Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Rory Kingan, CEO of Eperoto
  • New York Enacts Landmark Consumer Legal Funding Legislation
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
Case Developments Commercial

Pogust Goodhead Seeks Interim Costs Payment

By John Freund |

Pogust Goodhead, the UK law firm leading one of the largest group actions ever brought in the English courts, is seeking an interim costs payment of £113.5 million in the litigation arising from the 2015 Mariana dam collapse in Brazil.

According to an article in Law Gazette, the application forms part of a much larger costs claim that could ultimately reach approximately £189 million. It follows a recent High Court ruling that allowed the claims against BHP to proceed, moving the litigation into its next procedural phase. The case involves allegations connected to the catastrophic failure of the Fundão tailings dam, which resulted in 19 deaths and widespread environmental and economic damage across affected Brazilian communities.

Pogust Goodhead argues that an interim costs award is justified given the scale of the proceedings and the substantial expenditure already incurred. The firm has highlighted the significant resources required to manage a case of this size, including claimant coordination, expert evidence, document review, and litigation infrastructure. With hundreds of thousands of claimants involved, the firm maintains that early recovery of a portion of its costs is both reasonable and proportionate.

BHP has pushed back against the application, disputing both the timing and the magnitude of the costs being sought. The mining company has argued that many of the claimed expenses are excessive and that a full assessment should only take place once the litigation has concluded and overall success can be properly evaluated.

The costs dispute underscores the financial pressures inherent in mega claims litigation, particularly where cases are run on a conditional or funded basis and require sustained upfront investment over many years.

Case Developments Commercial

Litigation Capital Management Faces AUD 12.9m Exposure After Class Action Defeat

By John Freund |

Litigation Capital Management has disclosed a significant adverse costs exposure following the unsuccessful conclusion of a funded Australian class action, underscoring the downside risk that even established funders face in large-scale proceedings.

An article in Sharecast reports that the AIM-listed funder revealed that the Federal Court of Australia has now quantified costs in a Queensland-based class action brought against state-owned energy companies Stanwell Corporation and CS Energy. The court ordered costs of AUD 16.2 million in favour of each respondent, resulting in a total adverse costs award of AUD 32.4 million. The underlying claim was dismissed earlier, and the costs decision represents the next major financial consequence of that loss.

While LCM had after-the-event insurance in place to mitigate adverse costs exposure, that coverage has now been exhausted. After insurance, an uninsured balance of AUD 19.9 million remains. LCM expects to contribute AUD 12.9 million of that amount directly, with the remaining balance to be met by investors in its Fund I vehicle.

The company has emphasized that the costs awarded were standard party-and-party costs, not indemnity costs, and stated that the outcome does not reflect adversely on the merits of the claim or the conduct of the proceedings. Nonetheless, the market reacted sharply, with LCM’s share price falling by more than 14% following the announcement.

LCM also confirmed that it has already lodged an appeal against the substantive judgment, with a two-week hearing scheduled to begin in early March. In parallel, the funder is considering whether to challenge the costs quantification itself, alongside an appeal being pursued by the claimant. The company noted that discussions with its principal lender are ongoing and that its previously announced strategic review remains active, with further updates expected in the coming months.

Commercial

Avoiding Pitfalls as Litigation Finance Takes Off

By John Freund |

The litigation finance market is poised for significant activity in 2026 after a period of uncertainty in 2025. A recent JD Supra analysis outlines key challenges that can derail deals in this evolving space and offers guidance on how industry participants can navigate them effectively.

The article explains that litigation finance sits at the intersection of law and finance and presents unique deal complexities that differ from other private credit or investment structures. While these transactions can deliver attractive returns for capital providers, they also carry risks that often cause deals to collapse if not properly managed.

A central theme in the analysis is that many deals fail for three primary reasons: a lack of trust between the parties, misunderstandings around deal terms, and the impact of time. Term sheets typically outline economic and non-economic terms but may omit finer details, leading to confusion if not addressed early. As the diligence and documentation process unfolds, delays and surprises can erode confidence and derail negotiations.

To counter these pitfalls, the piece stresses the importance of building trust from the outset. Transparent communication and good-faith behavior by both the financed party and the funder help foster long-term goodwill. The financed party is encouraged to disclose known weaknesses in the claim early, while funders are urged to present clear economic models and highlight potential sticking points so that expectations align.

Another key recommendation is ensuring all parties fully understand deal terms. Because litigation funding recipients may not regularly engage in such transactions, well-developed term sheets and upfront discussions about obligations like reporting, reimbursements, and cooperation in the underlying litigation can prevent later misunderstandings.

The analysis also underscores that time kills deals. Prolonged negotiations or sluggish responses during diligence can sap momentum and lead parties to lose interest. Setting realistic timelines and communicating clearly about responsibilities and deadlines can keep transactions on track.