$5 Million GM Defective Ignition Switch Settlement

General Motors has settled with the family of Brooke Melton, a 29 year old nurse from Georgia who died due to a defective ignition switch in her 2005 Cobalt. Her parents accepted an undisclosed amount from GM’s compensation fund, in addition to $5 million that GM paid the family to settle a prior lawsuit.

Melton’s death played a pivotal role in triggering widespread ignition switch recalls. In early 2014, after concluding that millions of older vehicles contained faulty switches, GM began launching recalls.

According to Lance Cooper, the family’s attorney:

“The Meltons’ work is done,” . . . the parents, Ken and Beth Melton, were “emotionally exhausted” and felt satisfied that GM acknowledged through a payout from its compensation fund that their daughter’s death was caused by the faulty ignition switch (source: wsj.com).

Several of the victims’ families have received payouts from the GM compensation fund. The fund’s administrator, Kenneth Feinberg, is known for his work with compensation funds setup for BP, 9/11, and the Boston marathon bombing.

While this specific case was resolved, there are several GM ignition switch related class action and state lawsuits slated to begin this upcoming May.

After a contentious hearing on Capitol Hill, the company set aside between $400 and $600 million to payout the claims. To date, GM has reportedly paid out 67 death claims filed against the fund.

To read the full article on The Wall Street Journal website, visit http://www.wsj.com/articles/family-of-gm-ignition-switch-victim-settles-for-more-than-5-million-1426529612.


Written by Lulaine Compere

Delaware Court Protects Litigation Funding Under Work Product Doctrine

small court of law
An international discovery dispute has led to the Delaware Court of Chancery to accept litigation funding as part of the litigation process. Despite the fact that none of the other issues in the dispute were resolved, Vice Chancellor Donald F. Parsons made the unprecedented decision to protect litigation funding.

It’s a happy ending for the litigation funding industry, but how did we get there?

The case had three main players, participating in two simultaneous lawsuits: the Carlyle Capital Corporation (CCC), of the Bailiwick of Guernsey; the Liquidators of the CCC (Liquidators), also of Guernsey; and Louis JKJ Reijtenbagh, of Delaware.

CCC had lost the majority of its capital in the financial crisis, and in March 2008 was placed into Liquidation. The Liquidators, responsible for wrapping up the affairs of CCC, determined that the only valuable assets that CCC had were any claims against the business. As such, in the first litigation – also referred to as the Guernsey litigation – the Liquidators are the plaintiffs, CCC the defendants.

On the other side of the sea, CCC are in a legal battle with Louis JKJ Reijtenbach (Defendants), former stakeholders of CCC. The Defendants allegedly violated certain releases held between CCC and himself by offering litigation financing to the Liquidators.

CCC claimed that, in order to pursue their case against the Defendants, they needed to see the litigation funding documents signed between the Liquidators and the Defendants. Here, the Liquidators intervened.

The Liquidators asserted that if they were to provide the requested documents as discovery materials, the Guernsey litigation would be impacted. They claimed that the information was privileged and was protected by attorney privilege (English law), or work product privilege (American law).

After determining that there was no precedent for this matter in English law, which mainly dominates in the Bailiwick of Guernsey, VC Pastor was set to answer the following question: are litigation funding documents protected by work product privilege?

Work product privilege is determined by applying the problem at hand to one of following questions:

  1. Was the product created because of litigation?
  2. Was the product created explicitly for litigation?

Delaware courts prefer to use the broader method of determining work product privilege, or the “because of” method. This method allows that a document may have been created for more than a single purpose – for example, in the case of the litigation funding documents in question, a document may serve both a business purpose and a litigation purpose.

As Pastor expressed in his opinion,

“In the litigation funding context, this analysis becomes blurry because the litigation itself arguably is part of the business. Potentially every document a third-party litigation funding company creates is created “because of litigation” in that the company is in the business of funding litigation.”

With this in mind, Pastor recognized that litigation funding is both a business transaction and a litigation transaction. In order to demonstrate to a litigation funder that a case is worth financing, the litigator must discuss certain aspects of the case with the funder.

