Trending Now
  • Consumer Legal Funding Is Not the Problem Facing America’s Truckers
  • Rowling Foundation Offers to Fund NHS Single-Sex Space Challenges
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

Op-Ed Ties California Litigation Costs to Rising Cost of Living

A commentary published this week argues that California's litigation environment functions as an unofficial tax on businesses and consumers, adding to the state's cost of living at a moment when affordability dominates its politics.

As reported by California Globe, the piece by John Allard, a former mayor of Roseville with more than two decades as a small business owner, sets national tort costs at $529 billion in 2022, equivalent to 2.1% of GDP, and cites projections that the figure could exceed $900 billion by 2030. Within California, the author points to 199 nuclear verdicts between 2013 and 2022 totalling more than $9 billion.

Much of the argument focuses on state-specific mechanisms. Allard highlights the Private Attorneys General Act, noting that claims routed through the state review process resolve 52% faster while workers receive 67% less compensation than in court-filed claims, and describes Proposition 65 as having produced an industry of citizen enforcers, with settlements rising from $26 million across 890 settlements in 2022 to more than $101 million across over 1,300 settlements more recently. The commentary also flags the Gilead "duty to innovate" case as an example of novel liability theories reaching the state's highest court.

Third-party litigation funding appears only in passing, referenced in connection with Georgia's 2025 reforms rather than through California-specific data. That absence is itself notable: the state has no funding disclosure or registration statute, and the op-ed offers no estimate of funded case volume within its cost figures.

The piece is advocacy rather than analysis, and its figures come from tort reform sources whose methodology has been contested. It nonetheless illustrates how the cost-of-living frame is being applied to litigation policy in the largest state yet to legislate on funding, and where a disclosure debate has so far failed to gain traction.

Commercial

Novarex Capital Partners Closes Initial £5 Million Funding Round

London-based Novarex Capital Partners has completed an initial £5 million funding round, with a second round already underway as part of a broader capital programme.

According to ACCESS Newswire, the firm describes itself as a specialist introduction platform focused on private credit, litigation finance and structured capital, identifying opportunities for sophisticated investors seeking access to private markets. The proceeds of the initial round support the working capital requirements of an SRA-regulated law firm engaged in the preparation of eligible claims, operating in accordance with SRA standards and maintaining professional indemnity insurance.

The company said each stage of funding is designed to align with operational requirements while adhering to relevant regulatory frameworks. A second round is advancing, with a further round planned.

The structure reflects a financing model that has become increasingly common in the UK claims market, where capital is deployed against a law firm's working capital needs during claim preparation rather than committed to individual matters. That approach places the funder's exposure at the firm level, tied to the pace at which eligible claims are built and progressed, and depends heavily on the quality of the underlying claim pipeline and the discipline of the regulated firm carrying out the work.

The raise is modest by the standards of the institutional funds that have dominated recent fundraising headlines, but it sits in a segment of the UK market that has drawn scrutiny following a series of failures among smaller funders and claims businesses over the past year. Whether Novarex's staged capital programme reaches its later rounds will offer some indication of investor appetite for law firm working capital exposure at a moment when that risk is under closer examination.

Commercial

Auto Injury Claim Costs Outpaced Medical Inflation for Five Straight Years, Study Finds

Average payments on U.S. auto bodily injury claims rose at more than double the rate of medical care inflation between 2017 and 2022, according to a new Insurance Research Council study drawn from one of the largest claims datasets assembled for the line.

As reported by Insurance Business, the IRC analysed more than 7.4 million auto injury claims closed with payment over the five-year window, pooled from nine insurers representing roughly 43% of the U.S. private passenger auto market. Average bodily injury claim payments climbed from approximately $14,000 in 2017 to more than $20,000 in 2022, an annualised increase of 7.8% that accelerated markedly after 2020.

The study points to attorney involvement as a central variable. Legal representation among claimants rose from 40% in 2017 to nearly 50% by 2022, with bodily injury claimants showing the sharpest movement at 11 percentage points, while litigation rates nearly doubled from 10% to 18%. Medical bills increasingly functioned as a multiplier rather than a fixed cost: for each dollar of medical expense, total settlement value rose from $1.80 in 2017 to $2.30 by 2022.

The outcomes data complicates the picture for claimants. Represented claimants saw median closure times of 440 days against under 220 days for unrepresented claimants, and after accounting for medical costs and legal fees, netted $1.40 per dollar of medical bills compared with $1.80 for those without representation. IRC's Patrick Schmid tied the trend to settlement pressures and their downstream effect on auto insurance affordability.

The findings arrive as insurers and trade groups press state and federal lawmakers on third-party litigation funding disclosure, and the report's framing of structural cost drivers is likely to feature in that argument. The dataset's scale gives the numbers unusual weight in a debate that has often turned on contested estimates.