The Minnesota Supreme Court took a significant step to ensuring equal access to justice with their decision in Maslowski vs. Prospect Funding Partners LLC. yesterday, overturning the trial court and Court of Appeals holding and ruling unanimously that Consumer Litigation Funding is not subject to usury law as there is no absolute requirement to repay. In their decision, reversing the trial court and Court of Appeals, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the repurchase rate in Prospect’s agreement was not subject to Minnesota’s usury statute. The American Legal Finance Association (ALFA) filed the only amicus curiae brief in this case on behalf of the interest of their members.
“The Minnesota Supreme Court’s ruling in Maslowski vs. Prospect Funding Partners LLC. again made clear Consumer Legal Funding is not subject to usury laws and recognized the fundamental differences between Consumer Legal Funding and a loan,” said Jack Kelly, ALFA Managing Director. “The decision closely follows ALFA’s primary presentation in its amicus curiae brief to the court on the matter and stands as a testament to the importance of Consumer Legal Funding, backing individuals in their pursuit of justice while promoting fairness and equity. We commend the Minnesota Supreme Court for recognizing the merits of ALFA’s argument. Empowering consumers through legal funding is core to ALFA’s mission. We will continue to advocate for fair regulations, ensuring access to justice without jeopardizing financial stability.”
In its decision, the Minnesota Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Minnesota trial and Court of Appeals and held that the repurchase rate in Prospect’s agreement was not subject to Minnesota’s usury statute. The Court based its decision on the fact that there was no absolute obligation of repayment in Prospect’s contract. This was ALFA’s primary argument in its amicus curiae brief and the Court’s opinion closely follows ALFA’s argument. Consumer Litigation Funding contracts do not have an absolute requirement of repayment and do not require repayment if the case does not result in a monetary award.
The key section of the opinion states, “In the current case, the trial court and Court of Appeals rejected Prospect’s argument that the obligation of repayment was not absolute, reasoning that Prospect’s underwriting process seeks to ensure that the parties they contract with will win their underlying case. But something being extremely likely to happen necessarily accepts the possibility, however small, that it may not happen. It simply cannot be said that Prospect’s ability to recover the money given to Maslowski is absolute.”
Brian Montgomery, David Oliwenstein, and Eugenie Dubin of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP represented the American Legal Finance Association in their amicus curiae brief.
About American Legal Finance Association (ALFA): ALFA represents the leading consumer legal funding companies across the country. The organization supports sensible regulation in the industry that protects consumers through increased transparency while ensuring access to consumer legal funding. Learn more at https://www.americanlegalfin.com/.