“The negotiations between those two parties almost certainly would involve the ‘lawyers mental impressions, theories, and strategies about’ the case, which ‘were only prepared because of’ the litigation.”

By this train of thought, Pastor determined that litigation funding documents are protected by work product privilege, because they were prepared in preparation for or in anticipation of litigation, and that they also most likely contained discussions of the merits of the Guernsey case.

While this is good for the Liquidators, who do not have to jeopardize their ongoing litigation for the purpose of a different case, it’s even better news for the litigation finance industry.

Legal funding is not a loan or a hand out — it’s a financial transaction specifically tailored to the needs of attorneys, crafted by the legal funding firm after careful examination of an attorney’s case history and current case files. Every funding agreement is unique to its case and its attorney.

By applying work product protection to litigation funding, VC Pastor has acknowledged that litigation finance is a very real part of the litigation process for many attorneys. As Pastor himself noted,

“In those instances where a claim cannot proceed without third-party financing, one element of preparing a client’s case for trial will be securing the requisite funding, which probably will require discussions of a case’s merits in an effort to convince the third party to supply the needed funds. No persuasive reason has been advanced in this case why litigations should lose work product protection simply because they lack the financial means to press their claims on their own dime.”

I couldn’t have said it better.

Photo Credit: Image by Tracie Hall


Joseph Genovesi is President of RD Legal Funding, LLC, a leading provider of post-settlement attorney advances. You can connect with him on LinkedIn, Twitter, and Google+.

The Ups and Downs of Self Financing Your Law Practice

finance magnets
Out of the many forms of traditional financing out there, self-financing sounds like the most ideal. It’s just you, yourself, and your money, independently making your law practice run like a dream.

If you were to self-finance your law practice, you’d be using your own capital. This means that you might have to convert some of your assets into a liquid form. For example, if you were the owner of a collection of antique porcelain dolls, you may want to sell them at a high price, and combine that high value with money from your savings accounts in order to finance your practice.

Unlike all of the other financing options, this type of investment only requires the input of a single individual (or multiple individuals, if multiple partners contribute their own capital to finance the law practice). It doesn’t get the bank involved, it doesn’t require any interest payment, and there’s no reason to deal with investors. And, of course, you will never have to pay late fees!

However, as with all types of financing, there are a few disadvantages.

The first – and potentially largest – downside is the lost opportunity cost. Because you’ve invested all of your personal capital in one project, it’s literally impossible for you to put it anywhere else.

This also means that you can’t invest it in securities and potentially gain interest — in fact, the capital you invested in your firm may actually lose value due to inflation.

Of course, just because all of your capital is in a single place does not mean all of your capital is in a bad place. You very well may see a high return on your capital; this all depends on how you invest it. The same principle would apply if you were investing your own money or if you were investing a loan.

Investing your own capital in your law practice has its risks and it has its rewards. Certainly, this practice is not for everyone; and as with all types of funding for law firms, self-financing can be used in addition to other forms of law firm funding.

To learn more about financing options for your law practice, take a look at Legal Funding 101, our definitive guide to law firm funding practices for attorneys.

Photo Credit: Image by Rental Realities


Shayna Keyles has been keeping the world informed on the latest legal finance with RD Legal Funding, LLC since 2012. She offers writing and content marketing tips at her website, www.contentliaison.com, and tweets at twitter.com/skliaison.

3 Myths About Legal Funding

lady justice holding scales of justice
If you were to stop a random pedestrian and ask them about legal funding, you likely wouldn’t find out much relevant information.

This is because legal funding is such a new industry, and many people are unsure of what it actually is, or have a somewhat distorted idea.

Listed below are the three most common myths about legal funding, and rebuttals to each of the myths.

Next time you’re stopped on the street and asked about legal funding (I’m sure it happens to you all the time!), you’ll be able to give an accurate and informed answer!

Myth #1: Legal funding exploits plaintiffs

This is perhaps the biggest myth about legal funding, and it’s absolutely the most inaccurate statement.

Legal funding does not exploit plaintiffs. It empowers them.

