Trending Now

All Articles

3313 Articles
Commercial Special Features

An LFJ Conversation with Neil Purslow

Neil Purslow co-founded Therium in 2008 and is a director of Therium Capital Management Limited and the firm’s Chief Investment Officer. Neil is a solicitor with over 26 years’ experience and was previously Litigation Counsel in-house for Marsh & MacLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC). Prior to this he was in practice in the City of London with US firm Reed Smith and Withers. Neil is Chair of the Executive Committee and on the management committee of ILFA, he is also a board member of the Association of Litigation Funders, the self-regulatory body for the litigation funding industry in England and Wales. Neil has given expert evidence on litigation funding and speaks regularly at conferences and is often quoted in the media on issues related to the industry and asset class. He gained an MA in Jurisprudence from the University of Oxford (1995). Neil Purslow was ranked as a Tier 1 individual in litigation finance by Chambers and Partners, Leaders League, Law Dragon and other directories. Below is our LFJ Conversation with Neil Purslow: As the PACCAR situation continues to develop, how do you think this will ultimately play out?  Will the litigation funding industry face enhanced regulation in the UK going forward? The steps the Government has taken in response to PACCAR have been very positive and reaffirm the Government’s recognition of the importance of the litigation funding industry in supporting access to justice and the UK legal sector. The Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill (LFA Bill), which is presently going through Parliament, will reverse the PACCAR decision and reestablish the Government’s original policy intent, ensuring continued access to third-party funding in the UK.  The Bill is expected to be passed before the summer recess at the end of July. The benefits of funding were highlighted throughout the recent debate on the Bill in the House of Lords, in particular that funding enables access to justice and upholds the rule of law, enabling ordinary individuals and SMEs to bring claims against better resourced companies and institutions, such as the Post Office. Several Lords even made the point that funders’ returns were fair, given the significant risks involved in funding litigation, especially against large and deep pocketed defendants. This week, the Civil Justice Council (CJC) published the terms of reference for its review of third party litigation funding. It is extremely encouraging that the CJC is committed to making litigation funding more accessible in order to improve access to justice and fairness for all, so that claimants like the sub-postmasters, can seek redress against large corporations.  The litigation finance industry shares that aim. Whatever the outcome of the review, regulation will need to align with the government’s goals of furthering access to justice. The risk with any regulatory regime is that it can have unintended consequences, which could ultimately disadvantage claimants by limiting the availability of funding and curtailing access to justice. How should the industry respond to calls for regulation? Some stakeholders are suggesting that litigation funders should lead the charge here. Do you agree or disagree, and why?  The industry has always taken a proactive approach to regulation through the UK’s Association of Litigation Funders (ALF) and its Code of Conduct which has been influential in setting standards in litigation funding, both for members and non-members alike in the UK and elsewhere.  Litigation funders are already subject to Court’s oversight.  The industry has nevertheless rightly welcomed the CJC review as an opportunity to take a fresh look at the sector and the positive role that it plays in the legal system and how the review can improve access to litigation funding. Consistent with many of the speeches in the House of Lords on the LFA Bill as well as the CJC’s stated objective, the starting point for the review must be the recognition that in the absence of legal aid and with the high cost of litigation, litigation funding is an important and essential tool to provide access to justice.  Any proposals arising from the review should promote the potential for litigation finance to perform that role. The review of the industry provides an opportunity to examine any other changes that would improve the availability of funding to claimants and also deliver better financial outcomes for claimants in litigation.  For instance, empowering the Courts to order defendants to pay successful claimants’ funding and insurance costs would result in significantly improved financial outcomes for claimants and disincentivise the defence strategy of running up costs to stifle claims, seen so starkly in the Post Office litigation. Any regulatory proposals should seek to address a problem and there should be clear evidence that such a problem exists.  Self-regulation of the industry has worked well in practice for over 10 years and litigation finance arrangements have many checks and balances already built in, not least the involvement of lawyers advising claimants on their litigation funding arrangements.  There is an important role for the International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) and the ALF to provide the CJC with an understanding of how claims are funded in practice. Any proposal for regulation must also be workable and effective.  The industry witnessed the impact of the clumsy and inappropriate regulation brought in by the Liberal government in Australia which significantly impeded the proper functioning of the industry for a period until the regulation was withdrawn.  The UK should be wary of falling into that trap. ILFA and ALF are ideally placed to assist the CJC in understanding the practice of litigation finance and the opportunities that exist to make the best use of its potential in upholding the rule of law.  Both organisations will work constructively with policy makers to ensure that the review supports greater access to justice for consumers and SMEs and maintains the UK’s place as a leading global legal centre. Has PACCAR influenced your investment thesis at all? Are you adapting your underwriting standards in any way - either in the UK, or globally?  In common with the entire UK market, Therium has had to take steps as far as possible to mitigate the potential effects of PACCAR.  That in itself has been time consuming and there has been opportunistic satellite litigation which has both wasted Court time and cost money.  The LFA Bill however will restore the pre-PACCAR position for both existing and future funding arrangements, which will remove the uncertainties that PACCAR has created and restore the ability of funders to offer funding to as many cases as possible.  It also preserves the viability of the CAT collective proceedings regime, which is reliant on funding. The Government’s response to PACCAR has demonstrated that it understands and values the benefits that the litigation finance sector brings and that it reinforces the attractiveness of the UK as a jurisdiction in which to invest.  From a public relations perspective, what more can the industry do to convince legislators and the general public that litigation funding is ultimately a force for positive change in the world?  The Post Office scandal has been an important example of how civil litigation can play a pivotal role in righting a huge miscarriage of justice. In turn, the media coverage has been a game changer in increasing awareness of the vital role that litigation finance plays in providing access to justice.  That example continues to resonate with the public and with legislators, with its effects felt both domestically and also internationally. ILFA plays an essential role in helping legislators and policymakers to understand litigation finance and in countering misinformation about the industry pedalled by corporate lobbyists such as the US Chamber of Commerce and their proxies like Fair Civil Justice and its forerunner, Justice Not Profit, which unsuccessfully tried to derail the introduction of the collective proceedings regime in the CAT in 2015. Their objective is to limit access to justice and frustrate litigation against big corporate wrongdoers. It is also important that the benefits of litigation funding to upholding the rule of law are appreciated more widely. Lord Sandhurst made the point in the House of Lords that the absence of legal remedies damages our economic system and the society in which we live.  Finding funding mechanisms to achieve legal remedies for individuals and small and medium sized businesses who do not have the resources to achieve this is of social value and in the public interest. Being able to enforce legal rights is essential for a functioning market economy.  According to Bain and Co’s Transatlantic Confidence Index, the rule of law remains one of the most appealing reasons to invest in the UK. At an event at Gray’s Inn that was supported by The Law Society and the Bar Council, Shadow Justice Secretary, Shabana Mahmood made her first major speech since assuming the role in which she expressed her desire for the UK be home to the fastest growing legal sector in the world. The availability of litigation funding will undoubtedly help to ensure that the UK retains its position as a leading global disputes hub that currently contributes £34 billion to the UK economy each year.
Commercial Special Features

