Trending Now
  • Pravati Capital Establishes Coalition to Advance Responsible Litigation Funding Regulation Across U.S. Following Arizona Law’s Passage
Commercial Deals

LFJ Dealmakers Panel: Opportunities at the Intersection of Funding, Mass Torts & ABS

September 28, 2023

LFJ Dealmakers Panel: Opportunities at the Intersection of Funding, Mass Torts & ABS

The panel discussion consisted of Jacob Malherbe, CEO of X Social Media, Sara Papantonio, Partner at Levin Papantonio Rafferty, and Ryan Stephen, Managing Partner of Pine Valley Capital Partners. The panel was moderated by Steve Nober, CEO of Consumer Attorney Marketing Group (CAMG), The discussion spanned the following topics:
  • Who’s doing what in mass torts? How about funding?
  • How funders are evaluating and working with firms
  • Examples of the ABS framework in action & challenges
  • Pre- and post-settlement funding and time to disbursement
The conversation began around the integration of litigation funders into the mass torts sector. There are a lot of variables to consider around mass torts which typically don’t exist in other case types. These include marketing ethics, use of proceeds, claimant access and relationship building, where the call center is located, firm operations at an administrative level, etc. These are all aspects of a law firm that litigation funders need to understand if they are going to partner with a mass torts law firm. The degree of diligence is vast, and will require a years-long commitment. What’s more, there is now a focus on unethical marketing practices, with Congress taking a look at the tactics being used. The question for funders is, how can you protect yourself from unethical marketing efforts (funders might be named in a suit against the law firm). Funders need to mitigate these risks by asking more questions at the outset: What kind of advertising is being used, where are the clients coming from, how do I know that the clients are real (ad tracking)? Too many funders are pouring money into this lucrative space, and run the risk of encountering scammers who set up a business looking to raise money for a mass torts claim, when they have no ability to secure claimants or conduct the proper marketing outreach. What this comes down to at its core is relationships—understanding and knowing who you’re working with. Funders need to feel that the law firm they partner with us trustworthy, but of course should still conduct their own diligence to verify that all activities are on the up and up. On this last point, the panel recommends creating more nuanced tracking—not just ‘cost per case.’ Track advertising costs, medical records, other marketing materials. Really understand how money is moving at a granular level. The discussion then pivoted over to the Camp Lejeune case. Sara Papantonio feels that there will be one more opportunity to make a push for cases when payouts start happening. The question is, will there be enough time to advertise and file a claim before the statute of limitations runs out? Papantonio also noted that many clients won’t qualify for the elective option, and those that do probably won’t take it because of how undervalued it is. So likely, we will see more cases move into litigation. Values are starting to be presented for Tier 1 and Tier 2 injuries, which will help push this into litigation as well. She believes around May of 2024 will be an opportunity to advertise, but the statute of limitations runs out in August. Papantonio explained that Tier 1 injuries are far less risk for funders and litigators. Tier 2s and Tier 3s will have to move through a process, and some won’t be approved, so there is more risk there. Papantonio also believes the fees will be capped at 20-25%, which was the DOJs recommendation. So funders and law firms should plan for that. One final point Papantonio made, was that these mega mass torts are sucking up all the oxygen in the space, but there are plenty of smaller torts that are very meritorious and present opportunities for funders and law firms. The panel concurred, given that $1 billion has spent on Camp Lejeune already, so any new entrants into that claim are coming in late stage. Panelists Ryan Stephen and Jacob Malherbe added that torts such as Tylenol, Roundup part two, paraquat, PFAS claim (which the panel believes might become the biggest case ever), anti-terrorism cases, and others. Malherbe even recommended ‘The Devil We Know,’ a documentary on Netflix about the PFAS claim—so anyone interested can follow up with some binge watching!
Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

ISO Approves New Litigation Funding Disclosure Endorsement

By John Freund |

A new endorsement from the Insurance Services Office (ISO) introduces a disclosure requirement that could reshape how litigation funding is handled in insurance claims. The endorsement mandates that policyholders pursuing coverage must disclose any third-party litigation funding agreements related to the claim or suit. The condition applies broadly and includes the obligation to reveal details such as the identity of funders, the scope of their involvement, and any financial interest or control they may exert over the litigation process.

According to National Law Review, the move reflects growing concern among insurers about the influence and potential risks posed by undisclosed funding arrangements. Insurers argue that such agreements can materially affect the dynamics of a claim, especially if the funder holds veto rights over settlements or expects a large portion of any recovery.

The endorsement gives insurers a clearer path to scrutinize and potentially contest claims that are influenced by outside funding, thereby shifting how policyholders must prepare their claims and structure litigation financing.

More broadly, this endorsement may signal a new phase in the regulatory landscape for litigation finance—one in which transparency becomes not just a courtroom issue, but a contractual one as well.

Case Developments Commercial

Innsworth Penalized for Challenge to Mastercard Settlement

By John Freund |

A major ruling by the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has delivered a setback to litigation funder Innsworth Advisors, which unsuccessfully opposed the settlement in the landmark Mastercard consumer class action. Innsworth has been ordered to pay the additional legal costs incurred by class representative Walter Merricks, marking a clear message from the tribunal on the risks of funder-led challenges to settlements.

As reported in the Law Gazette, the underlying class action, one of the largest in UK legal history, involved claims that Mastercard’s interchange fees resulted in inflated prices passed on to nearly 46 million consumers. The case was brought under the collective proceedings regime, and a proposed £200 million settlement was ultimately agreed between the class representative and Mastercard. Innsworth, a funder involved in backing the litigation, challenged the terms of the settlement, arguing that it was disproportionately low given the scope and scale of the claim.

The CAT, however, rejected Innsworth’s arguments and sided with Merricks, concluding that the settlement was reasonable and had been reached through an appropriate process. Moreover, the tribunal found that Innsworth’s intervention had caused additional work and expense for the class representative team—justifying the imposition of cost penalties on the funder.

For the litigation funding sector, this ruling is a cautionary tale. It underscores the importance of funder alignment with claimants throughout the litigation and settlement process, particularly in collective actions where public interest and judicial scrutiny are high.

Case Developments Commercial

Court Dismisses RTA‑Client Case

By John Freund |

Law firm Harrison Bryce Solicitors Limited had attempted a counterclaim against its client following the dismissal of a negligence claim against the firm. First the counterclaim was dismissed, and now the appeal against the counterclaim's dismissal has also been dismissed.

According to the Law Society Gazette, Harrison Bryce argued that it had been misled by its client, Abdul Shamaj, who had claimed to have sustained injuries in a road traffic accident (RTA) and instructed the firm accordingly.

Shamaj retained Harrison Bryce on the basis of a purported RTA injury claim, and the firm later brought professional negligence proceedings against the client, alleging that the claim lacked credibility. Shamaj, in turn, mounted a counterclaim against the firm.

Both the negligence claim and the counterclaim were dismissed at first instance, and the Harrison Bryce's appeal of the dismissal of the counterclaim has now been refused.

The key legal takeaway, as highlighted by the judge, is that simply pleading that the client misled the firm is not sufficient to make out a viable counterclaim. The firm needed to advance clear and compelling evidence of the client’s misrepresentation, rather than relying on allegations of general misled conduct.