Trending Now
Consumer Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Special Digital Event: “Investor Insights into Consumer Legal Funding”

April 15, 2021

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Special Digital Event: “Investor Insights into Consumer Legal Funding”

Litigation Finance News
This past Tuesday, Litigation Finance Journal hosted a special digital event, “Investor Insights into Consumer Legal Funding.” The panel discussion featured a trio of institutional investors, including Ben Kaplan (BK), co-founder of C9 Partners, Don Plotsky (DP), co-founder of Uinta Investments, and Michael Morris (MM), Managing Director of Northleaf Capital. Dan Avnir (DA), Managing Director of Bryant Park Capital moderated the discussion.  The panel covered a wide range of ground on Consumer Legal Funding as an asset class. Below are some key takeaways from the event:             DA: What types of investments do you target across the legal funding marketplace? BK: We target investments in operating companies. Operating companies with direct or indirect exposure to underlying consumer litigation assets which can include funded assets, with medical liens being the core focus. DP: We’re looking to basically get investment exposure to the asset—the way we do it is typically in some sort of structured transaction where we’re providing liquidity to the funding company. We’re definitely not plaintiff-facing…we’ll also buy cases directly and partner with funding companies that might be too large for their balance sheets. MM: We’re about a 15 billion dollar AUM, operating a range of strategies across the credit to equity continuum to get exposure to underlying assets. Generally, we’re looking to deploy $25-200 million or so, in some sort of partnership form with the funder.  DA: What can you say about your experience with collections these days? Have there been any variants, as compared to pre-COVID levels? BK: Interesting questions, pre-COVID versus post-COVID. Again, what I’m sharing is from the viewpoint of medical liens where there’s probably more volatility in and around that asset class depending on geography and a myriad of other circumstances—the nature of the treatment whether it’s surgery or MRI. To summarize, when COVID hit, there was actually, we experienced across a few different areas, a massive acceleration. At the outset of COVID, the takeaway is that there was an acceleration of collections. What I would say is that COVID has advanced…what we’re starting to see now is a backlog of cases attributable to court closures and other issues, that I would say at the beginning of 2021 has started to slow down collections a bit. Insurance companies have taken more of an aggressive posture with respect to litigation and they’re fighting those a little bit more aggressively. So I think we’ve seen an acceleration early on in COVID, and a bit of a slowdown in early 2021. DA: Don, what are you seeing out there from the funders you’ve been partnering with? Are trials in most states delayed? DP: In many cases, if not most typically, there’s some sort of settlement involved, rather than necessarily a trial verdict. But we’ve definitely noted an extension of maturity of the assets in the portfolio. Statistically, we would look at an 18-month duration to a three-year final type of profile on the assets that we buy, and we’re seeing things really creep out there beyond three years. Some of the assets that we own, we expected to have gotten greater cash flows than we received so far. We hear from the funding companies that business has definitely slowed down 20 or 30%, and we’re noting the extension of the portfolio. That certainly seems to be COVID-related. DA: What are your current return expectations across these assets that you’re investing in? Have the results lived up to the expectations you had? MM: There are two different lenses through which to look at it. I think in the space overall, in the two primary areas of the US…I do think over the last several years going back even before COVID, you seen some return compression at the asset level. As more money has come into the space, the search for yield that you can’t help but read about, it has made its way into the space a bit. DA: Are you seeing origination levels still down across the board as compared to pre-COVID levels, or are we beginning to see an uptick as of late? DP: Again, we’re not plaintiff-facing, so we don’t have people coming through the door. What we do see is fairly steady activity from the funding companies we deal with. What I’ll point out, is that more so than the actual volume of cases, it’s the condition of the financial markets surrounding this asset that are really driving supply. DA: What is the typical ROI target for a facility to a pre-settlement funding company? What information would you look to review in consideration of a facility? DP: From an investment perspective, we’re looking for a low-to-mid teen preferred rate of return…so in terms of total return on investment, we would hope to get perhaps slightly higher than that. When you look at all the components of the net return to investors, you also have to take into account that there are enormous cash flows here. We look to deliver 10-12% net annual return to our investors, and after that, 15% IRR. MM: For us, we’re sort of looking for kind of the best run cleanest plain vanilla senior debt, to make high single digits, and go up from there. DA: On pre-settlement funding side, if a group starting an origination platform today, what would you say would be the biggest challenges and opportunities? BK: I think the greatest opportunity is probably that there exists enough people who have been involved with businesses that have become institutional at this point, that there’s some good talent out there in terms of people who really know how to run a business and manage balance sheets and understand the industry. I think it’s an opportunity as the industry has grown…there’s better human capital out there.
Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Consumer

