New Zealand Weather Tightness Case Settles for NZ $1.25 Million

This week, James Hardie Industries announced a settlement in a weather tightness class action heard in Auckland High Court—in the middle of a trial expected to last 17 weeks. James Hardie, a global producer of fiber cement and fiber gypsum, will receive NZ $1.25 million as part of the settlement.

Yahoo! Finance details that Harbour Litigation Funding will pay James Hardie’s award, and neither party will make an admission of liability. This represents a final settlement for the ‘White litigation’ regarding Harditex cladding. However, two more claims remain—the Cridge litigation and the Waitakere litigation.

Country Manager John Arneil stated that the outcome of the White litigation supports the stance that the allegations were lacking in merit.

A ruling in the Cridge litigation is expected sometime this month. An Auckland High Court is not expected to hear the Waitakere litigation until the summer of 2023.

Case Developments

View All

Taking a Look at Recent Mass Torts Settlements

By John Freund |

In a panel titled “Getting Paid: A Breakdown of Recent Settlements”, Max Doyle, Chief Strategy Officer at Consumer Attorney Marketing Group moderated a panel between Sam Dolce, Vice President at Milestone, Jennifer Hoekstra, Partner at Aylstock, Witkin, Kries & Overholtz, Michael London, Founding Partner, at Douglas & London, and Eamon Walsh, President of North America at Advoc8se.

Jennifer Hoekstra began the conversation by offering a broad overview of the mass torts space, the types of cases that make their way through the sector, and the various case durations spanning the rare rapid recovery on one end of the spectrum, and the decade-long battle royal on the other end.

Michael London commented on the 3M claim, where they faced a massive 10-figure judgement and just days later declared bankruptcy. He then mused about tobacco cases, how "if you want to make it onto the front page of the New York Times, you try tobacco cases. If you never want to get paid, you try tobacco cases."

London then recounted war stories around lifestyle products, including several pharmaceutical companies which settled claims there their drugs contained symptoms that were not listed on the label, mesh cases, firefighting foam cases, 3M cases, etc. "There's always going to be something. Wait, keep your powder dry, and don't chase the marketer. Just use the smell test and common sense test of what makes sense."

Sam Dolce represents Milestone, a claims administrator, which helps people get paid. He spoke to administrative duration, which occurs on the backend of a litigation, and can be as much as months or even years before the payments actually go out. Milestone streamlines those processes so everyone gets paid much faster. Many top tier mass torts firms have not optimized their settlement duration procedures, so they are missing out on efficiencies once the case concludes.

Eamon Walsh points out that funders should have a robust checklist which scores everything from origination to settlement administration. That gives way to a secondary market where you can trade things more easily, and also makes you feel bulletproof in the sense that when you get to the negotiating table, you aren't suffering from the Achilles heel of incomplete information.

Sam Dolce added that firms that take the time to build the payment infrastructure can maximize efficiencies on the backend. Law firms should have workflows built into their business the way any other business would, and funders should look to fund such law firms. Every law firm is a business, after all.

Jennifer Hoekstra added that the individual you may be speaking with when interacting with a law firm might not know all the details of a case, but the firm knows all the details (someone else at the firm can answer those questions), so don't get put off if the individual you're speaking with doesn't have all of the answers off-hand.

Michael London spoke to the 3M verdicts which saw 8-figure verdict after 8-figure verdict, which 3M kept fighting and losing. In other cases, the defendant can't write a check quickly enough, so it depends on the defendant and how much pressure you can put on them, and whether they are eager to reach a resolution or not.

London also noted that the Bayer Monsanto claim is a $10 billion liability that keeps getting bigger. Yet London noted he believes there may be a pause in Bayer paying out its claims. "At some point you've got to let that golden goose take a break from laying its eggs, and let that company stay alive."

Finally, Sam Dolce recommended that investors in the space look to the firms who are already succeeding and investigate what is working for them. Don't make the mistake of looking at the aggregate payouts - some firms get very large checks while others do not. Understand what separates the most talented firms from those in the second and third tiers.

Jennifer Hoekstra echoed that sentiment. "I keep my ear to the ground on projects I don't work on. I look at everything across the board, even if we're not involved with it." Looking at cases that aren't moving forward towards a rapid settlement can give you an idea of what types of cases aren't working. If timelines and milestones aren't being met, then defendants won't feel pressured to reach settlements.

In other words, do your homework before embarking on investment within this very complex sector.

DOJ “Actively Considering” Filing a Statement of Interest in Burford Capital’s $16B Argentina Case

By Harry Moran |

In the world of litigation funding cases with geopolitical implications, there can be few more significant than the ongoing dispute between Burford Capital and Argentina over the enforcement and collection of the $16 billion YPF award.

An article in the Buenos Aires Times covers the news that the United States Department of Justice sent a letter to US District Judge Loretta Preska asking the Manhattan court to delay ruling on Burford Capital’s request for the court to order Argentina to turn over its 51% interest in YPF. The reason for this requested delay, is that the US government is “actively considering whether to file a Statement of Interest with respect to the pending motion for an injunction and turnover.”

In the letter sent by the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Damian Williams, the DOJ said that it “respectfully requests that the Court reserve decision on the pending motion for an injunction and turnover until the United States has had an opportunity to submit any such statement of interest.” The letter explained that it will be in a position to inform the court whether it does intend to file a Statement of Interest, and submit this statement, no later than November 6, 2024. 

Whilst this may seem like a prolonged period for the government to be considering whether to file the statement, the DOJ explained that its process for making a decision on this “involves coordination among interested government agencies and the approval of the U.S. Department of Justice through the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division.”

The full DOJ letter can be read here.

SEC Sues Father and Son over Fraudulent Mass Tort Funding Scheme

Whilst litigation finance is now a mature and established industry, this does not stop rogue actors from engaging in fraudulent schemes to try and reap personal benefit at the expense of unwitting investors.

Reporting by Bloomberg Law provides details on a lawsuit brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against a father and son in Florida who are accused of using a supposed litigation funding scheme to defraud investors out of $125,000. The lawsuit filed last Friday alleges that Michael Chhabra and Vineet “Vincent” Chhabra set up Tort Fund LLC in April 2019, claiming that the company would provide litigation finance to law firms, when in reality the pair used it as a personal fund for their own legal fees and miscellaneous expenses.

The SEC’s suit, which was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, claims that Tort Fund LLC’s owners had advertised the fund as a way for investors to support mass tort cases being brought against medical device and household product manufacturers, but did not enter into any funding agreements with law firms to do so. The $125,000 raised was then used to cover legal costs in Michael Chhabra’s own bankruptcy proceedings, paying for the pair’s personal expenses, with around $40,000 spent on maintaining the fraudulent scheme by paying individuals who solicited new investors. 

In its lawsuit, the SEC is asking the court to impose civil penalties and pay out the profits from the scheme, and to prohibit the pair from running any companies that have a class of securities registered in the future. The SEC’s filing can be read here.