Key Highlights from the Inaugural LF Dealmakers European Edition

Last week, the LFJ team attended the inaugural LF Dealmakers European Edition, held across two days at the Royal Lancaster in London. Building on the longstanding success of Dealmakers’ New York event, the first edition of the European conference brought together an impressive selection of leaders from across the industry.

Spread across two days, LF Dealmakers featured an agenda packed with insightful conversations between some of the most prominent thought leaders in the European litigation finance market. An array of panel discussions covered everything from the looming potential of regulation to the increasing corporate adoption of third-party funding, with these sessions bolstered by a keynote interview between two of the key figures in the Post Office Horizon litigation.

A long road to justice for the postmasters

In a conference that managed to fill every single panel discussion with speakers engaged in some of the largest and most influential funded disputes taking place in Europe, the standout session of the two days provided unparalleled insight into one of the most famous cases of recent years. The keynote interview on ‘The Future of Litigation Funding in the Wake of the Post Office Horizon Scandal’ saw James Hartley, Partner and National Head of Dispute Resolution Freeths, and Neil Purslow, Founder & CIO, Therium, offer up a behind-the-scenes tale of the sub-postmasters campaign for justice.

Going back to their first involvement with the case, James Hartley reminded attendees that whilst those looking at the case post-judgement “might think it was a slam dunk”, this was not the viewpoint of the lawyers and funders who first agreed to lead the fight against the Post Office. As Hartley described it, this was a situation where you had “a government owned entity who would fight to the end”, with a multitude of potential issues facing the claimants, including the existence of criminal convictions, the limited amounts of documented evidence, and the fact that the Post Office was the party that had ninety percent of the data, documents, and evidence.