Many plaintiffs who enter litigation have taken a very calculated risk. They know that litigation is expensive, and they know that lawsuits can take a long time to reach completion. Nonetheless, plaintiffs are willing to put time on the line to fight for their rights.

During this time period, plaintiffs may accumulate fees and debts related to their litigation. For example, a personal injury plaintiff may see a mounting pile of hospital bills; a medical malpractice plaintiff may receive endless phone calls from insurance companies. On top of these associated costs, plaintiffs are still acutely aware of their daily expenses and future legal fees.

Legal funding allows these plaintiffs immediate relief in the form of a cash advance.

With this money, a portion of the future expected settlement (the industry terminology for this specific type of legal finance is pre-settlement funding), plaintiffs can live a less stressful life. Moreover, they will not be burdened by the pressure of loan repayment.

This last point brings us to our next myth…

Myth #2: Legal funding is a loan

Legal funding may possess some loan-like features, but that does not make it a loan.

For example, through legal funding, plaintiffs and attorneys can access large sums of capital that can be used immediately to better their daily lives. A loan can provide a similar benefit.
However, much unlike a loan, the money that legal funding companies grant to plaintiffs and attorneys comes directly from future fee or settlement proceeds.

To put things more simply:

An attorney who receives legal funding will receive a cash advance on a portion of their future fee.

A plaintiff who receives legal funding will receive a cash advance on a portion of their future award.

Plaintiffs and attorneys who receive legal funding are receiving cash advances on their own future earnings.

In other words, a portion of the settlement, or attorney’s fee, is purchased by the legal funding company and paid in advance to the recipient of legal funding.

Because legal funding companies accept a greater risk than traditional lenders do, their fees are generally higher compared to traditional lenders. Many legal funding companies offer non-recourse advances; meaning that if a settlement does not pay out for some unforeseen reason, the funding company will accept full responsibility and repayment is unnecessary.

So, as you can see, though there are some similarities between loans and legal funding, there are also a great many differences.

This leaves us with one last myth…

Myth #3: Legal funding is actually…kind of illegal

Many critics to legal funding believe that the industry promotes champerty and maintenance. These (literally) medieval legal concepts make it illegal for non-lawyer parties to be in the courtroom or otherwise influence litigation. By this principle, the argument goes, legal funding should be considered illegal.

Of course, if courtrooms were to fully obey the rules of champerty and maintenance, many other parties would be forbidden from influencing litigation.

For example, insurance companies often cover the costs of certain defense cases; this would no longer be permitted. Friends and family often chip in to help pay for counsel; this would also be forbidden. Only the wealthiest potential litigants would be able to use the legal system, which would completely go against this country’s principles.

 

To avoid illegal and unethical actions in the land of legal funding, many states have passed independent measures to regulate the industry. Moreover, many legal funding firms have united to create ALFA, the American Legal Funding Association. The goal of this organization is to set an industry standard, and guarantee fair and ethical practices across the board.

Now you know the truth about legal funding!

But there’s always more to learn.

Check out our white paper on legal funding to get the full scoop on the industry – different types of funding, when to use them, and how they might be right for you.

If you thought this post was helpful or have any other myths you want to talk about, leave a message in the comments below!

Photo Credit: Themis by Rae Allen


Shayna Keyles has been keeping the world informed on the latest in legal finance with RD Legal Funding, LLC since 2012. She offers writing and content marketing tips at her website, www.contentliaison.com, and tweets at twitter.com/skliaison.

How Legal Funding Can Save You Time and Make You Money

lady justice
A contingency fee attorney does not lead an easy life. This is a fact.

Unlike their billable hour counterparts, contingency fee attorneys don’t start off with plenty of cash, and there’s no guarantee they’ll end up with it either. That’s the whole basis of the term “contingency” – this noble, self-sacrificing purveyor of justice forgoes any form of payment unless the case in question ends favorably for the client.

Of course, a favorable trial outcome does not ensure payment. As with all institutions, the court system is rife with built-in bureaucratic processes, many of which result in procedural delays and stoppages. These stoppages can have profound effects on settlement and verdict payouts, causing delays of a few months to a few years.

