Harry Moran |

The funding of arbitration proceedings brought by mining, exploration and development companies against nation states continues to be a lucrative area for litigation funders, as the announcement of another settlement in one such dispute demonstrates.

A press release from Montero Mining and Exploration Ltd. reveals that the company has reached a $27 million settlement with the government of Tanzania to end the dispute over the expropriation of Montero’s Wigu Hill rare earth element project. The agreement will see the total settlement sum paid out in three tranches over the next three months, with the first payment of $12 million having already been received. Montero noted that whilst the $27 million settlement only represents 39% of the original claim for $70 million, this agreement “obviates the need for a costly and time-consuming hearing, the risk of an adverse award, enforcement efforts, and finally concludes a near 7-year dispute.’

Montero’s arbitration proceedings against the Tanzanian government had been supported via a funding agreement with Omni Bridgeway (Canada), with the litigation funder set to receive an undisclosed return on its investment from the settlement agreement. Whilst Omni Bridgeway’s share of the settlement has not been disclosed, Montero’s announcement did reveal that the funder would receive a distribution from both the first payment and from the second payment of $8 million that is due to be received on or before 31 January 2025. Montero also clarified that “the net amount of the award after repayment to the funder and legal expenses cannot be estimated with certainty and no assurances can be made.”

Montero’s president and CEO, Dr Tony Harwood, provided the following comment on the settlement: ““I am pleased Montero was able to reach an amicable settlement with the government of Tanzania to bring a mutually beneficial end to this dispute. This resolution allows both parties to move forward, and we wish Tanzania every success in attracting new mining investment. I would like to thank our shareholders, board, management, and our legal and technical teams, for their valuable contribution to this outcome.”

Case Developments Commercial

Which? Files £3 Billion Cloud Claim Against Apple, Funded by LCM

By Harry Moran |

The growth of multinational technology corporations has provided years of product innovation and a mass availability of affordable consumer electronics. However, the resulting monopolies that have risen to dominate these markets have also created space for the potential for anti-competitive behaviour that harms consumers. In this environment, it is unsurprising we are seeing more and more claims being brought against these tech giants, with the legal proceedings supported by third-party litigation funders.

An article in TechCrunch covers the announcement of a new collective action being brought against Apple by the UK consumer rights group Which?, representing up to 40 million consumers over allegations that Apple breached competition law by overcharging users of the iCloud service. The opt-out proceedings, valued at approximately £3 billion, claims that Apple abused its monopoly position to favour iCloud over competing cloud storage providers and locking in customers to the iCloud services, thereby preventing them from switching to a competitor and enabling Apple to charge increasingly higher fees.

The application for certification was filed with the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) on 8 November 2024, with the claim seeking to represent any UK consumer who used an iOS device or iCloud services from 1 October 2025 onwards. This nine year time period is particularly relevant as it follows the introduction of the Consumer Rights Act from that date. The claims is being funded by Litigation Capital Management (LCM), with litigation risk insurance having been secured to cover Apple’s legal costs if the claim is not successful

More information about the collective proceedings can be found on the Cloud Claim website.

In response to this new legal action being brought, Apple spokesperson Tom Parker provided the following statement: “Apple believes in providing our customers with choices. Our users are not required to use iCloud, and many rely on a wide range of third-party alternatives for data storage. In addition, we work hard to make data transfer as easy as possible — whether its to iCloud or another service. We reject any suggestion that our iCloud practices are anticompetitive and will vigorously defend against any legal claim otherwise.”

Case Developments Commercial

LitFin Highlights Momentum for Booking.com Class Actions

By Harry Moran |

Class actions focusing on anti-competitive behaviour by big businesses continue to provide ample opportunities for litigation funders to support claimants in their pursuit of justice, with European jurisdictions benefitting from a strong regulatory and oversight structure that seeks to clamp down on corporations abusing their dominant market positions.

In a LinkedIn post from LitFIn, the Prague-based litigation funder provides an update on the ongoing class actions brought against online travel agency Booking.com over its alleged anti-competitive practices. The allegations relate to the company’s use of pricing parity clauses, which have harmed hotels by preventing them from offering lower prices on their own websites or other online travel platforms. 

The travel company is now facing lawsuits across a number of jurisdictions in the European Union, with ongoing investigations in Italy, Sweden and France, following in the footsteps of regulators in Spain and Czech Republic who have already issued fines. One class action, brought by German hotels seeking compensation, has already begun proceedings in the Rechtbank Amsterdam.

Juraj Siska, partner at LitFin, provided the following statement: “The recent decision by Spain’s Competition Authority to fine Booking.com €413.2 million is a significant step forward in the fight against anti-competitive practices. Booking.com’s actions have affected market players across the EU, not only in Spain. Now is the time to end these practices and ensure compensation for damages already incurred.”

Concluding the post, LitFin emphasised their active involvement to support claimants seeking compensation in the Booking.com class actions, and encouraged any potentially affected parties to contact them.