Trending Now
Commercial Deals Funder's Corner Special Features

Bank Lending Vs. Alternative Litigation Finance: A Mass Tort Attorney’s Strategic Opportunity

By Jeff Manley |
May 20, 2024

Bank Lending Vs. Alternative Litigation Finance: A Mass Tort Attorney’s Strategic Opportunity

The following post was contributed by Jeff Manley, Chief Operating Officer of Armadillo Litigation Funding. 

Mass tort litigation is a high-stakes world, one where the pursuit of justice is inextricably linked with financial resources and risk management. In this complex ecosystem, two financial pillars stand out: bank lending and alternative litigation finance. For attorneys and their financial partners in mass torts, choosing the right financial strategy can mean the difference between success and stagnation.

The Evolving Financial Landscape for Mass Tort Attorneys

Gone are the days when a powerful legal argument alone could secure the means to wage a war against industrial giants. Today, financial acumen is as critical to a law firm’s success as legal prowess. For mass tort attorneys, funding large-scale litigations is akin to orchestrating a multifaceted campaign with the potential for astronomical payouts, but also the very real costs that come with such undertakings.

Under the lens of the courtroom, the financing of mass tort cases presents a unique set of challenges. These cases often require substantial upfront capital and can extend over years, if not decades. In such an environment, agility, sustainability, and risk management emerge as strategic imperatives.

Navigating these waters demands a deep understanding of two pivotal financing models: traditional bank lending and the more contemporary paradigm of third-party litigation finance.

The Need for Specialized Financial Solutions in Mass Tort Litigation

The financial demands of mass tort litigation are unique. They necessitate solutions that are as flexible as they are formidable, capable of weathering the uncertainty of litigation outcomes. Portfolio risk management, a concept well-established in the investment world, has found its parallel in the legal arena, where it plays a pivotal role in driving growth and longevity for law firms.

The overarching goal for mass tort practices is to structure their financial arrangements in such a way that enables not just the funding of current cases but the foresight to invest in future opportunities. In this context, the question of bank lending versus alternative asset class litigation finance is more than transactional—it’s transformational.

Understanding Bank Lending

Banks have long been the bedrock of corporate financing, offering stability and a familiar process. While bank lending presents several advantages, such as the potential for lower interest rates in favorable economic environments, it also comes with significant caveats. The traditional model often involves stringent loan structures, personal guarantees, and an inflexibility that can constrain the scalability of funding when litigation timelines shift or case resolutions become protracted.

For attorneys seeking immediate capital, interest-only lines of credit can be appealing, providing a temporary reprieve on principal payments. However, the long-term financial impact and personal liability underpinning these loans cannot be overlooked.

Exploring Third-Party Litigation Finance

On the flip side, third-party litigation finance has emerged as a beacon of adaptability within the legal financing landscape. By eschewing traditional collateral requirements and personal guarantees, this model reduces the personal financial risk for attorneys. More significantly, it does so while tailoring financing terms to individual cases and firm needs, thus improving the alignment between funding structures and litigation timelines.

Litigation financiers also bring a wealth of experience and industry-specific knowledge to the table. They are partners in the truest sense, offering strategic foresight, risk management tools, and a shared goal in the litigation’s success.

Interest Rates and Financial Terms

The choice between bank lending and third-party litigation finance often hinges on the amount of attainable capital, interest rates, and the terms, conditions, and covenants of the loans. These differences can significantly influence the overall cost of financing and the strategic financial planning for mass tort litigation.

Bank Lending: Traditional bank loans typically offer lower initial interest rates, which can be attractive for short-term financing needs. However, these rates are almost always variable and linked to broader economic indicators, such as the prime rate. Banks are very conservative in every aspect of underwriting and the commitments they offer.

