Tag Archive for class action

John Hopkins Hospital Settles A Class Action Lawsuit for $190 Million

RD Legal Funding Logo

The world famous John Hopkins Hospital settled a class action lawsuit for $190 million from about 8,000 women and girls who claim they were violated by a gynecologist employed by the hospital. Dr. Nikita Levy, the doctor who conducted the examinations, committed suicide before he could be questioned by the authorities. According to news reports, there were over 1,000 videos taken and over 100 images taken of the women during their examinations. Gynecological exams are very intimate and knowing someone has violated that privacy can cause irreparable harm to the women affected. Many of the women claim they have since been traumatized because of the actions of the doctor.

The hospital will not have to pay the settlement because the hospital’s insurance policy will pay. Although 8,000 women and girls were part of the class action lawsuit, the Press-Herald reported Levy saw close to 13,000 patients. This is a huge blemish on the hospital’s record. Hospitals are prone to litigation because of the sensitive information they deal with and the medical procedures they conduct. Like any business, they are responsible for their employees actions. None more so than the doctors and nurses who work for them. Many tort reform advocates claim the litigation drives up the medical malpractice insurance which in turns drives the cost for doctors, surgeons, and hospitals. Incidents like the one at John Hopkins Hospital are why its important for people to push for litigation and assert their rights in court. While the price of justice is high, its important for any and all victims of any crime to seek compensation from those entities that are liable.

How Legal Funding Can Save Plaintiffs Attorneys Time and Make Them 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.

Are Attorneys In The NFL Case Taking Away From Plaintiffs?

nfl logo
The much publicized NFL settlement with its former players has recently been criticized by Roger Groves from the Florida Coastal School of Law not for its legal merits, but for the portion of the settlement that will be set aside to finance attorneys who worked on the case.

The NFL agreed to a $765 million settlement with former players who sued because they alleged they had not been adequately warned of the dangers of concussion, and as such, deserved compensation for past injuries and funds for future medical expenses related to past head trauma. Attorneys who worked this case are due to receive $254 million.

While this first NFL case has settled, there is another awaiting litigation. Groves’ opinion is written mainly on behalf of these new plaintiffs, who are “salt-of-the-earth players, not the multi-million dollar stars you’ve heard of.” They, too, are suing the NFL for much needed medical compensation.

Typically, in contingency fee cases, attorneys receive 33% of the settlement amount to reimburse any costs associated with the case and compensate individual work hours. Groves points out the significance of this amount, especially when one realizes that the initial settlement amount was increased to ensure plaintiffs would have enough funds to cover future costs.

The problem here is, according to Groves, that the attorneys’ fee is so large that it effectively reduces the amount of funding the plaintiffs would receive for future care. Plaintiffs in this case are patients with Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, various stages of dementia, and other issues related to head trauma. Future expenses can significantly add up.

Groves understands the costs associated with litigating a case, having himself been a part of the legal world for years. However, he proposes that, like the multitude of civil rights attorneys, immigration lawyers, and others who have been eliciting change and helping others for decades, the attorneys involved in the NFL suit sacrifice some of their fee to help the players.

Photo Credit: Maxim34374 via Compfight cc


Written by Shayna Keyles

Australian Attorney Seeks Litigation Funding Within a Legal Grey Area

koala bear in australiaMaurice Blackburn is an Australian plaintiff’s law firm that is currently leading an equine influenza class action against the Commonwealth Government. As with many class action cases, this one requires an extraordinary amount of capital to call in experts, cover discovery costs, and accommodate witnesses. As many class action attorneys are wont to do, Maurice Blackburn decided to turn to a litigation funding company to ask for assistance. There is only one issue: Maurice Blackburn seems to be very cozy with Claims Funding Australia Pty Limited (CFA), the litigation funding company from which he is seeking funding. The chairman of Maurice Blackburn is a Director of CFA; the CEO, head of employment, and head of industrial law practice at Maurice Blackburn are CFA shareholders; and, significantly, all of the principals at Maurice Blackburn are beneficiaries of the trust that was formed to create CFA.

The litigation funding industry has raised many ethical questions, among them the roles of champerty and barratry. While many areas with established legal funding firms have adopted legislation to accommodate for any potential legal or ethical complications, the nebulous nature of the field does occasionally create new challenges that pre-existing legal ordinances may not account for. This is one of those challenges, and it appears to be two-fold.

