Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Ray DeLorenzi, Founder, RebuttalPR
  • The Productivity Metric Litigation Finance Is Missing: Case Progress
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!

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Commentary Argues Funding Disclosure Bills Would Weaken Small-Business Patent Enforcement

A new opinion piece defends third-party litigation funding as a precondition for small businesses and independent inventors being able to enforce their intellectual property rights, and argues that pending federal disclosure legislation would undercut them.

As reported by the Washington Examiner, the commentary is written by Kristen Osenga, chief policy counselor of the Inventors Defense Alliance and a professor of law at the University of Richmond School of Law. She frames funding as an access-to-justice question for the innovation economy rather than a question of litigation volume.

The piece points to two measures now before Congress: Representative Darrell Issa's Litigation Transparency Act and Senator Thom Tillis's Tackling Predatory Litigation Funding Act. Osenga argues that mandatory disclosure of funding arrangements would hand well-resourced defendants insight into a plaintiff's financial position and litigation strategy, giving them a means to outlast smaller opponents rather than resolve the merits.

Her economic case rests on the role small firms play in US innovation. Small businesses account for roughly 45% of US GDP, and smaller companies produce approximately 50% more patents per employee than large companies. Without outside capital, she contends, those inventors face infringement by parties who can afford to litigate indefinitely.

The commentary likens litigation funding to the contingency fee arrangement, a long-accepted mechanism for shifting cost risk away from claimants who cannot bear it. "The right to sue is only valuable if you can afford to exercise it," Osenga writes, casting the disclosure debate as one over who retains practical access to the courts.

Commercial

Pogust Goodhead Asks High Court to Rule Client Committee Cannot Remove It From Mariana Dam Case

Pogust Goodhead has escalated its dispute over control of the multi-billion-pound Mariana dam group action against BHP, taking the matter to the High Court rather than accepting the claimant committee's decision to change firms.

As reported by Legal Futures, the firm has applied for declarations that the committee had no contractual authority to terminate its retainer, no authority to direct a change in legal representation, and no authority to prevent it from instructing Quinn Emanuel for the damages phase of the claim.

The committee, made up of 17 members whose identities are confidential, decided in early September to move the claim to Bailey Glasser International, a joint venture between a firm run by former Pogust Goodhead staff and the US firm Bailey & Glasser. Pogust Goodhead had announced in June that it would instruct Quinn Emanuel on damages.

In a statement, the firm said that clients "are being encouraged to walk away from an established litigation structure on the representation that they can simply move to another firm with no material consequences."

The timing raises the stakes considerably. A damages trial listed for 22 weeks is only months away, and the underlying claim has been built on an extensively financed litigation structure whose economics depend on the identity of the firm carrying it to trial. The application asks the court to determine, in effect, who holds the contractual right to control the running of one of the largest group actions in the English courts, and on what terms a claimant committee can override the arrangements that funded it.

Commercial

Burford-Affiliated Investor Pursues $109M Claim Against Alberta Law Firm Over 2018 Funding Agreement

A Delaware investment vehicle closely affiliated with Burford Capital is pursuing a debt claim of roughly $109 million against Alberta lawyer Jeffrey Rath and his firm, Rath & Company, alleging default on a litigation funding agreement first entered into in 2018.

As reported by Global News, Diriba Investments LLC claims the firm defaulted two years ago on financing tied to First Nations and COVID-19 litigation, with the outstanding balance now standing at approximately $108.8 million plus interest and costs. Diriba acts as agent for co-funder Western Springs Investments LP, also a Delaware entity. A 2023 amendment expanded the agreement's scope to cover all claimant-side work at the firm, including First Nations treaty claims and litigation over COVID-19 restrictions.

The alleged breaches include failure to provide monthly reports, failure to keep the funders informed, failure to report or remit proceeds, non-disclosure of client terminations, and the granting of competing security to a separate Delaware entity, Vance SPV LLC. Diriba issued a default notice in November 2024 and, in late July 2026, served a formal demand alongside a notice of intention to enforce security under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act describing the firm as an "insolvent person."

The supporting affidavit was sworn by Paul Mysliwiec, Burford Capital's deputy general counsel, acting as Diriba's authorized representative. Burford did not respond to requests for comment, and Diriba's Calgary counsel declined to comment.

The claim runs alongside separate actions by the Tallcree and Sturgeon Lake First Nations alleging misappropriation of trust funds, a Mareva injunction freezing $8.5 million, and a court-appointed receiver. Diriba is seeking an expanded receivership mandate at a September 14 hearing in Calgary. The allegations have not been proven in court, and Rath denies wrongdoing.