Trending Now
Consumer

Let’s Set The Record Straight: Consumer Legal Funding is Not Litigation Finance

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

Consumer Legal Funding, in its various forms, is pretty mundane. It covers living expenses, such as rent, food, clothes and keeping the lights on. It might even enable a family to provide Christmas or birthday gifts for their children. In every case, its sole purpose is to help individuals and families alleviate the cash-flow problems that arise in the wake of an accident or other tragic circumstances, while the individuals and families are seeking compensation for their situation. It has nothing to do with financing of the litigation.

What is happing is that groups and individuals who are not taking the time and effort to know the differences between the two different products and are lumping them together. They are saying all transactions where a party to litigation receives any monetary resources from a non-party are considered Third Party-Litigation- Financing (TPLF). It paints a bleak picture of “foreign adversaries . . . undermining U.S. national economic and security interests through the infiltration of the American litigation system,” and it is the end of the free world as we know it.

Consumer Legal Funding is nothing like that, it helps a consumer meet their financial obligations while their legal claim is making its way through the justice system. It does not pay for deposition cost. It does not pay for legal fees or expenses.

Most of the time the funds go to help a consumer who has had a car accident bridge the financial gap, but there are other times where it goes to help a person who was wrongfully convicted and spent nearly two decades of their life in prison for a crime they did not commit. Consumer legal funding helped them get their life back in assisting with living expenses while they got the justice they so justly deserved.

It helped a Police Officer pay to keep a roof over their family’s head while they had their day in court after being wrongfully discharged.

Then the case of a single mother of three who was going back to college to make a better life for her children and had to move out of their home because of a toxic mold infestation. She used consumer legal funding to pay for a mobile home so she and her three children could live in a safe, toxic-free, environment while the situation was fixed.

There is the case when a 16-year-old was made a quadriplegic due to medical negligence. The family had to modify their home to make accommodations to care for their loved one. Consumer legal funding was the only way they were able to take care of their teenager while the case made its way through the long legal system.

Another was a woman was involved in a car accident and her teeth were shattered because of the accident. She used consumer legal funding to get a new set of teeth. She said, “it gave me my smile back”.

Finally, there have been times where consumer legal funding was used to help pay for funeral expenses of a loved one that was tragically killed in an accident. Sadly, some families had no other means of taking their loved one to their final resting place if it had not been for consumer legal funding.

But what is happening are those groups and individuals that do not take the time, or want to take the time, to learn what consumer legal funding really is. They hear terms like, “corrupting the legal system”, “leads to filing frivolous litigation” and the latest is “foreign governments are leading to international sabotage of our courts”. Then charge ahead saying “the sky is falling; the sky is falling”.

  • How does giving money to a single mother so she can have her children live in a toxic free environment lead to “international sabotage”?
  • How does allowing a person who spent nearly 2 decades of their life living in 48 square foot space corrupting the legal system?
  • How does allowing a person to get their smile back lead to frivolous litigation?

Litigation Financing is just that “financing of the litigation”. It is used to pay for lawyers. It is used to pay for depositions. It is used to pay for expert witnesses. It is used to pay court costs. None of which consumer legal funding does.

In fact, in the legislation that we have promoted we specifically state the funds we provide to a consumer cannot be used for those purposes. Don’t be fooled by someone who is throwing out buzz words that make one think we are on the brink of judicial destruction by confusing Consumer Legal Funding with Litigation Financing.

They both may be fruit. But one is an apple and one is an orange.

Eric Schuller
President
Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding

Home

Consumer

View All
Announcements Consumer

Legal Bay Presettlement Funding Reports Updates to Zantac Lawsuits

By Harry Moran |

Legal-Bay LLC, a leading pre settlement funding company, reports that November's $2.2 billion ruling against GlaxoSmithKline has still not been distributed to 80,000+ Zantac plaintiffs. The UK-based pharmaceutical company has been the target of numerous lawsuits for the past five years with plaintiffs alleging the popular heartburn medication causes cancer, and that the company failed to warn users that its main ingredient—ranitidine—may be a human carcinogen.

Testing last month determined how such dangerous levels of ranitidine ended up in the antacid product. As it turns out, impurities in the NDMA found in ranitidine increase when exposed to higher temps and humid conditions. Meaning that the Zantac may have been manufactured correctly, but when it was stored in a damp bathroom or glove compartment of a car, users themselves may have unwittingly triggered the very agent that caused their cancer. 