The first part of this challenge is of a legal nature. The Federal Court that is involved with this case questions whether or not Maurice Blackburn and CFA are breaching rule 10.1.2 of the Legal Profession Act of 2004, which reads:

“A practitioner must not, in any dealings with a client exercise any undue influence intended to dispose the client to benefit the practitioner in excess of the practitioner’s fair remuneration for the legal services provided to the client.”

Maurice Blackburn argues that the law firm is not being influenced in any manner by the CFA; however, this matter is now left to the discretion of the court.

The other issue at hand is whether or not the potential arrangement between CFA and Maurice Blackburn will create a conflict of interest. New regulations took effect July 12, 2013 regarding conflicts of interest in the legal funding industry, and it is now considered an offence not to avoid such conflicts. If the courts do allow CFA to fund Maurice Blackburn, CFA will have to ensure that it can maintain a professional separation from its contacts at the law firm.

The publicity that this case has garnered in Australia has gained Federal attention. The incoming Coalition government is being presented with a proposal to effectively limit the interactions between law firms and any litigation funding firm with which they are associated. The implications and breadth of this proposal are as yet unknown. However, the decisions made by both the Coalition government and the Federal Court will be sure to have a significant impact on the future of litigation funding in Australia, if not elsewhere.


Written by Shayna Keyles

Class Actions Come to France

Eiffel TowerAfter nearly 30 years of discussions, debates and lobbying and several attempts to pass legislation without success, the government of Mr. François Hollande finally decided to introduce a class action regime in the French legal system. The proposed bill was passed in the Parliament on July 3rd, and while the proposal is expected to generate much debate before the French Senate, it is clear at this point that the main contours appear to be set.

France’s move takes place concomitantly with the release by the European Commission of a non-binding recommendation indicating that within two years all EU Member States should adopt mechanisms for “collective redress” which allow multiple claimants to seek damages or injunctive relief on a collective basis or through a representative claimant. This first EU’s pan-European, cross-sector initiative is aimed at creating a common framework for collective claims for breaches of rights granted under EU law. The features of the collective redress mechanisms that the Commission wants the member states to adopt include notably the following: (i) opt-in, (ii) prohibition of punitive damages, (ii) standing limited to non-profit making entities, (iii) certification test, (iv) information on collective redress actions that balances freedom of expression with the right to protection of the good name of the defendant, (v) loser-pays principle and (vi) restriction of third-party litigation funding.

Today, most European countries have already granted their national consumers the right to act in a collective action. This is notably meant to apprehend the immense harm done to society by infringement of competition law, i.e. approximately 20 billion of illicit profits annually made by professional, according to EU statistics.

In France, the proposed bill has been thought to avoid the alleged US adverse effects and to comply with several principles of French law (including the constitutional principle of “nul ne plaide par procureur” and the attorney solicitation prohibition).

1. Opt-in / Opt-out

The majority of French scholars and politicians have long been opposed to the idea of an opt-out class action (purportedly because the constitutional principle of “nul ne plaide par procureur” would require that all parties to a lawsuit be identified whereas some exceptions already exist in the French legal landscape). In the same way that they want to keep lawyers away from the litigation process.

Accordingly, the bill is based on an opt-in mechanism and does not allow lawyers to collect plaintiff claims and initiate class actions proceedings on their behalf. Instead, the 16 government-approved consumer associations are granted an exclusive right to introduce legal action on behalf of a minimum of two consumers.

The current bill provides that the group would not be constituted until after the court has ruled on liability. The decision as to who is “in” and who is “out” is therefore ultimately left to the court, leaving the defendant in a rather unsecure position where he will not be able to identify the group of claimants from the outset. The question as to whether or not such bill would be in breach with some constitutional principle, and more generally the right to a fair trial is an open question.

2. How will a class action be introduced?

The proceedings would comprise two phases, the first being the court ruling on the defendant’s liability and the second being the indemnification of the losses suffered.

a. Phase 1 – Liability

The class action will have to be brought by an approved national consumer association representing at least 2 consumers. The consumer association will take action against the professional seeking a judgment finding the professional liable.

b. Phase 2 – Group definition & damages

Assuming the defendant is and only if he is found liable at the first stage, the court will (i) define the group of affected consumers for which the liability is incurred and (ii) the amount of damages to be awarded for each consumer or each type of consumer (or the criteria enabling such calculation).