Hartley also offered his own perspective on the legal strategy adopted by the Post Office and its lawyers, noting that at every stage of the litigation, “every single issue was fought hard.” He went on to explain that whilst he was “not critical” of the defendant’s strategy in principle, there remains the underlying issue that “the arguments they made were not consistent with the evidence we were seeing.” Hartley used this particular point to illuminate the issues around defendant strategies in the face of meritorious litigation that is being funded. He summarised the core issue by saying: “There is nothing wrong with fighting hard, but it’s got to be within the rules, and in a way that helps the court get to a just outcome.”

Offering praise for the support provided by Purslow and the team at Therium to finance the case, Hartley stated plainly that “without Therium’s funding it would not have gone anywhere, it would not have even got off the ground.” Both Purslow and Hartley also used the case to highlight problems around the lack of recoverability for funding costs and how that incentivises defendants such as the Post Office to prolong litigation and inflate legal costs. Hartley said that he would welcome a change to rules that would allow such recoverability, arguing that in this case “it would have neutralised the Post Office’s strategy to just keep driving up costs on the claimants side.”

What problem is regulation solving?

It was unsurprising to find that questions around the future of regulation for the litigation funding industry were a regular occurrence at LF Dealmakers, with the event taking place only a few days on from the House of Lords’ debate on the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) bill. From the opening panel to conversations held in networking breaks between sessions, speakers and attendees alike discussed the mounting pressure from government and corporate opponents of third-party funding.

The view from the majority of executives at the event seemed to revolve around one question, which was succinctly put by Ben Moss from Orchard Global: “What are the specific issues that require regulation, and what is the evidence to support those issues?”

This question became somewhat of a rallying cry throughout the conference, with suggestions of increased scrutiny and oversight being turned back on the industry’s critics who make claims of impropriety without citing evidence to back up these claims. Whilst several speakers referenced the recent LFJ poll that found a broad majority are open to the potential for new regulation, Ben Knowles from Clyde & Co described a lot of the discourse around the issue as “a fairly partisan debate.”

Among the few speakers in attendance who offered a contrasting view on regulation, Linklaters’ Harriet Ellis argued that “regulation done right would be good for the industry.” However, even Ellis acknowledged that any rules would have to be carefully crafted to provide a framework that would work across the wide variety of funded disputes, saying that a “one size fits all approach does raise issues.”

Regarding the government’s own approach to the issue through the draft legislation making its way through parliament, all of the executives in attendance praised lawmakers’ attempts to find a solution quickly. Alongside these government-led efforts, there was also a feeling among legal industry leaders that funders and law firms have to be part of the solution by promoting more education and understanding about how litigation finance works in practice. Richard Healey from Gately emphasised the need for firms to engage in “hearts and minds work” to change wider perceptions, whilst Harbour’s Maurice MacSweeney emphasised the need to “create the environment where law firms and funders can flourish.”

Innovation through collaboration

Outside of the narrow debate around legislation and regulation, much of the conference was focused on the speed at which litigation finance continues to evolve and create new solutions to meet complex demands from the legal industry. This was perhaps best represented in the way speakers from a variety of organisations discussed the need for a collaborative approach, with executives from funders, insurers, law firms, investors and brokers, all discussing how the industry can foster best working practices.

The interplay between the insurance and funding industry was one area that offered plenty of opportunity for insightful discussions around innovation. Andrew Mutter from CAC Speciality noted that even though “insurers are not known for being the fastest and moving the most nimbly,” within the world of litigation risk “the insurance markets are surprisingly innovative.” This idea of an agile and responsive insurance market was backed up by the variety of off the shelf and bespoke products that were discussed during the conference, from the staples of After-The-Event and Judgement Preservation Insurance to niche solutions like Arbitration Default Insurance.

Delving into the increasingly bespoke and tailored approach that insurers can take when working with funders and law firms, Jamie Molloy from Ignite Speciality Risk, described how there are now “very few limits on what can be done by litigation insurers to de-risk.” Whilst there is sometimes a perception that insurers are competing with funders and lawyers for client business, Tamar Katamade at Mosaic Insurance offered the view that it is “more like collaboration and synergy” where all these parties can work together “to help the claimant and improve their cost of capital and reduce duration risk.”