Third-Party Litigation Finance: In contrast, third-party litigation lenders often require a multiple payback, such as 2x or 3x the original amount borrowed. Some third-party lenders also offer floating rate loans tied to SOFR, but the interest costs are meaningfully higher than those of banks. The trade-off is greater access to capital. Third-party lenders, deeply entrenched in industry nuances, are generally willing to lend substantially larger amounts of capital. For attorneys managing long-duration cases, this variability introduces a layer of financial uncertainty. If a loan has a floating rate and the duration of the underlying torts is materially extended, the actual borrowing cost can skyrocket, negatively impacting the overall returns of a final settlement. This is an incredibly important factor to understand both at the outset of a transaction and during the initial stages of capital deployment.

Similarly, the maturity, terms, and conditions can differ drastically between bank-sourced loans and those from third-party lenders, with no standard list of boilerplate terms for comparison—making a knowledgeable financial partner key to facilitating the best fit for the law firm. Two standard features of a bank credit facility are that the entire portfolio of all law firm assets is usually required to secure the loan, regardless of size, and an unbreakable personal guarantee further secures the entire credit facility. Both of these points are potentially negotiable with a third-party lender. Bank loans are almost always one-year facilities with the bank having an explicit right to reassess their interest in maintaining a credit facility with the law firm every 12 months. In contrast, third-party lenders typically enter into a credit facility with a commitment for 4-5 years, with terms becoming bespoke beyond these basics.

Loan Structures Under Scrutiny

The rigidity of bank loan structures, particularly notice provisions and speed of access, contrasts with the fluidity of third-party financiers’ offerings. The ability to negotiate terms based on case outcomes, as afforded by the alternative financing model, represents a paradigm shift in financial planning that has redefined the playbook for mass tort investors.

Risk at Its Core

The linchpin of this comparison is risk management. Banks often require a traditional, property-based collateral, which serves as a blunt instrument for risk reduction in the context of litigation. Third-party financiers, conversely, indulge in sophisticated evaluations and often adopt models of shared risk, where their fortunes are inversely tied to those of the litigants.

Support Beyond Capital

A crucial divergence between bank loans and alternative finance is the depth of support provided. The former confines its assistance to financial matters, while the latter, through its specialized knowledge, contributes significantly to strategic case management, risk assessment, and valuation, essentially elevating itself to the level of a silent partner in the legal endeavor. Furthermore, litigation funders (unlike banks), are often prepared to extend multiple installments of capital, reflecting a level of risk tolerance and industry insight that banks typically do not offer.

Case Studies and Success Stories

The case for alternative litigation finance is perhaps best illustrated through the experiences of attorneys who have successfully navigated the inextricable link between finance and litigation. The Litigation Finance Survey Report highlights the resounding recommendation from attorneys who have used third-party financing, with nearly all expressing a willingness to repeat the process and recommend it to peers.

This empirical evidence underscores the viability and efficacy of alternative financing models, showcasing how they can bolster the financial position of a firm and, consequently, its ability to take on new cases and grow its portfolio.

The Role of Litigation Finance Partners

When considering third-party litigation finance, the choice of partner is just as important as the decision to explore this path. Seasoned financiers offer more than just capital; they become an extension of the firm’s strategic muscle, sharing in risks and rewards to galvanize a litigation (and practice) forward.

Cultivating these partnerships is an investment in expertise and a recognition of the unique challenges presented by mass tort litigation. It is an integral part of modernizing the approach to case management, one that ultimately leads to a sustainable and robust financial framework.

For mass tort attorneys, the strategic use of finance can unlock the latent potential in their caseloads, transforming high-risk ventures into opportunities for growth and success. By carefully weighing the merits of traditional bank lending against the agility of third-party litigation financing, attorneys can carve out a strategic path that not only secures the necessary capital but also empowers them to manage risks and drive profitability.

One truth remains immutable: those who recognize the need for financial innovation and risk management will be the torchbearers for the future of mass tort litigators, where the scales of justice are balanced by a firm and strategic hand anchored in the principles of modern finance.