The decision would be published, at the defendant’s expense, after the time period within which an appeal can be made has lapsed and the court will enjoin the professional to inform the consumers who will then be able to join (specifying the time limit and the conditions).

The decision will also set whether the consumers may obtain damages either directly from the defendant or through the leading consumer association.

The bill further provides that starting a group action shall suspend the limitation period for individual claims.

This second phase is aimed at ensuring that the recovery of the damages and effective payment will occur.

Among the critics related to the exclusivity conferred upon national approved consumer associations to start any group action, one of the most convincing may well be the inconsistency with the principle of free and equal access to justice under the European Convention on Human Rights.

3. Scope: daily life disputes only

The scope of the bill is rather narrow. In particular, albeit not expressly, it excludes issues related to health and the environment.

Although it is clear that investors are sometimes consumers (see article L121-20-8 of the French Consumer Code), it remains unclear whether broad investors’ claims would fall within the ambit of the bill.

Accordingly, if individual investors acquiring shares and receiving misleading information may well be covered, it remains to be seen whether securities litigation are eligible to the class action scheme.

4. Follow-on antitrust class actions: consumers only.

The bill strictly limits the scope of antitrust class action litigation related to violations of EU and French antitrust rules, to follow-on class actions, i.e. until after the EU Commission and/or the French national competition authority has actually found an antitrust violation. Additionally, Antitrust class action litigation may only be filed on the basis of a final infringement decision, i.e. that either (i) the time-limit for challenging the decision has expired or (ii) the decision has been unsuccessfully challenged and can no longer be subject to appeal.

The victims will therefore be able to rely on a final decision to seek compensation, but like in any other civil case, they will have to demonstrate a causal link between the antitrust violation and their injury and to quantify the harm suffered.

Surprisingly, businesses have been left out from the class action scheme. Accordingly, the various participants in the supply chain, e.g., retailers, intermediaries and undertakings, will therefore have to continue to bring their damage claims under the standard rules of civil procedure.

5. Damages: only for the injury actually suffered

The French government believes that the threat of a class action would be sufficiently deterrent to hinder undertakings from engaging in illicit behaviour. It remains to be seen whether the awarded damages will be sufficiently dissuasive since no punitive damages will be available.

Under French law, the amount of damages that may be awarded cannot be greater than the actual injury.

The bill further specifies that only material losses (i.e. financial losses) could be compensated.

6. Third-party funding

The current bill raises many practical questions that will have to be addressed in the implementing legislation. In particular, it is clear that the approved consumer associations do not have the financial means to conduct detailed economic analyses to provide the courts with evidence on how much the class should be awarded. Even though the court may request that the professional pays an advance on cost to the consumer association, it is very likely that litigation finance will be needed to bridge the gap and/or fund the lawsuit from the outset.

Interestingly, on the European level, the EU recommendation requires claimant to declare the source of their funding, and third-party funders should be prohibited from influencing procedural decisions, including on settlement. Further, third-party funders should not be compensated on a contingency fee basis (i.e., paid a percentage of any settlement or damage award) unless third-party funding arrangements are subject to regulation by a public authority. It remains to be seen what this exactly means in terms of funding opportunities.


Alter Litigation FundingThis guest blog post was written by Frederic Pelouze of Alter Litigation, a French third-party litigation finance company. They fund a wide spectrum of claims throughout France and Europe, including commercial disputes, cartel damage claims, and international arbitration.

Black Farmers Attorneys Awarded $90.8 Million in Legal Fees

attorney fee fundingUnited States District Court Judge Paul Friedman has awarded the Black Farmers Class Action attorneys over $90 million in attorney fees using the maximum criterion of 7.4 percent of the settlement. The range was between 4.1 and 7.4 percent of the settlement. The case took a long time to settle given the amount of back and forth in court and the hesitation and somewhat reluctance by many in Congress to provide the funding that would compensate the black farmer plaintiffs and attorneys.

Advocates for the community like John Boyd and other sympathetic Congressional representatives were beating down the doors of government to get their just compensation while the small group of attorneys involved in the litigation won their battles in court. The judge applauded the attorneys on facing the challenge of this litigation and their dedication to seeing to a successful finish.

