Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJs Special Digital Event: Mass Torts and Litigation Funding 

March 28, 2023

Key Takeaways from LFJs Special Digital Event: Mass Torts and Litigation Funding 

On Thursday March 23rd, Litigation Finance Journal hosted a special digital event: Mass Torts and Litigation Funding. Panelists included Michael Rozen (MR), Founder and Managing Partner at TRGP Investment Partners, James Romeo (JR), Managing Partner at Greenpoint Capital, Brian Roth (BR), Chief Executive Officer and Chief Investment Officer of Rocade Capital, and Michael Guzman (MG), Partner at Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel and Frederick. The discussion was moderated by Ed Truant (ET), Founder of Slingshot Capital.

The panel discussion spanned a range of topics, including claims origination, financing/underwriting, plaintiff and defense-side strategies and tactics, the impact of ABS regulation and much more. 

Below are some key takeaways: 

ET: How does the industry originate claims and identify and validate claimants? And how has origination industry evolved over the years from the time of mass TV advertising to the current omni-channel world of advertising? 

MG: First, all of the old traditional methods still work.  Networking, late night TV, radio, advertising – all of that still works. But what I am seeing is a number of firms have either affiliated with or own social media marketers, who are using social media in targeted ways. It’s a lot cheaper depending on how you use it, and it can be a lot faster. So people are using the old techniques, plus a number of new ones.  I’ve had some really good success with that, because you’re not just blanketing the airwaves, the people that you get back are much more focused and more interested in what it is you’re trying to recruit them for. 

JR: I think it’s helpful to go back and think about the history of legal advertising, which started in the late 70’s when two lawyers started advertising, it led to some fighting in the state bar, but ultimately it was decided that legal ads are a form of free speech and that they provide consumers valuable information. 

We’ve now seen this huge evolution around what’s possible. There is very targeted social media and paid search advertising that is driven by analytics. At Triton we’re doing a lot of this, we’ve developed our own in-house marketing team, and we’re using things like intake forms and chatbots to help pre-screen potential claimants. We’re using different identify verification tools and we’re experimenting with different medical retrieval tools to help with the intake of potential claimants. 

ET: Describe the ‘fall-out rate’ of claimants and what are typical fall-out rates evidenced in the market and reasons therefor? Has there been an improvement in fall-out rates as a result of enhanced data analytics and technological sophistication?

MR: Access to justice is always a goal for those who think that corporate America has long gotten away with unequal justice because they have a lot of money and the individual claimants don’t. So having better ways of reaching people who may have been impacted by a drug that’s been pulled from the market or a product that didn’t work as advertised is obviously a good thing. The flip side is, in tougher economic times, you see higher claim rates from people who may not be good claimants, because there is an expectation there may be some quick money to be obtained. 

So I think the fall-out rate is really a function of whether or not you’re in the right economic time with the right kind of claim. Camp Lejeune is an example of that. 3M earplugs is an example of that. We’re talking about hundreds of thousands of claimants, whereas in an ordinary mass tort you may have tens of thousands of claimants. And this is something defendants don’t like, and they push back on litigation finance in particular, and argue that somehow specious claims are being promoted. What is really at the base of that is a desire to create an unequal footing between the haves and the have nots. If you are on the have side, it is obviously to your benefit to have either lower claim rates, fewer number of plaintiffs, and/or a higher fallout rate where you can allege later on that these were not valid claimants, that they were somehow propped by third party financing. 

Nobody who has or will speak on this panel will tell you that investing in non-meritorious claims is a good thing. Yet what the other side of this argument will claim is that somehow the fall-out rate as an individual metric is indicative of whether or not there are valid claims in a particular litigation. I would say you to it is irrelevant—the more claims you have in a litigation, the higher the fall our rate is going to be. 

ET: Given the high fall-out rates and the potential for false claimants, is this sector ripe for the application of blockchain to minimize duplication of claimants and decrease fall-out rates as well as tracking the transactions and pay-outs? 