Class action fervour across Europe

Throughout both days of the LF Dealmakers conference, the volume and variety of class actions taking place across the European continent was another hot topic. However, in contrast to an event focused on the American litigation finance market, the common theme at last week’s forum was the wideranging differences between large group claims across individual European jurisdictions. In one of the most insightful panels, the audience were treated to an array of perspectives from thought leaders practicing across the UK, Spain, and the Netherlands.

The example of Spanish class actions provided an incredibly useful view into the nuances of European claims, as a country that is still in the process of implementing legislation to comply with the EU’s collective actions directive, but has already evolved routes for these types of actions over the last decade. Paul Hitchings of Hitchings & Co. described how the initiative to innovate has come “more from the private sector than the legislature”, with domestic law firms having become “experienced with running massive numbers of parallel claims” as an inefficient, yet workable solution. Hitchings contrasted Spain’s situation with its neighbouring jurisdiction of Portugal, which he argued has been comparatively forward thinking due to the country’s popular action law.

Speaking to the Dutch class actions environment, Quirijn Bongaerts from Birkway, argued that the “biggest game changer” in the country was the introduction of a real class actions regime in 2020. Bongaerts explained that the introduction of this system allowed for “one procedure that fits all types of claims”, which allows not only claims for damages, “but also works for more idealistic cases such as environmental cases and ESG cases.”

LFJ would like to extend our thanks to the entire Dealmakers team for hosting such an engaging and insightful event, which not only offered attendees a view into the latest developments in litigation finance, but also created a plethora of networking opportunities throughout both days. LFJ has no doubt that after the success of the inaugural LF Dealmakers European edition, a return to London in 2025 will cement the conference as a must-attend feature in the litigation funding events calendar.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

The Dangers of Retrospective Legislation in Litigation Funding

The debate around whether the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill should be retrospective is a complex one, with valid arguments on both sides. A recent op-ed makes the case that retrospectivity poses significant dangers and unfairness.

Writing in LegalFutures, Jeremy Marshall, Chief Investment Officer of Winward UK, argues that the core issue is whether it is unfair to allow litigation funders to rely on contractual agreements that were freely entered into by both parties, even if those agreements were based on a mistake of law.

Marshall claims that the common law right to recover money paid under a mistake only applies when the mistake led to one party receiving an unintended benefit. In the case of litigation funding, the only benefit that has accrued is the one that was explicitly drafted into the contract. Allowing retrospectivity would open the door to satellite litigation and unreal counterfactuals, according to Marshall.

Claimants who have already received funding and won their cases are now arguing for the "right" to renegotiate and keep all the proceeds for themselves. But what about the funders' arguments that cases may have gone on longer or become more expensive than intended? Fairness demands that both sides' positions be considered.

Marshall insists that the true drawback in retrospectivity is the inherent danger of prejudicing one party to the exclusion of the other, or conferring an unexpected benefit to one party at the expense of the other. Ironically, this is precisely what those challenging the bill are attempting to do. So while the debate is a complex one, one can make a compelling case that retrospectivity in litigation funding poses significant dangers and unfairness.

ReplyForward
Commercial Funder's Corner Regulatory Issues

The CJC’s Review of Litigation Funding Will Have Far-Reaching Effects

By Thomas Webster |
The following is a contributed piece by Tom Webster, Chief Commercial Officer at Sentry Funding. Reform is on its way for the UK’s litigation funding sector, with the Civil Justice Council firing the starting gun on its review of litigation funding on 23 April. The advisory body set out the terms of reference for its review, commissioned by lord chancellor Alex Chalk, and revealed the members of its core working group. The review is working to an ambitious timetable with the aim of publishing an interim report by this summer, and a full report by summer 2025. It will be based on the CJC’s function of making civil justice ‘more accessible, fair and efficient’. The CJC said it will set out ‘clear recommendations’ for reform in some areas. This includes consideration of a number of issues that could prove very significant for funders and clients. These include:
  • Whether the sector should be regulated, and if so, how and by whom;
  • Whether funders’ returns should be subject to a cap; and if so, to what extent;
  • The relationship between third party funding and litigation costs;
  • The court’s role in controlling the conduct of funded litigation, including the protection of claimants and ‘the interaction between pre-action and post-commencement funding of disputes’;
  • Duties relating to the provision of funding, including potential conflicts of interest between funders, lawyers and clients;
  • Whether funding encourages ‘specific litigation behaviour’ such as collective action.
The review’s core working group will be co-chaired by CJC members Mr Justice Simon Picken, a Commercial Court judge, and barrister Dr John Sorabji. The four other members are:
  • High Court judge Mrs Justice Sara Cockerill, who was judge in charge of the commercial court 2020 – 2022, and who is currently involved in a project on third party funding for the European Law Institute;
  • Academic and former City lawyer Prof Chris Hodges, chair of independent body the Regulatory Horizons Council which was set up to ensure that UK regulation keeps pace with innovation;
  • Lucy Castledine, Director of Consumer Investments at the Financial Conduct Authority; and
  • Nick Bacon KC, a prominent barrister and funding expert who acts for both claimants and defendants
The CJC had said that it may also bring in a consumer representative, as well as a solicitor experienced in group litigation. In a sign that the review seeks to be informed by a wide range of views, the CJC has also extended an invitation for experts to join a broader consultation group, which will directly inform the work of the review and provide a larger forum for expert discussion. Meanwhile the advisory body has said there will also be further chance ‘for all to engage formally with this review’ later this year. Given the broad remit of the review and significant impact that its recommendations may have on the litigation funding industry, litigation funders, lawyers and clients would be well advised to make the most of these opportunities to contribute to the review.
Commercial Regulatory Issues