Let’s not forget the enumerable hours of discovery and preparation that occur before verdict or settlement can even be considered; the witnesses and experts that all must be consulted; travel and lodging and all other assorted tasks associated with setting up a successful case. All of these things must be budgeted and paid for by none other than the attorney or her small firm.

And let’s keep in mind that an attorney without proper funds has to waste time trying to acquire a stable cash flow, when that time could be spent preparing for the next big case.

You might say it’s a lifestyle of “all work, no pay.”

You might, but the truth is, plenty of contingency fee attorneys are doing just fine. They have lucrative practices in which they represent – and win for – countless clients each year, and they do so without taking a break and without breaking the bank.

What keeps these successful attorneys afloat?

The Secret of The Super-Attorney

All successful attorneys recognize one simple fact: in order to make money, you need to have money. This one sounds like a no-brainer, right?

Consider the example we looked at earlier:

  • Contingency fee attorneys need to invest in discovery tools, travel expenses, and day-to-day finances in order to try a single case.
  • Those expenses can add up to the thousands or ten thousands.
  • This case may not see a full return on investment.

Now imagine how many cases a contingency fee firm might try within a month, or a year, or a decade. The dollars add up.

So we know that running a successful legal practice requires money. But where does this money come from? Well, that depends on where you look.

The easiest solution is relatively rare for your average attorney: this would be a large, personal cash reserve. If a single case doesn’t pan out, not all hope is lost, because the bank is still relatively full, and hopefully the next case will bring in the bucks. Sounds good!

Of course, not all attorneys necessarily hit it big on Wall Street or in Vegas (or otherwise experience some remarkable bank-filling event) prior to opening a law practice.

What about the super-attorneys with average bank accounts? How do they maintain a steady cash flow?

One option here would be pursuing some sort of traditional funding, such as a loan or a line of credit. Both of these options, the former of which is granted in a single lump sum and the latter of which can be paid out in installments over a prescribed amount of time, are available through banks and lending institutions. Interest can vary depending on the loan amount and the agreed upon repayment schedule, as to be expected in any lending agreement. There’s nothing not to like about this arrangement.

Except for the fact that it is incredibly difficult for an attorney to be approved for a traditional loan or a line of credit.

Credit lines and personal loans typically require some form of collateral in order to be considered secure, which can pose a problem for many attorneys. Collateral, as accepted by most banks and lending institutions, is a physical piece of property – a car, a house, a 4,000-year-old diamond from Peru.

Contingency fee attorneys, many of whom are already strapped for cash, often do not own forms of collateral that would be accepted by a bank. For example, while an office could be used as collateral, many contingency fee attorneys share or rent office space, which would disqualify that office as collateral.

Without collateral, it’s nearly impossible to secure a loan.

Fortunately, there’s more to life than loans.

A Case Full Of Cash

Attorneys may not have the physical collateral needed for loans or lines of credit, but they do have a unique form of collateral that can grant them access to a super-unique, super-effective form of financing – legal funding – that was specifically designed for attorneys.

Unlike most other business owners, attorneys have the ability to use their legal receivables, all of which have potential future value, as non-physical collateral. This means that a single specific case, an entire caseload, or the value of an entire law firm can be considered collateral.

For example: a bicycle accident case might have an expected payout of $1.3 million in damages; a medical malpractice class action might have an expected payout of $400 million; a slip and fall might have an expected payout of $580,000. The expected value of each case, or an entire grouping of cases, is viewed as collateral.

Because an attorney’s collateral, in the form of legal receivables, can exist in a variety of forms, legal funding has also been developed to exist in a variety of forms.

For example, a lawsuit can have five or more identities.

  • Early, research-and-discovery form;
  • During prosecution;
  • After a settlement agreement has been reached;
  • During an appeals process;
  • After a judgment has been reached.

Each of these different iterations of a case can be financed with a different type of legal funding, none of which require physical collateral.