Even though attorneys were finally awarded their hard earned legal fees, it can still be many more months before they actually receive payment. This is where RD Legal’s post-settlement attorney fee funding program is a solution. RD Legal can purchase any settled legal fee with a payment delay at a discount and provide immediate capital. For more information, please call Joseph Genovesi, Senior Vice President of Business Development and Origination, at 201-568-9007, ext. 140.

$153 Million KPMG & Fannie Mae Settlement

153 million fannie mae settlementPlaintiffs from a 2004 class action lawsuit filed against KPMG LLP and Fannie Mae have finally settled against both companies for a reported $153 million. The settlement which has been reported by several media outlets will compensate shareholders who held common stock between April 2001 and December 2004. Fannie Mae and its sister organization Freddie Mac are government sponsored entities created by Congress. Several of the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit were pension funds.

General Electric received a losing verdict in March of 2013 over what the jury determined to be their failure to warn patients and doctors about the dangers of its medical imaging dye. The jury awarded the plaintiff Paul Decker and his wife $5 million to compensate for their suffering. The dye which is manufactured by GE and marketed as Omniscan was used to highlight MRI scans but apparently caused a disease where the skin becomes thick and hard. According to news reports, the dye caused some side effects like severe kidney disease. It is reported there are some cases that deal with Omniscan still in litigation.

An investor settlement has received preliminary approval for an estimated $55 million. The lawsuit involved one group of investors suing another group of investors because of the tax treatment they would receive if an IPO were allowed to go through. The public offering of the REIT would have included the Empire State Building.

Written by Lulaine Compere.

Bank of America Settles Investor Class Action for $500 Million

mortgage backed securitiesBank of America has settled another class action lawsuit with another set of investors over the issue of mortgage backed investments that it assumed after it acquired Countrywide Financial. According to news reports, Bank of America has agreed to pay $500 million to the plaintiffs, mostly pension funds, to settle lawsuits over the quality of the mortgages.

The world economy entered a recession in late 2007 mainly because the housing market froze. Lenders who borrowed money at teaser interest rates faced new steeper rates. Lending standards increased and investors stopped buying mortgage backed securities because news about the quality of the mortgages became public. Once investors found out, numerous class action lawsuits were filed against the huge banks, and many of them are still being litigated in court. This settlement is another in what seems to be an endless amount of lawsuits concerning mortgage backed securities.

RD Legal Funding, LLC (“RD Legal”) can provide interim post-settlement financing to plaintiff’s attorneys with Bank of America-Countrywide Financial settlements, which provides immediate capital on slow-paying settled legal fees. Lawsuit funding does not require any kind of payments until the fee is paid; there are no monthly interest or principal payments, no upfront points or fees. Once the necessary documentation is received, RD Legal can wire funds within several days. RD Legal provides personalized service and quick turnaround.

To find out more about RD Legal’s law firm funding solutions, please call Joseph Genovesi toll-free at 1-800-565-5177. For more details about RD Legal’s Fee Acceleration program, please visit our attorney fee funding page.


Written by Lulaine Compere

RD Legal Offers Funding to Plaintiff’s Attorneys with General Electric Settlements

stock-market-fluctuationsGeneral Electric has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit by its shareholders over allegations it hid its exposure to subprime loans from them. The company is expected to pay $40 million to compensate the shareholders, most of them pension funds, for losses they suffered beginning 2008.

General Electric is one of the most successful companies in the world. Mostly known as a builder of items like air conditioners and light bulbs, its subsidiary, GE Capital, is a huge force in the world of finance. News stories about the settlement detail the plaintiffs’ accusations against GE Capital and their involvement in a 2008 stock offering which threatened the company’s financial position. That move caused them to lose their “AAA” credit rating, resulting in a dividend cut of almost 70%. GE is one of many companies who faced lawsuits because of their exposure to subprime loans.

Plaintiff’s attorneys with General Electric settlements are eligible for post-settlement attorney fee financing from RD Legal Funding, LLC (“RD Legal”) which provides immediate capital on settlements. Lawsuit financing does not require any kind of payments until the fee is paid; there are no monthly interest or principal payments, nor are there any upfront points or fees. Once the necessary documentation is received, RD Legal can wire funds within several days. RD Legal provides personalized service and quick turnaround.

For more information about RD Legal and their cash flow management solutions, please call Joseph Genovesi, Senior Vice President of Business Development and Origination, at 1-800-565-5177, ext. 140. To begin the application process, please fill out our brief online application.


Written by Lulaine Compere