 BR: Fall out impacts the litigation strategy and settlement strategy. When a litigation starts, nobody really knows what will be a settle-able case, so there’s always going to be some level of origination that’s not going to result in a paid claim at the end of the day. I do think the technology will help with some areas like de-duplication and dual representation, whether it’s blockchain or other smart contracts. We’re seeing billions of dollars transact in the space and there’s very little transparency across the different players in the space. I see that changing over time, and that will impact the fall out rates as well. 

ET: What is the nature of the prototypical plaintiff litigation firm? Why do so called “White Shoe” law firms not get involved in mass tort plaintiff litigation work? 

MG: When I started my career, there was this perception that there were defense-side firms and plaintiff-side firms. Lines were pretty well drawn, people crossed over from time to time. But for the most part, if you did plaintiff’s work you did plaintiff’s work, and you didn’t go back and forth. My firm and lots of others defy that model, and at this point, I’m not sure there is a prototypical plaintiff’s firm. My firm is a litigation boutique, and very early on we realized some of our clients wanted us to be plaintiffs for them, and it was enormously challenging and lucrative to play that role for them.

I think why so many of the so-called ‘white shoe’ law firms have found it difficult to be a plaintiff-side firm is because they have corporate departments or longstanding institutional clients, and some of those clients just don’t like the idea that one of those partner is representing them, but at the same time someone else is off pursuing a mass action or class action, so it gets to be an institutional conflict—it’s hard to manage from a client standpoint, and we’ve dealt with that over the years. 

ET: How has the US mass tort industry evolved in terms of the size of the industry, the quantum of cases and the number of claimants over the years? 

JR: If you look at the federal docket, it took something like 59 years to reach the first 250,000 cases in MDLs, and over the subsequent seven years, from 2007-2014, we hit a total of half a million cases, and then by 2021, we topped 1 million cases. So that’s an additional 500,000 case jump from 2014 to 2021. And there’s currently something like 360,000 cases that are still pending in the federal docket. So there’s definitely been an acceleration of cases, and that’s continued. And I don’t see that sopping any time soon. 

ET: Can you describe the various ways in which finance intersects with the mass tort industry?

BR: Financing is an ever changing landscape, but at the front end, you’re seeing it for case origination, a lot of times it’s done on a non-recourse basis. We see a lot of law firm loans, where you’re financing the whole process from origination to settlement. We’re also seeing capital enter for service providers in the space – lead origination or working up cases, ordering records on a contingent basis. We’re also starting to see some post-settlement finance develop, where firms are basically able to factor their claims. 

As we think about the space, we expect this to continue to evolve and develop, and this matures as an asset class, and we develop more data and track records, you’ll see more segmentation I think. But that should translate into more flexible options for the firm. The space currently is shaped by the rules around fee sharing and the ethical rules for law firms which prevent non-lawyers from having ownership in the firm. Obviously, Arizona and other jurisdictions are changing that, so the landscape of how finance intersects with firms is changing as well. 

Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Commercial

View All
Commercial Deals

Yield Bridge Asset Management Launches into Litigation Finance

By John Freund |

The London‑based asset manager Yield Bridge Asset Management (Yield Bridge) has announced its entry into the litigation financing arena, marking a strategic shift into the private‑credit sector of the legal‑funding landscape.

According to a press release in OpenPR, Yield Bridge has entered into several strategic partnerships in the international arbitration space, granting the firm ongoing access to “vetted, insurance‑wrapped Litigation and Private Credit asset programs.”

In detailing the strategy, Yield Bridge highlights litigation finance as a rapidly growing asset class. The release states that high costs in international arbitration often create an uneven battlefield—where financial strength outweighs merits. Litigation funding, the firm argues, offers a counterbalance. It points to “Litigation Finance Bonds” as their preferred investment vehicle—emphasizing 100% capital protection, attractive yields, and short-duration liquidity windows for accredited investors. The firm claims to target structured portfolios of multiple claims (versus single-case investments) to diversify risk and leverage economies of scale. Cases “displaying pre‑determined characteristics and a potential 8–10× multiple” are cited as typical targets.