About the author

Jeff Manley

Jeff Manley

Commercial

View All
Commercial

UK’s Global Rivals Capitalize as PACCAR Funding Reform Stalls

By John Freund |

The United Kingdom's long-promised overhaul of litigation funding regulation has stalled again, and rival jurisdictions are moving to capture the investment that uncertainty is pushing offshore. Nearly three years after the Supreme Court's 2023 decision in *PACCAR* rendered most litigation funding agreements unenforceable by treating them as damages-based agreements, the government has yet to deliver the corrective legislation it pledged.

As reported by The Times, the continued delay is undermining the competitiveness of England and Wales as a global hub for commercial litigation and arbitration. The Ministry of Justice announced in December 2025 that it intended to clarify that litigation funding agreements are not damages-based agreements, with legislation to follow "when parliamentary time allows." But the 2026 King's Speech omitted any litigation funding bill from the legislative programme, leaving funders and claimants without the statutory certainty they had been promised.

Industry participants have voiced deep disappointment, warning that the absence of reform creates an opening for offshore centers that have already implemented clearer rules on funder involvement. While those jurisdictions compete for capital, the UK continues to develop its framework largely through case law, with little appetite for comprehensive statutory change.

The practical effect, observers note, is that funders weighing where to deploy capital may increasingly look beyond London. For a market that has long marketed itself as the world's premier venue for high-value disputes, the prolonged *PACCAR* limbo carries real economic stakes.

Commercial

New York Ruling Opens Litigation Funding to Discovery in Fraud-Tainted Injury Suits

By John Freund |

A New York appellate ruling, paired with the state's newly enacted consumer litigation funding law, is giving defendants fresh tools to scrutinize the financing behind personal-injury claims they suspect are fraudulent. Together, the developments mark a notable shift toward transparency in a market that has historically operated outside the view of courts and opposing parties.

As reported by Law360, the Appellate Division, First Department, held in *Lituma v. Liberty Coca-Cola Beverages LLC* that defendants may obtain discovery into a plaintiff's third-party litigation funding where they present evidence suggesting the underlying claims arose from systemic fraud. The November 2025 decision was the first time the court affirmed an order compelling a personal-injury plaintiff to produce funding-related discovery, vacating the note of issue to allow further inquiry.

The ruling lands alongside New York's Consumer Litigation Funding Act, signed by Governor Kathy Hochul on December 19, 2025, and effective 180 days later. The law caps a funder's recovery at 25% of a case's gross proceeds, requires plain disclosure of all charges and cumulative repayment amounts, and gives consumers a 10-business-day right to cancel without penalty. Attorneys are barred from accepting referral fees or holding financial interests in funding companies.

Notably, the statute stops short of mandating disclosure of funding arrangements during active litigation. For now, defendants seeking to expose questionable financing must rely on rulings like *Lituma* to pry those agreements into the open.

Commercial

Burford Capital Asks Supreme Court to Reverse Third Circuit Arbitration Ruling

By John Freund |

Burford Capital has urged the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a Third Circuit decision that dismissed, on jurisdictional grounds, the litigation funder's bid to arbitrate a dispute tied to German antitrust litigation. Burford contends the appeals court committed what it called a "fundamental error" in concluding that federal courts lacked authority over the matter.

As reported by Law360, Burford told the justices on June 16 that the Court's own decision earlier this year in Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties is reason enough to undo the Third Circuit's ruling. In Jules, the Court held that a federal court which compels arbitration of federal claims under Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act retains subject-matter jurisdiction to confirm or vacate the resulting award, even without an independent basis for federal jurisdiction over the post-award proceeding.

Burford argues that principle squarely governs its case, and that the appeals court's contrary conclusion cannot stand in light of the new precedent. The funder is asking the justices to take up the matter and correct what it describes as a clear jurisdictional misstep.

The stakes extend beyond a single dispute. For funders, the ability to confirm and enforce arbitral awards in federal court is central to monetizing cross-border claims, and a jurisdictional dead-end at the enforcement stage raises both cost and risk. A decision to hear the case could bring welcome clarity for funders pursuing international, arbitration-related recoveries.