The fact that legal funding firms accept legal receivables as collateral sets them apart from traditional lenders. That’s a pretty big deal for attorneys, who often struggle to meet the harsh standards of banks and lending institutions.

Many Legal Funding Transactions are Advances, Not Loans

To put it in the most basic terms, legal funding is simply the factoring of legal receivables. Legal finance firms take the collateral into account – the legal receivables – and purchase an amount of the projected case outcome, which for the attorney typically means the projected case fee. The legal funding firm can then advance this purchased amount to the attorney in question.

Repayment rates vary based on whether the funding is pre-settlement, post-settlement, appeals, or judgment / verdict.

To clarify the concept, legal funding firms make an investment in legal cases. They do this by purchasing a portion of projected earnings of the firm or case, and advance this portion – now owned by the legal funding firm – back to the attorney or law firm. Successful cases result in a monetary gain for both the attorney and the legal funding firm. Often, legal funding firms do not demand repayment in the event of an unsuccessful case.

So let’s say you’ve just settled a case for $6 million but don’t expect to see your fees for another year due to processing delays. You figure you might as well try out this legal funding thing and see what happens.

  • Using a type of post-settlement funding called fee acceleration, you receive a portion of your fee up-front.
  • You have the capital to invest in a new case that just came across your desk (without the advance, you’d have had to pass it up).
  • You have no worries about everyday life. Your advance allows you to continue paying your bills, your mortgage, and your office fees.
  • As expected, your fee is paid about a year later. Because you only sold a portion of your fee to the legal funding firm, the rest of the fee is all yours, except for the amount you use to pay off the discount rate of the advance.

As a refresher, traditional lenders dish out a lump sum or series of payments over a period of time and then ask for repayment with interest at a later date. These lenders require physical collateral, which makes a successful loan application difficult for many contingency fee attorneys.

That’s Why Funding Is Fundamental!

Now you know the real secret to the super-attorney’s success. A constant cash flow means that there’s plenty of time to get everything done, and legal funding is a great way to ensure a constant cash flow.

Have a super legal funding success story to share? We love to hear those! Leave a note in the comments!

Photo Credit: Figures of Justice by Scott Robinson


Shayna Keyles has been keeping the world informed on the latest in law and litigation finance with RD Legal Funding, LLC since 2012. She offers writing and content marketing tips at her website, http://www.contentliaison.com, and tweets at http://twitter.com/skliaison.

WECLAIM: Mass Litigation at Hand

weclaim

In 2014, the French mass litigation landscape changed radically with the “Hamon Law,” which was passed by the French Parliament on March 17th, 2014. Prior to that, the European Commission published a non-binding recommendation (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-531_en.htm) on June 11th, 2013, indicating that all EU Member States should, within two years, adopt mechanisms for “collective redress” which allow multiple claimants to seek damages or injunctive relief on a collective basis or through a representative claimant.

The bill granted 16 government-approved consumer associations with the monopoly to introduce legal action on behalf of an unlimited number of consumers.

Unfortunately, this bill hasn’t established an efficient system for the following reasons:

  • A narrow scope (issues related to health and the environment are excluded)
  • Unlike class actions in the US which provide for an “opt-out” procedure, class actions in France are based only on an “opt-in” system
  • The government-approved consumer associations have limited human, financial, and technology resources
  • A complex four step procedure

The Lift of the Client Solicitation Ban for Attorneys: An Opportunity

Ironically, article 13 of the Hammon Law also transposed a specific provision from another EU Directive (the Services Directive or Directive Bolkenstein), published on December 12th, 2006, which provides that lawyers should be allowed to advertise. The lift of the solicitation ban was an opportunity that we decided to seize, in order to transform the inefficient opt-in regime to an efficient one.

Weclaim was born on the idea that despite the lack of a proper opt-out regime, we could still build a market alternative to run class actions effectively. We created a web platform that combines technology, straightforward and intuitive business services, cloud solutions, litigation financing, automated claim procedures, and the latest in IT services that enables victims to join a lawsuit launched by attorneys.