The CJC’s Review of Litigation Funding Will Have Far-Reaching Effects

The following is a contributed piece by Tom Webster, Chief Commercial Officer at Sentry Funding.

Reform is on its way for the UK’s litigation funding sector, with the Civil Justice Council firing the starting gun on its review of litigation funding on 23 April.

The advisory body set out the terms of reference for its review, commissioned by lord chancellor Alex Chalk, and revealed the members of its core working group.

The review is working to an ambitious timetable with the aim of publishing an interim report by this summer, and a full report by summer 2025. It will be based on the CJC’s function of making civil justice ‘more accessible, fair and efficient’.

The CJC said it will set out ‘clear recommendations’ for reform in some areas. This includes consideration of a number of issues that could prove very significant for funders and clients. These include:

  • Whether the sector should be regulated, and if so, how and by whom;
  • Whether funders’ returns should be subject to a cap; and if so, to what extent;
  • The relationship between third party funding and litigation costs;
  • The court’s role in controlling the conduct of funded litigation, including the protection of claimants and ‘the interaction between pre-action and post-commencement funding of disputes’;
  • Duties relating to the provision of funding, including potential conflicts of interest between funders, lawyers and clients;
  • Whether funding encourages ‘specific litigation behaviour’ such as collective action.

The review’s core working group will be co-chaired by CJC members Mr Justice Simon Picken, a Commercial Court judge, and barrister Dr John Sorabji. The four other members are:

  • High Court judge Mrs Justice Sara Cockerill, who was judge in charge of the commercial court 2020 – 2022, and who is currently involved in a project on third party funding for the European Law Institute;
  • Academic and former City lawyer Prof Chris Hodges, chair of independent body the Regulatory Horizons Council which was set up to ensure that UK regulation keeps pace with innovation;
  • Lucy Castledine, Director of Consumer Investments at the Financial Conduct Authority; and
  • Nick Bacon KC, a prominent barrister and funding expert who acts for both claimants and defendants

The CJC had said that it may also bring in a consumer representative, as well as a solicitor experienced in group litigation.

In a sign that the review seeks to be informed by a wide range of views, the CJC has also extended an invitation for experts to join a broader consultation group, which will directly inform the work of the review and provide a larger forum for expert discussion. Meanwhile the advisory body has said there will also be further chance ‘for all to engage formally with this review’ later this year.

Given the broad remit of the review and significant impact that its recommendations may have on the litigation funding industry, litigation funders, lawyers and clients would be well advised to make the most of these opportunities to contribute to the review.

Case Developments Commercial Funder's Corner

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

By Jeff Manley |

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 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.

Announcements Commercial People Moves

Westfleet Advisors Announces James Batson as New Chief Operating Officer

Westfleet Advisors, the premier U.S. litigation finance advisory firm, is delighted to announce the appointment of James "Jim" Batson as its new Chief Operating Officer. Mr. Batson, widely recognized as a leader in litigation finance, brings an extensive portfolio of expertise, including nearly a decade at Omni Bridgeway, most recently as its US Co-CIO, and a former partnership at Liddle & Robinson.

"We are thrilled to welcome Jim to Westfleet," said Charles Agee, Founder and CEO of Westfleet Advisors. "His impressive track record and deep industry knowledge align perfectly with our strategic goals. Jim's leadership is set to drive significant growth, reinforcing Westfleet's role as an essential advisor in the increasingly complex litigation finance market."

