Trending Now

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

By John Freund |

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.

About the author

Case Developments

View All

Deminor Funding Paralympic Athlete’s Lawsuit Against IPC

By Harry Moran |

Supporting access to justice remains one of the core benefits that litigation funding brings to legal systems all around the world, with third-party funders providing the desperately needed resources for smaller litigants to fight against well-resourced defendants. This is epitomized in a case where a funder is supporting a Paralympic athlete’s fight for justice against the sport’s governing body.

An announcement from Deminor Litigation Funding revealed that it is funding a lawsuit brought against the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) by Brazilian Para swimmer André Brasil. The lawsuit has its origins in World Para Swimming’s (WPS) revision of its classification system for the Paralympic Games in 2018, which led to André Brasil being reclassified as ineligible to compete. Following this decision, Brasil and the Brazilian Paralympic Committee (CBP) initiated legal proceedings against the IPC in Germany, arguing that the classification system violates both human rights, and German and European antitrust laws. 

At first, the Cologne Regional Court rejected these arguments and sided with the IPC, but this was eventually overturned by the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal, ruling that the IPC’s position as a monopoly meant that it ‘had an obligation to grant the Athlete a sufficient grace period in order to prepare him for the rule change and his potential ineligibility.’ The court ordered the IPC to pay André Brasil damages, but the IPC is now seeking to appeal the decision at the Federal Court of Justice.

André Brasil is being represented by Counsel Alexander Engelhard and a team of attorneys from Arnecke Sibeth Dabelstein. Engelhard expressed gratitude to have “a reliable and value-driven litigation funder in Deminor” supporting the lawsuit, and said that “together we will do what it takes to allow the Federal Court of Justice to decide in the Athlete’s favour.”

Dr. Malte Stübinger, General Counsel Germany at Deminor said, “By supporting André, we are advocating for a broader change that champions the rights and fair treatment of all athletes. It's essential that we address these systemic issues to ensure that the spirit of competition remains just and equitable for everyone.”

£2.7 Billion Competition Claim Filed Against Amazon, Funded by Innsworth

By Harry Moran |

Following on from the news LFJ reported earlier this month that Amazon was already facing one class action claim in the UK, we have now had confirmation that a second claim has been filed against the online retailing giant over allegations that it has engaged in anticompetitive behaviour.

An announcement from Geradin Partners reveals that a claim has today been filed against Amazon before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT), which alleges that Amazon’s anticompetitive practices discriminated against third-party sellers and harmed their businesses. The opt-out claim is valued in excess of £2.7 billion and is being brought by Professor Andreas Stephan, professor of competition law at the University of East Anglia, on behalf of more than 200,000 UK third-party sellers on Amazon who used a “professional” selling account on the site between June 2018 and June 2024.

The claim alleges that Amazon has engaged in a wide variety of anticompetitive abuses, including discriminating in favour of its own retail sellers and conditioning third-party sellers’ access to its Amazon Prime service to the use of its own Fulfilment by Amazon (FBA) logistics services. As a result of this conduct, the claim argues that these third-party sellers have been harmed through lost sales, as well as higher costs and paid fees to Amazon. 

Commenting on the announcement, Professor Stephan said: “Amazon has engaged in a variety of strategies to grow its e-commerce platform, lock sellers into it, prevent the expansion of rivals, and use its market dominance to exploit the hundreds of thousands of sellers in Britain that use its platform.” Damian Geradin, founding partner of Geradin Partners, explained that this opt-out claim “gives sellers the opportunity to seek redress for the significant harm they have suffered.”

In a post on LinkedIn, Damian Geradin confirmed that Innsworth Advisors Ltd. is providing litigation funding for the case.

Professor Stephan’s legal team is being led by Geradin Partners, alongside Kieron Beal KC of Blackstone Chambers, Daniel Carall-Green and Hannah Bernstein from Fountain Court Chambers. The claim is also being supported by advisors from Frontier Economics, and a consultative council that includes former Supreme Court president Lord Neuberger, Stephen Robertson, former Director General of the British Retail Consortium, and commercial litigation specialist Sue Prevezer KC.More information can be found on the claim website.

Erso Capital Funding £382M Claim Against Salmon Producers’ Price-Fixing Cartel

By Harry Moran |

The funding of UK class action lawsuits appears to be once again gaining momentum, as following LFJ’s reporting last week on an £878 million opt-out claim brought against Royal Mail, there has now been the announcement of a new £382 million claim targeting some of the world’s largest salmon producers.

Reporting from The Guardian covers the filing of a new collective action proceeding order filed at the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) last Thursday. This opt-out claim is being brought on behalf of UK consumers, and is targeting six salmon producers over allegations that they breached competition law by colluding to increase the price of farmed Atlantic salmon. The ‘salmon claim’ is seeking up to £382 million in compensation for consumers who bought these salmon products between October 2015 and May 2019. The salmon producers accused of forming this price-fixing cartel are: Mowi, Mowi Holdings, SalMar, Lerøy, Scottish Sea Farms and Grieg.

The claim has been filed by Waterside Class Limited, a company set up to bring this claim on behalf of UK consumers, with Anne Heal acting as the class representative. The claim is being represented by Simmons & Simmons, along with Sarah Abram KC and Matthew Kennedy of Brick Court Chambers, and Camilla Cockerill of 4 New Square Chambers. Waterside has also secured funding for the claim from Erso Capital, along with litigation insurance protection.

Heal, who previously led the Thames Water customer challenge group, said: “This action claims that some of the Atlantic salmon farming industry’s biggest companies have conspired to raid the wallets of hard-working shoppers. This action aims to seek fair redress for the millions of British consumers who we say spent years overpaying for one of the UK’s favourite and highly nutritious foods.”

Of the six salmon producers targeted in the claim, three did not provide a comment to The Guardian, Mowi denied that it had engaged in anti-competitive behaviour, whilst Grieg Seafood similarly denied any wrongdoing and stated they would “exercise all our rights of defence”. 

Salmar provided the most thorough response, with a spokesperson for the company stating: “SalMar is aware of the planned legal action on behalf of the UK consumers. SalMar disputes strongly the allegations of price fixing and notes that the European Commission has not reached any final decision on its investigation. SalMar contests all of these allegations and will defend vigorously any legal proceedings brought against it in the UK.”For information about the claim, read the press release from Waterside or visit the claim website.