Litigation Funding is Key to Success

Why is litigation finance key to the success of Weclaim? Since French attorneys (and most Europeans) are prohibited from running a case on a contingency basis, legal fees would have been a strong deterrent to claimants.

How Does it Work?

Any lawyers across Europe or the world can now submit a class action proposal by visiting https://www.weclaim.com. We run due diligence of the proposed class action and fund it if the case is viable (strong legal merits and defendant creditworthiness). Once a claim is launched and funded, claimants have the opportunity to join online.

Weclaim’s Remuneration

Weclaim is working on a no win, no fee basis. If the claimant does not get paid, we don’t get paid either. Assuming a favorable outcome, we take a percentage of the damages awarded. We have the ambition to make justice as swift and efficient as possible across the globe.


The above is a guest post courtesy of Frédéric Pelouze, founder of Weclaim. Mr. Pelouze also co-founded Alter Litigation, the first French legal funding company.

Two Truths and a Lie, Legal Funding Edition

the law sign
For today’s blog post, I want to try something a little bit different. We’re going to play a game.

You might be familiar with this one – it’s called “Two Truths and a Lie”, commonly played as an ice-breaker event. You can think of this as your ice-breaker introduction to legal funding, if you’re still pretty unfamiliar with the concept.

Legal funding is such a new industry that it can be difficult to separate fact from fiction. Not only is the industry shy of celebrating it’s 20th birthday in the United States, but it’s already developed multiple sub-industries. Figuring out the the precise nature of legal funding as a whole – not to mention the details of each sub-category of legal finance – can be quite a tedious task.

It shouldn’t be too hard, so go on, give it a try! Which ones are true, and which one is false?

Legal Funding Isn’t For Everyone

“Legal Funding,” “Litigation Financing,” and “Lawsuit Loans” Are The Same

Traditional Loans Are More Intensive Than Legal Funding

Here’s a little humorous intermission to give you time to think it over, before I let you see the answers.

Alright. That should have been plenty of time. Are you ready to test your answers against mine?

Here goes.

Legal Funding Isn’t For Everyone. TRUE!

As much as I wish this one were false, it isn’t.

Legal funding is NOT for everyone.

If you’re a plaintiff who is seeking an attorney to try a case, legal funding likely isn’t for you. A legal finance firm will not fund a case before it has been accepted by an attorney or by the courts.

If you’re a defense attorney coming from a well-funded defense firm, legal funding is not for you. You already have the funds to litigate your case successfully, and have no need for extra assistance. You’d be wasting both your time and the time of the funding company if you applied for financing.

If you’re a plaintiff’s attorney seeking fee acceleration on a settlement that will pay out within a few days time, you likely won’t receive legal funding. You would be setting yourself for unnecessary repayments and paperwork if you applied for legal funding in this situation.

While there are a few other instances where you won’t qualify for legal funding, there are plenty of other cases where you will. From pre-settlement and post-settlement funding, to appeals and judgment funding, there are legal funding options for almost every situation.

“Legal Funding,” “Litigation Financing”, and “Lawsuit Loans” Are All The Same. FALSE!

Legal Funding and Litigation Financing can be used interchangeably, but Lawsuit Loans are a completely different thing.

The key word here is “loans”.

Legal funding, also known as litigation finance, is a process by which a legal funding firm purchases legal receivables from a plaintiff or an attorney. Such receivables include an attorney fee attached to a settlement (post-settlement funding) or anticipated proceeds from ongoing litigation (pre-settlement funding) — and then advances that purchase amount to the client. Then, at a later date, the client will repay this advance, along with a pre-determined amount of discount, from proceeds of the settlement or judgement.

In some cases, legal funding is non-recourse. This can occur when a settlement or fee does not get paid for unforeseen, non-preventable reasons. When this happens, the client does not return the advance to the funding company.

This is NOT how a loan works.

Loans are given out regardless of whether or not a future sum in the form of a settlement, a fee, or otherwise will be paid to the client. At an agreed upon future date, the client is expected to repay the loan along with a predetermined amount of interest. The cost to the client is the entire loan amount, along with the interest amount. The loan is considered a cost, because there is no guarantee that the client will have future earnings equal to or greater than the loan amount.

