Trending Now
Commercial Deals

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!

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.