"At a time when the litigation finance industry has reached a critical juncture, requiring sophisticated understanding to navigate its complexities, I am excited to join Westfleet Advisors," said Mr. Batson. "The industry's growth and the diversification of funding options have made it imperative for clients to seek knowledgeable and experienced advisors. Westfleet's long-established expertise in advising on deal structures, pricing, and market trends positions us uniquely to guide our clients to the most advantageous outcomes. I look forward to advancing our mission to deliver unmatched advisory services in this dynamic sector."

Mr. Batson's prior roles have honed his skills in developing growth strategies and enhancing client services, with a strong focus on operational excellence and strategic advisory for complex legal disputes.

"Jim's deep understanding of the industry's needs and his proven leadership abilities will be instrumental as we expand our advisory services and deepen our engagement with the market," added Agee.

About Westfleet Advisors

Westfleet Advisors is the leading litigation finance advisor in the United States. Founded in 2013, the company has been instrumental in promoting transparency and efficiency in the litigation finance market. With a team of seasoned experts active since 1998, Westfleet provides clients and their attorneys with essential resources and insights necessary for navigating successful litigation financing.

Announcements Consumer

Legal-Bay Legal Funding Announces Dedication to Focus on Securities Fraud and FINRA Arbitrations

Legal-Bay LLC, The Lawsuit Pre Settlement Funding Company, announced today its focus on funding Securities Fraud and FINRA Arbitration cases for the remainder of 2024 and beyond. The legal funding firm has noticed a major deficiency in the legal funding sphere for specialized funding options for Securities Fraud cases and FINRA arbitrations, as these are some of the toughest cases to approve and understand within legal funding.

However, with two decades of experience in funding complex cases of all natures with creative yet straightforward funding solutions, Legal-Bay is widely recognized throughout the lawsuit funding industry as one of the "best lawsuit loan companies" or "go-to funder" for securities fraud cases and FINRA arbitrations against major brokerage firms.

Whether you are a plaintiff that lost a good majority of assets or a law firm looking for case costs to fight a large brokerage firm, or someone who lost assets due to fraud and needs money now, Legal-Bay can help you. Please visit our website geared specifically toward these types of cases, at: https://lawsuitssettlementfunding.com/securities-fraud.php 

Legal-Bay's team of experts and underwriting department can quickly evaluate the validity of your claim(s) and potential case value and provide you with the capital you need to see your case through. Too often, plaintiffs or lawyers simply cannot wait all the years these complex fraud cases can drag out without obtaining some sort of large cash advance in the meantime.

It is for this reason that Legal-Bay has committed extensive capital to funding plaintiffs and law firms that find themselves in dire financial situations due to instances of securities fraud. To learn more, feel free to call Legal-Bay today to speak with one of our courteous and knowledgeable staff, at: 877.571.0405.

Chris Janish, CEO, commented, "Securities or stock brokerage fraud cases are some of the most difficult in the legal finance industry to evaluate and fund. It is without question that our firm is one of the few niche funders in this space that has the expertise to evaluate your FINRA arbitration case quickly and accurately for settlement value and for needed cash advance approval."

To apply right now for your Securities Fraud pre-settlement cash advance or FINRA arbitration settlement cash advance, please visit Legal-Bay's page dedicated solely to these types of cases, at: https://lawsuitssettlementfunding.com/securities-fraud.php 

You don't have to wait for the money you deserve. Clients only have to pay back the Securities Fraud advance or FINRA Arbitration case loan if and when they win their case, meaning the money is risk-free. All you need in order to apply for the quick and immediate cash relief—typically provided within 24-48 hours following approval—is a lawyer. Even if you don't yet have a lawyer, Legal-Bay can help you with that too, as Legal-Bay works with the country's top Securities Fraud attorneys who will fight for you to ensure you receive the compensation you deserve.

Legal-Bay is a leader in personal injury lawsuit loans or commercial litigation settlement loans, as commonly referred to by plaintiffs. Although referred to as loans for settlements, the legal funding advances are not pre settlement loans at all, as they only need to be paid back if your case is won. FINRA arbitrations are considered commercial settlement funding and most typical litigation funding firms do not even consider these cases, however, Legal-Bay is happy to freely evaluate your case for funding. Funds can be used for personal use or for paying for expert witnesses or trial costs prior to an arbitration hearing.