Chris Janish, CEO of Legal Bay, says, "GSK felt it was in the company's best interest to settle the lawsuits in order to appease shareholders rather than draw out litigation endlessly, especially considering they have been able to do so while providing no admission of liability. While we don't have an exact timeline for when payouts are expected to begin, we are nonetheless offering funding for Zantac plaintiffs while they wait."

To apply for a cash advance lawsuit loan from your anticipated GSK Zantac lawsuit settlement, please visit the company's website HERE or call 877.571.0405.   

There is no way to estimate final settlement amounts or how much each plaintiff's case will be worth. Similar case values have been determined based on extent/amount of injuries along with the level of merit to the case. Each case is unique, and many factors go into deciding final damages. For the Zantac lawsuit payouts, plaintiffs will fall into one of three tiers:

  • Tier I:

Tier 1 injuries can expect payouts in the $300,000 range.  Injuries in this tier include cancers of the stomach, prostate, pancreas, or breast.

  • Tier II:

Tier 2 injuries can expect payouts between $80,000 and 160,000 in most cases.  Injuries in this tier include cancers of the major organs like bladder, kidney, or liver.

  • Tier III:

Tier 3 injuries are looking at payouts anywhere between $20,000 and $60,000.  Injuries in this tier vary greatly, but to a lesser extent than Tier I or II.

The verdicts in these lawsuits are wildly inconsistent and entirely unpredictable, and Legal Bay says there are no guarantees of award amounts nor time frames for payouts just based on the sheer number of claims to process. Nevertheless, Legal-Bay is one of the few legal funding companies who are providing some financial relief to Zantac lawsuit plaintiffs and their families with risk-free, non-recourse cash advance settlement loans. They have been a leader in the mass tort and Qui Tam arena for over fifteen years and have vast experience within this space. These litigations are complex, and Legal Bay has the knowledge and understanding to help plaintiffs navigate the complicated waters of the legal system.

If you're a plaintiff in an active GSK Zantac lawsuit and need an immediate cash advance from your anticipated settlement, please visit the company's website HERE or call 877.571.0405 where agents are standing by to hear about your specific case. 

Legal-Bay is one of the best lawsuit loan companies when it comes to mass tort and Qui Tam litigations, and has a great reputation within the industry. Legal-Bay assists plaintiffs in all types of class action and mass tort lawsuits, including: Round Up, Hernia Mesh, IVC Filters, Essure, Exactech hip and knee recall, Sex Abuse cases, JUUL, and more.

Legal-Bay assists plaintiffs in all other types of lawsuits including personal injury, dog bites, motor vehicle accidents, medical malpractice, police brutality, unlawful incarceration, workplace discrimination, wrongful termination, and more.

Legal-Bay's loan for settlement funding programs are designed to provide immediate cash in advance of a plaintiff's anticipated monetary award. While it's common to refer to these legal funding requests as settlement loans, loans for settlements, law suit loans, loans for lawsuits, etc., the "lawsuit loan" funds are, in fact, non-recourse. That means there's no risk when it comes to loans in lawsuit settlements because there is no obligation to repay the money if the recipient loses their case. Therefore, terms like settlement loan, loans for lawsuit, loans on settlement, or lawsuit loan funds don't necessarily apply, as the "loan on lawsuit" isn't really a loan at all, but rather a stress-free cash advance.

Legal-Bay is known to many as the best lawsuit funding provider in the industry for their helpful and knowledgeable staff, low rates, and quick turnaround, sometimes within 24-48 hours once all documents have been received.

To apply right now for a loan settlement program, please visit the company's website HERE or call toll-free at: 877.571.0405 where agents are standing by to answer any questions.

Announcements Consumer

Legal-Bay Lawsuit Funding Announces Commercial Litigation/Breach of Contract Lawsuit Filed Against Developer Hart Lyman Companies

By Harry Moran |

Legal-Bay, a leading presettlement lawsuit funding company, announces a commercial litigation / breach of contract lawsuit filed against Hart Lyman Companies. The prominent Syracuse-based real estate developer was sued late Tuesday in New York State Supreme Court, Onondaga County. FILED: ONONDAGA COUNTY CLERK 01/07/2025 05:48 PM INDEX NO. 000134/2025

The plaintiff, Jonathon Geller, a longtime investor with Hart Lyman Companies, is suing for delinquent payments on investments and inspection of books and records of eight separate entities, which he alleges the companies have not complied with. Hart Lyman Companies is currently working on the largest development in central New York history, the Great Northern Mall, whose purchase was predicated upon its close proximity to the future site of Micron Technologies. Micron has committed $100 billion toward developing multiple chip fabricating facilities in Clay, NY. The plaintiff is also an investor in the Great Northern Mall project.