So the next time you hear someone saying that “legal funding” is the same thing as a “lawsuit loan”, you can put them in their place.

Traditional Loans Are More Intensive Than Legal Funding. TRUE!

While traditional loans may be less expensive than legal funding, they’re also more intensive for attorneys.

It’s true, for example, that a personal loan might have an interest rate between 6-8%. And it’s true that legal funding firms generally have higher rates, which vary depending on the type of funding being offered.

However, higher premiums aside, legal funding firms make life much easier for attorneys who often don’t qualify for traditional funding like bank lines of credit and personal loans. That’s because loan companies often want something that most plaintiff’s attorneys don’t have: physical collateral. The majority of the time, plaintiffs’ attorneys who apply for loans will be rejected because of insufficient collateral.

Contingency fee attorneys more often than not rent their office space and other accommodations that they need to run a successful practice, leaving them without physical collateral. Their most valuable assets are not physical objects, but thoughts and documents: their case portfolio and their law practice. Banks don’t accept these as collateral.

Legal funding firms, on the other hand, do.

Legal funding companies were developed specifically to take legal assets as collateral to help attorneys struggling with cash flow issues get back on their feet and reinvest in their own practices. The industry expanded to helping the clients of these attorneys, as well, and today offers multiple types of customized funding options to contingency fee attorneys and plaintiffs.

Did you win the game? Were you able to guess which facts were indeed facts, and which was a fib? Do you have any other funding fictions that you’d like to see turned upside down? Do you know any other fun legal cartoons I can read?

Let me know by leaving a comment!

Photo Credit: image by smlp.co.uk


Shayna Keyles has been keeping the world informed on the latest in law and litigation financing with RD Legal Funding, LLC since 2012. She offers writing and content marketing tips at her website, www.contentliaison.com, and tweets at @SKLiaison.

RD Legal Funding Makes Donation to Essex County Legal Aid Association

RD Legal Funding LogoThe below press release was distributed via PR Newswire on February 11th, 2015.

Cresskill, NJ – RD Legal Funding, LLC (“RD Legal”) recently made a donation to the Essex County Legal Aid Association, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that provides free emergency legal services about civil matters to those who can’t afford it in the county.

Founded in 1906, the Essex County Legal Aid Association (“ECLAA”) last year helped 1,217 indigent clients from Newark, East Orange, Irvington and other county communities. Senior ECLAA attorney Ingrid Enriquez noted, “The majority of our clients seek and get our one-on-one help with landlord-tenant matters. We also help indigent people with consumer, family, individual rights, employment and income maintenance crises.”

ECLAA’s focus is providing immediate help with civil law emergencies. Ms. Enriquez noted, “If an ECLAA client needs representation after we handle the crisis, we will refer the client to relevant organizations.”

“Part of our mission at RD Legal Funding is supporting plaintiffs and attorneys, and ensuring that all parties can have fair access to justice,” said RD Legal President Joseph Genovesi. “Contributing to ECLAA, an organization that provides legal services to those in need, was a logical step.”

ECLAA business administrator Robert Adler said, “ECLAA is funded solely by donations and grants. This first-time support from RD Legal Funding helps us to assure that our staff attorneys can provide face-to-face legal advice to income-eligible clients. ECLAA is a small and effective nonprofit organization that has earned the Gold-Level Exchange Seal from Guidestar (www.guidestar.org) for being ‘transparent and proactive in providing information and documents to help donors and funders make their giving decisions.'”

ECLAA’s office in the Hall of Records building (Room 118, 465 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard in Newark) is open from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday. To learn more about ECLAA, visit their website (www.eclaanj.org).

RD Legal is committed to ensuring justice is available to all parties. Founded in 1998 by former litigator Roni Dersovitz, RD Legal offers cash flow solutions to plaintiffs’ attorneys and their clients with its unique post-settlement financing options.

To learn more about RD Legal and its unique post-settlement funding solutions, contact Joseph Genovesi at 201-568-9007, ext. 140 or visit http://www.legalfunding.com.