View All
Announcements Consumer

The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding Applauds Governor Newsom for Signing AB 931

By John Freund |

The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding Applauds Governor Newsom for Signing AB 931, the California Consumer Legal Funding Act

The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC) expressed its deep appreciation to Governor Gavin Newsom for signing Assembly Bill 931 -- The California Consumer Legal Funding Act -- into law. Authored by Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D–San Jose, 25th District), this landmark legislation establishes thoughtful and comprehensive regulation of Consumer Legal Funding in California—ensuring consumer protection, transparency, and access to financial stability while legal claims move through the judicial process.

The law, which takes effect January 1, 2026, provides consumers with much-needed financial support during the often lengthy resolution of their legal claims, helping them cover essential living expenses such as rent, mortgage payments, and utilities.

“This legislation represents a major step forward for California consumers,” said Eric Schuller, President of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding. “AB 931 strikes the right balance between protecting consumers and preserving access to a financial product that helps individuals stay afloat while they await justice. Consumer Legal Funding truly is about funding lives, not litigation.”
Key Consumer Protections Under AB 931

The California Consumer Legal Funding Act includes robust safeguards that prohibit funding companies from engaging in improper practices and mandate full transparency for consumers.

The Act Prohibits Consumer Legal Funding Companies from:

• Offering or colluding to provide funding as an inducement for a consumer to terminate their attorney and hire another.
• Colluding with or assisting an attorney in bringing fabricated or bad-faith claims.
• Paying or offering referral fees, commissions, or other forms of compensation to attorneys or law firms for consumer referrals.
• Accepting referral fees or other compensation from attorneys or law firms.
• Exercising any control or influence over the conduct or resolution of a legal claim.
• Referring consumers to specific attorneys or law firms (except via a bar association referral service).

The Act Requires Consumer Legal Funding Companies to:

• Provide clear, written contracts stating:
• The amount of funds provided to the consumer.
• A full itemization of any one-time charges.
• The maximum total amount remaining, including all fees and charges.
• A clear explanation of how and when charges accrue.
• A payment schedule showing all amounts due every 180 days, ensuring consumers understand their maximum financial obligation from the outset.
• Offer consumers a five-business-day right to cancel without penalty.
• Maintain no role in deciding whether, when, or for how much a legal claim is settled.

With AB 931, California joins a growing list of states that have enacted clear and fair regulation recognizing Consumer Legal Funding as a non-recourse, consumer-centered financial service—distinct from litigation financing and designed to help individuals meet their household needs while pursuing justice.

“We commend Assemblymember Kalra for his leadership and Governor Newsom for signing this important legislation,” said Schuller. “This act ensures that Californians who need temporary financial relief during their legal journey can do so safely, transparently, and responsibly.”

About the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC)

The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC) is a national association representing companies that provide Consumer Legal Funding, non-recourse financial assistance that helps consumers meet essential expenses while awaiting the resolution of a legal claim. ARC advocates for fair regulation, transparency, and consumer choice across the United States.

Consumer

Let’s Get the Definition Right: Litigation Financing is Not Consumer Legal Funding

By Eric Schuller |

The following was contributed by Eric K. Schuller, President, The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC).

Across the country, in both state capitols and Washington, D.C., policymakers and courts are giving increasing attention to the question of “litigation financing” and whether disclosure requirements should apply. At the heart of this debate is a push for transparency, who is funding lawsuits, what contracts exist, and what parties are behind those agreements.

While the intent is understandable, the challenge lies in the lack of a consistent and precise definition of what “litigation financing” actually is. Too often, broad definitions sweep in products and services that were never intended to fall under that category, most notably Consumer Legal Funding. This misclassification has the potential to cause confusion in the law and, more importantly, harm consumers who rely on these funds to stay afloat financially while pursuing justice through the legal system.

As Aristotle observed, “The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms.” Without careful definitions, good policy becomes impossible.

The Distinction Between Litigation Financing and Consumer Legal Funding

The difference between litigation financing and Consumer Legal Funding is both simple and significant.

Litigation financing, sometimes referred to as third-party litigation funding (TPLF), typically involves an outside party providing monies to attorneys or to plaintiffs’ firms to pay for the costs of bringing or defending lawsuits. These funds are used to pay legal fees, expert witnesses, discovery expenses, and other litigation-related costs. The funders, in turn, often seek a portion of the litigation’s proceeds if the case is successful. In short, this type of financing directly supports the litigation itself.