The plaintiff is represented by the LAZARE POTTER GIACOVAS & MOYLE LLP law firm in New York City by Robert A. Giacovas, Esq.

Chris Janish, CEO of Legal-Bay, commented, "Our firm is familiar with breach of contract and other commercial litigation such as this, and we do our best to work with plaintiffs who are having financial difficulties litigating matters against larger defendants.  Cases of this nature can take a long time to work their way through the courts and recover funds, regardless of the nature of the claims.  Due to the importance of the Great Northern Mall project for residents of central New York, we will continue to monitor updates of this case."

If you're looking for pre-settlement cash from your commercial litigation lawsuit or need a cash advance from your anticipated settlement for any other type of lawsuit, please visit the company's website HERE or call 877.571.0405 where agents are standing by to hear about your specific case. 

Legal-Bay funds commercial litigation and breach of contract cases, as well as many other types of lawsuits such as wrongful imprisonment, whistleblower or Qui-Tam, wrongful termination, personal injury, slips and falls, car, boat, or construction accidents, medical malpractice, wrongful death, dog bites, police brutality, sexual assault, sexual abuse, judgment or verdict on appeal, contract dispute, False Claims Act, patent litigation, copyright infringement, and many more. Legal-Bay has recently secured additional capital for these and other types of cases, and encourages plaintiffs or attorneys that have been denied funding in the past to apply with Legal-Bay.

Legal-Bay's loan for settlement funding programs are designed to provide immediate cash in advance of a plaintiff's anticipated monetary award. While it's common to refer to these legal funding requests as settlement loans, loans for settlements, lawsuit loans, loans for lawsuits, etc., the "lawsuit loan" funds are, in fact, non-recourse. That means there's no risk when it comes to loans in lawsuit settlements because there is no obligation to repay the money if the recipient loses their case. Therefore, terms like settlement loan, loans for lawsuit, loans on settlement, or law suit loan funds don't necessarily apply, as the "loan on lawsuit" isn't really a loan at all, but rather a stress-free cash advance.

Legal-Bay is known to many as the best lawsuit funding provider in the industry for their helpful and knowledgeable staff, and one of the best lawsuit loan companies overall for their low rates and quick turnaround, sometimes within 24-48 hours once all documents have been received.To apply right now for a loan settlement program, please visit the company's website HERE or call toll-free at: 877.571.0405 where agents are standing by to answer any questions.

Consumer

Litigation Funding Found to be “Not Relevant” in E. Jean Carroll’s Sexual Abuse and Defamation Case Against Donald Trump

By John Freund |

The Second Circuit upheld the $5 million verdict in Carroll v. Trump, rejecting President Trump’s claims of trial court errors, including the handling of litigation funding evidence. Trump’s legal team argued that litigation funding for E. Jean Carroll’s lawsuit, provided by an anonymous nonprofit, was relevant to her credibility and potential bias. The court disagreed, emphasizing that such evidence had minimal probative value.

As reported in Reason.com, the court noted that Carroll’s case was primarily taken on a contingency fee basis, with supplemental funding obtained by her legal team in 2020. Carroll had little involvement with the funding arrangement, learning about it after the fact and having no subsequent discussions with her counsel about it for years. The appellate court agreed with the trial court’s finding that Carroll’s lack of engagement with the funding made it irrelevant to assessing her credibility.

Trump’s team had argued the funding demonstrated bias or a politically motivated agenda, but the court dismissed this, highlighting that Carroll publicly accused Trump of sexual assault long before the funding was secured. Additionally, Carroll and her key witnesses had openly acknowledged their political opposition to Trump, making the funder’s potential political affiliations redundant in establishing bias.

The court emphasized that litigation funding rarely impacts credibility and that introducing such evidence risks unfair prejudice and jury distraction. This decision reinforces the judiciary's cautious approach to litigation funding disclosure in trials.