A Comment to Critics of the Legal Lending Industry

financing spelled with Scrabble letters
The website LawsuitLendingTruth.com is part of the tort reform network that has taken aim at the legal funding industry. The legal finance space is one that threatens the backers of the tort reform movement, which are mostly corporations and big business advocates who stand to lose if plaintiffs can access funds to pursue or continue to pursue lawsuits against them.

The website discusses the range of interest rates some types of legal lending can carry as well as the industry’s lack of traditional oversight. However, they do not cite the extremely limited financial options many plaintiff recipients of legal funding have. Many are on their last leg financially and may face taking these funds or bankruptcy (this is in reference to plaintiff pre-settlement funding).

Also, the same tort reform backers and legal lending critics do not hold the corporations and other big businesses accountable. They often push plaintiffs to the brink by not paying them what they are entitled too or playing tough in court to prevent them from getting an adequate settlement for the injuries they have suffered. Legal funding can be an important resource when plaintiffs have no other financial options and they need money to pay for their living expenses.

Traditional lenders like banks and credit unions do not lend money against the anticipated proceeds of litigation. The defendants in most consumer lawsuits are usually big businesses that use the dire circumstances many plaintiffs find themselves in to their advantage. They will usually offer plaintiffs a low ball settlement, expecting them to take it. Pre-settlement lawsuit funding offers them the opportunity to keep fighting for a settlement they deserve.

In addition, the legal lending industry is huge and there are quite a few different types of funding. Pre-settlement financing, which is referenced above, is the most common type of consumer legal funding. Post-settlement advances are an option when a settlement is reached but there is a delay in payout of the legal fee or award.

The cost of funding generally varies based on the amount of risk the funding company must incur. Most pre-settlement advances are non-recourse transactions, meaning that the plaintiff is not obligated to pay back the funding company if the litigation results in an unfavorable outcome. So compared to post-settlement funding, where there is a settlement agreement in place, pre-settlement funding is much riskier from the funding company’s point of view, and therefore pre-settlement rates are significantly higher.

Photo Credit: Lending Memo


 

Written by Lulaine Compere

Pfizer Agrees to $400 Million Settlement to Prevent Shareholder Class Action

blue brain
Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer recently agreed to pay $400 million to settle claims that it illegally marketed drugs for off-label usages. Investors claim that because Pfizer offered misleading information, stock prices were inflated and a large investor class was led to act against its best interests.

In 2010, shareholders filed suit against Pfizer marketing some of its drugs for their off-label uses. These drugs included Bextra, a painkiller that was later pulled from the market, and Lyrica, which is used to treat epilepsy.

It should be noted that while doctors are permitted to tell patients about off-label drug uses and even prescribe drugs for their off-label uses, it is illegal for pharmaceutical companies to market any off-label benefits.

In addition to the illegal marketing practices, Pfizer was accused of misleading investors about whether or not any illegal activities had been performed. The company allegedly misled investors about its own practices, and about ongoing government investigations into those illegal practices.

Pfizer offered a $2.3 billion settlement for the 2010 lawsuit. This settlement was disclosed to investors at the same time that news was breaking about Pfizer’s purchase of Wyeth; investors allege that the disclosure was overshadowed and was not given proper attention, thus misleading the investors and resulting in poor investors.

Pfizer spokeswoman Christine Regan Lindenbloom maintained that Pfizer admitted no fault in this lawsuit.

“Pfizer continues to believe that the company’s disclosures at issue in this matter were appropriate and prepared in good faith,” and the company offers this settlement in order to “avoid the distraction of continued litigation and focus on the needs of patients and physicians.”

Since the 2010 lawsuit, the FDA has been looking into developing guidelines on how pharmaceutical companies should deal with unsolicited requests from doctors to market drugs off-label.

Photo Credit: digitalbob8



Shayna Keyles has been keeping the world informed on the latest in law and litigation financing with RD Legal Funding, LLC since 2012. She offers writing and content marketing tips at her website,
www.contentliaison.com, and tweets at twitter.com/skliaison.