Consumer Legal Funding, on the other hand, serves an entirely different purpose. In these transactions, monies are provided directly to consumers, not attorneys, for personal use while their legal claim is pending. These funds are not used to pay legal fees or case expenses. Instead, consumers typically use them for necessities such as rent, mortgage payments, groceries, utilities, childcare, or car payments. Funding companies are not influencing the litigation but rather ensuring that individuals have the financial stability to see their case through to its conclusion without being forced into a premature settlement simply because they cannot afford to wait.

This is why treating Consumer Legal Funding as though it were litigation financing is both inaccurate and potentially harmful.

Legislative and Judicial Recognition of the Difference

Several states have already recognized and codified this critical distinction. States including Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, and Kansas have examined disclosure requirements for litigation financing and have made it clear that Consumer Legal Funding is not subject to those laws. Their statutes expressly define litigation financing in a way that excludes consumer-focused products.

Courts have also weighed in. In Arizona, for example, the state’s rules of civil procedure expressly carve out Consumer Legal Funding, recognizing that these transactions are unrelated to litigation financing and should not be treated as such. Likewise, when the Texas Supreme Court considered proposed rules surrounding litigation financing, the Court ultimately declined to proceed. While no new rule was adopted, the process made clear that Consumer Legal Funding was not intended to be part of the conversation.

These examples demonstrate that policymakers and jurists, when carefully considering the issue, have consistently drawn a line between products that finance lawsuits and those that help consumers meet basic living expenses.

Why the Distinction Matters

The consequences of failing to make this distinction are not abstract, they are very real for consumers. If disclosure statutes or procedural rules are written too broadly, they risk sweeping in Consumer Legal Funding.

Disclosure requirements are aimed at uncovering potential conflicts of interest, undue influence over litigation strategy, or foreign investment in lawsuits. None of these concerns are relevant to Consumer Legal Funding, which provides personal financial support and, by statute in many states, explicitly forbids funders from controlling litigation decisions.

As Albert Einstein noted, “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” When the difference between litigation financing and Consumer Legal Funding is explained simply, the distinction becomes obvious. One finances lawsuits, the other helps consumers survive.

A Clear Request to Policymakers

For these reasons, we respectfully urge legislators and courts, when drafting legislation or procedural rules regarding “litigation financing,” to clearly define the scope of what is being regulated. If the issue is the funding of litigation, then the measures should address the financing of litigation itself, not the consumer who is simply trying to pay everyday bills and keep a roof over their head while awaiting the resolution of a legal claim.

Clarity in definitions is not a minor issue; it is essential to ensure that the right problems are addressed with the right solutions. Broad, vague definitions risk collateral damage, undermining access to justice and harming the very individuals the legal system is meant to protect. By contrast, carefully tailored definitions ensure transparency in litigation financing while preserving critical financial tools for consumers.

Finally

The debate around litigation financing disclosure is an important one, but it must be approached with precision. Litigation financing and Consumer Legal Funding are two fundamentally different products that serve very different purposes. One finances lawsuits, the other helps individuals survive while waiting for justice.

It is important to begin with a clear definition. As Mark Twain wisely noted, “The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter, ’tis the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.” If legislators and courts wish to regulate litigation financing, they must do so with precision, ensuring clarity in the law while also preserving the essential role that Consumer Legal Funding plays in supporting individuals and families during some of the most difficult periods of their lives.

Consumer

Critics Argue Litigation Funding May Lift Malpractice Insurance Premiums

By John Freund |
Healthcare malpractice insurers are re-evaluating how third-party litigation funding could alter claim dynamics, with potential knock‑on effects for premiums paid by physicians, hospitals, and allied providers. An article in South Florida Hospital News and Healthcare Report points out that for providers already facing staffing pressures and inflation in medical costs, even modest premium shifts can ripple through budgets. Patients may also feel indirect effects if coverage affordability influences provider supply, practice patterns, or defensive medicine. While clearly antagonistic towards the industry, the piece outlines how prolonged discovery, additional expert testimony, and higher damages demands can flow through to insurers’ loss ratios and reserving assumptions, which ultimately inform premium filings. It also notes that providers could see higher deductibles or retentions as carriers adjust terms, while some plaintiffs may gain greater access to counsel and case development resources. For litigation funders, med-mal remains a critical niche. Watch for state-level disclosure rules, court practices around admissibility of funding, and evolving ethical guidance—factors that will shape capital flows into healthcare disputes and the trajectory of malpractice premiums over the next few renewal cycles.