Trending Now
Commercial Special Features

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
Case Developments Commercial

Sony and Apple Challenge Enforceability of Litigation Funding Models

By John Freund |

A pivotal UK court case could reshape the future of litigation finance agreements, as Sony and Apple reignite legal challenges to widely used third-party funding models in large-scale commercial disputes.

An article in Law360 reports that the two tech giants are questioning the validity of litigation funding arrangements tied to multibillion-pound cartel claims brought against them. Their core argument: that certain litigation funding agreements may run afoul of UK laws governing damages-based agreements (DBAs), which restrict the share of damages a representative may take as remuneration. A previous Court of Appeal decision in PACCAR Inc. v. Competition Appeal Tribunal held that some funding models might qualify as DBAs, rendering them unenforceable if they fail to comply with statutory rules.

This resurrected dispute centers on claims brought by class representatives against Apple and Sony over alleged anti-competitive behavior. The companies argue that if the funding arrangements breach DBA regulations, the entire claims may be invalidated. For the litigation funding industry, the outcome could severely curtail access to justice mechanisms in the UK—especially for collective actions in competition law, where third-party financing is often essential.

The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal previously stayed the proceedings pending clarity on the legal standing of such funding arrangements. With the dispute now heading back to court, all eyes will be on whether the judiciary draws a clear line around the enforceability of funder agreements under current law.

The decision could force funders to rework deal structures or risk losing enforceability altogether. As UK courts revisit the DBA implications for litigation finance, the sector faces heightened uncertainty over regulatory compliance, enforceability, and long-term viability in complex group litigation. Will this lead to a redefinition of permissible funding models—or to a call for legislative reform to protect access to collective redress?

Case Developments Commercial

Funder’s Interference in Texas Fee Dispute Rejected by Appeals Court

By Harry Moran |

A Texas appeals court has ruled that a litigation funder cannot block attorneys from pursuing a fee dispute following a remand order, reinforcing the limited standing of funders in fee-shifting battles. In a 2-1 decision, the First Court of Appeals found that the funder’s interest in the outcome, while financial, did not confer the legal authority necessary to participate in the dispute or enforce a side agreement aimed at halting the proceedings.

An article in Law360 details the underlying case, which stems from a contentious attorney fee battle following a remand to state court. The litigation funder, asserting contractual rights tied to a funding agreement, attempted to intervene and stop the fee litigation between plaintiffs' and defense counsel. But the appellate court sided with the trial court’s decision to proceed, emphasizing that only parties directly involved in the underlying legal work—and not third-party financiers—are entitled to challenge or control post-remand fee determinations. The majority opinion concluded that the funder’s contract could not supersede procedural law governing who may participate in such disputes.

In dissent, one justice argued that the funder’s financial interest merited consideration, suggesting that a more expansive view of standing could be warranted. But the majority held firm, stating that expanding standing would invite unwanted complexity and undermine judicial efficiency.

This decision sends a strong signal to funders operating in Texas: fee rights must be contractually precise and procedurally valid. As more funders build fee recovery provisions into their agreements, questions linger about how far those rights can extend—especially in jurisdictions hesitant to allow funders a seat at the litigation table.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Oklahoma Moves to Restrict Foreign Litigation Funding, Cap Damages

By John Freund |

In a significant policy shift, Oklahoma has enacted legislation targeting foreign influence in its judicial system through third-party litigation funding. Signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt, the two-pronged legislation not only prohibits foreign entities from funding lawsuits in the state but also imposes a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in civil cases—excluding exceptions such as wrongful death. The new laws take effect November 1, 2025.

An article in The Journal Record notes that proponents of the legislation, including the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council and key Republican lawmakers, argue these measures are necessary to preserve the integrity of the state's courts and protect domestic businesses from what they view as undue interference. The foreign funding restriction applies to entities from countries identified as foreign adversaries by federal standards, including China and Russia.

Critics, however, contend that the laws may undermine access to justice, especially in complex or high-cost litigation where third-party funding can serve as a vital resource. The cap on non-economic damages, in particular, has drawn concern from trial lawyers who argue it may disproportionately impact vulnerable plaintiffs without sufficient financial means.

Oklahoma’s move aligns with a broader national trend of state-level scrutiny over third-party litigation funding. Lawmakers in several states have introduced or passed legislation to increase transparency, impose registration requirements, or limit funding sources.

For the legal funding industry, the Oklahoma law raises pressing questions about how funders will adapt to an increasingly fragmented regulatory landscape. It also underscores the growing political sensitivity around foreign capital in civil litigation—a trend that could prompt further regulatory action across other jurisdictions.