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. 

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Litigation Funding Founder Reflects on Building a New Platform

By John Freund |

A new interview offers a candid look at how litigation funding startups are being shaped by founders with deep experience inside the legal system. Speaking from the perspective of a former practicing litigator, Lauren Harrison, founder of Signal Peak Partners, describes how time spent in BigLaw provided a practical foundation for launching and operating a litigation finance business.

An article in Above the Law explains that Harrison views litigation funding as a natural extension of legal advocacy, rather than a purely financial exercise. Having worked closely with clients and trial teams, she argues that understanding litigation pressure points, timelines, and decision making dynamics is critical when evaluating cases for investment. This background allows funders to assess risk more realistically and communicate more effectively with law firms and claimholders.

The interview also touches on the operational realities of starting a litigation funding company from the ground up. Harrison discusses early challenges such as building trust in a competitive market, educating lawyers about non-recourse funding structures, and developing underwriting processes that balance speed with diligence. Transparency around pricing and alignment of incentives emerge as recurring themes, with Harrison emphasizing that long-term relationships matter more than short-term returns.

Another key takeaway is the importance of team composition. While legal expertise is essential, Harrison notes that successful platforms also require strong financial, operational, and compliance capabilities. Blending these skill sets, particularly at an early stage, is presented as one of the more difficult but necessary steps in scaling a sustainable funding business.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Australian High Court Limits Recovery of Litigation Funding Costs

By John Freund |

The High Court of Australia has delivered a significant decision clarifying the limits of recoverable damages in funded litigation, confirming that claimants cannot recover litigation funding commissions or fees as compensable loss, even where those costs materially reduce the net recovery.

Ashurst reports that the High Court rejected arguments that litigation funding costs should be treated as damages flowing from a defendant’s wrongdoing. The ruling arose from a shareholder class action in which claimants sought to recover the funding commission deducted from their settlement proceeds, contending that the costs were a foreseeable consequence of the underlying misconduct. The court disagreed, holding that litigation funding expenses are properly characterised as the price paid to pursue litigation, rather than loss caused by the defendant.

In reaching its decision, the High Court emphasised the distinction between harm suffered as a result of wrongful conduct and the commercial arrangements a claimant enters into to enforce their rights. While acknowledging that litigation funding is now a common and often necessary feature of large-scale litigation, the court concluded that this reality does not convert funding costs into recoverable damages. Allowing such recovery, the court reasoned, would represent an expansion of damages principles beyond established limits.

The decision provides welcome clarity for defendants facing funded claims, while reinforcing long-standing principles of Australian damages law. At the same time, it confirms that litigation funding costs remain a matter to be borne out of recoveries, subject to court approval regimes and regulatory oversight rather than being shifted onto defendants through damages awards.

Case Developments Commercial

Janus Henderson Affiliates Lose Early Bid in Litigation Finance Dispute

By John Freund |

Janus Henderson Group affiliates have suffered an early procedural setback in a closely watched litigation finance dispute that underscores the internal tensions that can arise within funder-backed investment structures and joint ventures.

Bloomberg Law reports that a Delaware Chancery Court judge has refused to dismiss claims brought by Calumet Capital Partners against several entities linked to Janus Henderson. The ruling allows the case to proceed into discovery, rejecting arguments that the complaint failed to state viable claims. Calumet alleges that the defendants engaged in a concerted effort to undermine a litigation finance joint venture in order to force a buyout of Calumet’s interests on unfavorable terms.

According to the complaint, the dispute centers on governance and control issues within a litigation finance vehicle that was designed to deploy capital into funded legal claims. Calumet contends that Janus Henderson affiliated entities systematically blocked proposed funding deals, interfered with relationships, and restricted the venture’s ability to operate as intended. These actions, Calumet claims, were aimed at depressing the value of its stake and pressuring it into an exit at a steep discount.

The defendants moved to dismiss the case, arguing that their actions were contractually permitted and that Calumet’s allegations were insufficient to support claims such as breach of contract and tortious interference. The court disagreed at this stage, finding that Calumet had plausibly alleged misconduct that warrants further factual development. While the ruling does not determine the merits of the case, it keeps alive serious allegations about how litigation finance partnerships are managed and unwound when commercial interests diverge.