Trending Now
Consumer Special Features

Put a Ring on it

The following is a contribution from Eric Schuller, President of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC). 

What is the best way to reduce the amount of companies offering Consumer Legal Funding?

Simple: Put a RATE on it!

In Beyonce’s “Single Ladies (Put a Ring on it),” the lyrics read: “If you like it then you shoulda put a ring on it.” The US Chamber and Insurance Industry are singing a similar tune when it comes to Consumer Legal Funding. However in their song, the lyrics read: “Put a RATE on it.”

They want to put a rate on Consumer Legal Funding because they want the product to disappear from the marketplace, plain and simple.

If you look at the recent passage of an 18% rate cap in West Virginia, which passed earlier this year, the bill has eliminated the Consumer Legal Funding industry from the state. According to the West Virginia Secretary of States website, there are ZERO Consumer Legal Funders registered to operate in the state.

This is a replication of what happened in Arkansas when the state passed a 17% rate cap in 2015. There has been ZERO business there since.

Now let’s compare this to Oklahoma which passed a strong regulatory bill in 2013 that did not include a rate cap. Today, there are 20 companies offering the product in the state. But here is a real interesting fact about Oklahoma: Of the 20 companies offering the Consumer Legal Funding, a full 25% are Oklahoma-based. Check out Oklahoma’s own website.

These are companies paying local taxes, hiring local employees, and growing the local economy. Isn’t that what the US Chamber of Commerce claims it tries to promote? Entrepreneurship, taking a risk and grabbing the American Dream. In fact, the motto of the US Chamber is “The Spirit of Enterprise.” CEO Tom J. Donohue talked about that very spirit in a speech back in 2017 at the AEI’s Summer Honors Program.

Maybe the US Chamber should piggyback off another Beyonce song, “Lemonade,” where she sings “You can taste the dishonesty, it’s all over your breath, as you pass it off so cavalier.”

So which is it? Is the US Chamber for growing the US and local economies or are they for limiting and reducing them?

Just want to know which song to queue up…

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.