Yield Bridge positions itself as a “leading international financial services intermediary … bringing together multi‑asset expertise with targeted investment propositions.” While the announcement is light on detailed track record or specific claim‑portfolios, the firm is formally signalling its ambitions in the litigation finance space.

Yield Bridge’s pivot underscores a broader trend: litigation finance moving deeper into structured, institutional‑grade private‑credit models. By packaging multiple claims and targeting returns familiar in alternative‑credit strategies, firms like Yield Bridge are raising the bar—and potentially the competition—for players in the legal‑funding ecosystem. This development raises questions about how deal flow will scale, how returns will be verified, and how risk will be managed in portfolio‑based litigation funding.

Case Developments Commercial

Home Office-Funded Class Action Against Motorola Gets Green Light

By John Freund |

In a significant development for UK collective actions, the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has granted a Collective Proceedings Order (CPO) in the landmark case Spottiswoode v Airwave Solutions & Motorola. The case—brought by Clare Spottiswoode CBE—accuses Motorola of abusing its dominant position in the UK's emergency services network by charging excessive prices through its Airwave network, which the Home Office claims resulted in £1.1 billion in overcharges to UK taxpayers.

According to iclg, the class action is being funded by the UK Home Office itself, which is also the complainant in an associated CMA enforcement action. In its judgment, the CAT concluded that Spottiswoode is an appropriate class representative, and that the claim—which covers a proposed class of over 100,000 public service bodies—is suitable for collective proceedings. The case will proceed on an opt-out basis for UK entities, with opt-in available for overseas claimants.

The Tribunal emphasized that funding by a government department does not compromise the independence of the class representative, and that the Home Office’s funding arrangement complies with legal and procedural requirements. Notably, the judgment paves the way for governmental entities to play a dual role—as both complainant and funder—in future competition-based collective actions.

This case raises fascinating implications for the legal funding industry. It challenges traditional notions of third-party funders and opens the door to more creative and strategic funding models initiated by government entities themselves, particularly in cases with broad public interest and regulatory overlap.

Commercial Deals

Investors Eye Equity Stakes in Law Firms via Arizona ABS Model

By John Freund |

A notable shift is underway in the legal‑services world as institutional investors increasingly direct capital toward law‑firm ownership—particularly via the alternative business structure (ABS) model in Arizona.

According to a recent article in Bloomberg, large asset managers and venture‑capital firms are positioning themselves to participate in legal‑services revenues in a way that diverges from traditional contingent‑fee funding of lawsuits. The piece identifies heavy hitters such as Benefit Street Partners and Crossbeam Venture Partners as recent entrants into the ABS‑enabled law‑firm ownership space. Benefit Street’s application for a new Arizona law‑firm entity lists tort litigation, IP claims and bankruptcy matters as focal areas.

The ABS pathway in Arizona has grown rapidly. In 2021, the state approved 15 ABS licences; by 2024, that number rose to 51, bringing the overall total to approximately 153. The regulatory flexibility in Arizona contrasts with the majority of U.S. jurisdictions, where non‑lawyer ownership of law firms remains prohibited or severely constrained. Meanwhile, states such as California have reacted by imposing restrictions—e.g., California's recent ban on contingency‑fee sharing with out‑of‑state ABS models.

For the legal‑funding and law‑firm investment ecosystem, this development carries multiple implications. First, it signals that investors view law‑firm ownership as a viable risk‑adjusted investment category beyond pure litigation funding. Second, it raises governance and regulatory questions around outside ownership of law firms, especially as the lines blur between funders, back‑office providers and equity owners. Finally, firms, funders and law‑firm owners may need to reassess their strategies and compliance frameworks in light of the shifting landscape of capital entry and structural innovation.