Trending Now
  • Joint Liability Proposals Threaten Consumer Legal Funding
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. 

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Litigation Financiers Organize on Capitol Hill

By John Freund |

The litigation finance industry is mobilizing its defenses after nearly facing extinction through federal legislation last year. In response to Senator Thom Tillis's surprise attempt to impose a 41% tax on litigation finance profits, two attorneys have launched the American Civil Accountability Alliance—a lobbying group dedicated to fighting back against efforts to restrict third-party funding of lawsuits.

As reported in Bloomberg Law, co-founder Erick Robinson, a Houston patent lawyer, described the industry's collective shock when the Tillis measure came within striking distance of passing as part of a major tax and spending package. The proposal ultimately failed, but the close call exposed the $16 billion industry's vulnerability to legislative ambush tactics. Robinson noted that the measure appeared with only five weeks before the final vote, giving stakeholders little time to respond before the Senate parliamentarian ultimately removed it on procedural grounds.

The new alliance represents a shift toward grassroots advocacy, focusing on bringing forward voices of individuals and small parties whose cases would have been impossible without funding. Robinson emphasized that state-level legislation now poses the greater threat, as these bills receive less media scrutiny than federal proposals while establishing precedents that can spread rapidly across jurisdictions.

The group is still forming its board and hiring lobbyists, but its founders are clear about their mission: ensuring that litigation finance isn't quietly regulated out of existence through misleading rhetoric about foreign influence or frivolous litigation—claims Robinson dismisses as disconnected from how funders actually evaluate cases for investment.

Commercial

ISO’s ‘Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure’ May Be Unenforceable

By John Freund |

The insurance industry has introduced a new policy condition entitled "Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure" (ISO Form CG 99 11 01 26) that may be included in liability policies starting this month. The condition allows either party to demand mutual disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements when disputes arise over whether a claim or suit is covered by the policy. However, the condition faces significant enforceability challenges that make it largely unworkable in practice.

As reported in Omni Bridgeway, the condition is unenforceable for several key reasons. First, when an insurer denies coverage and the policyholder commences coverage litigation, the denial likely relieves the policyholder of compliance with policy conditions. Courts typically hold that insurers must demonstrate actual and substantial prejudice from a policyholder's failure to perform a condition, which would be difficult to establish when coverage has already been denied.

Additionally, the condition's requirement for policyholders to disclose funding agreements would force them to breach confidentiality provisions in those agreements, amounting to intentional interference with contractual relations. The condition is also overly broad, extending to funding agreements between attorneys and funders where the insurer has no privity. Most problematically, the "mutual" disclosure requirement lacks true mutuality since insurers rarely use litigation funding except for subrogation claims, creating a one-sided obligation that borders on bad faith.

The condition appears designed to give insurers a litigation advantage by accessing policyholders' private financial information, despite overwhelming judicial precedent that litigation finance is rarely relevant to case claims and defenses. Policyholders should reject this provision during policy renewals whenever possible.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Valve Faces Certified UK Class Action Despite Funding Scrutiny

By John Freund |

The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has delivered a closely watched judgment certifying an opt-out collective proceedings order (CPO) against Valve Corporation, clearing the way for a landmark competition claim to proceed on behalf of millions of UK consumers. The decision marks another important moment in the evolution of collective actions—and their funding—in the UK.

In its judgment, the CAT approved the application brought by Vicki Shotbolt as class representative, alleging that Valve abused a dominant position in the PC video games market through its operation of the Steam platform. The claim contends that Valve imposed restrictive pricing and distribution practices that inflated prices paid by UK consumers. Valve opposed certification on multiple grounds, including challenges to the suitability of the class representative, the methodology for assessing aggregate damages, and the adequacy of the litigation funding arrangements supporting the claim.

The Tribunal rejected Valve’s objections, finding that the proposed methodology for estimating class-wide loss met the “realistic prospect” threshold required at the certification stage. While Valve criticised the expert evidence as overly theoretical and insufficiently grounded in data, the CAT reiterated that a CPO hearing is not a mini-trial, and that disputes over economic modelling are better resolved at a later merits stage.

Of particular interest to the legal funding market, the CAT also examined the funding structure underpinning the claim. Valve argued that the arrangements raised concerns around control, proportionality, and potential conflicts. The Tribunal disagreed, concluding that the funding terms were sufficiently transparent and that appropriate safeguards were in place to ensure the independence of the class representative and legal team. In doing so, the CAT reaffirmed its now-familiar approach of scrutinising funding without treating third-party finance as inherently problematic.

With certification granted, the case will now proceed as one of the largest opt-out competition claims yet to advance in the UK. For litigation funders, the ruling underscores the CAT’s continued willingness to accommodate complex funding structures in large consumer actions—while signalling that challenges to funding are unlikely to succeed absent clear evidence of abuse or impropriety.