Financing Opportunities

Reliable Funding for Class Action Firms

Class action cases are expensive and can take years to resolve—leaving your firm financially strained. Counsel Financial has helped some of the nation’s top class action firms stand strong during lengthy and expensive litigations. Our products give you the financial stability and resources to see your cases through to successful resolution.

Schedule a Call

Flexible Long-Term Solutions

Financing to withstand drawn-out litigations

Having the resources needed to represent a large class of individuals—over a lengthy period of time—against deep-pocket defendants is no easy task. Counsel Financial’s financing and post-settlement funding provide your firm with significantly more capital than a traditional bank and our terms are the most flexible in the industry. Whether you need to cover overhead costs, pay case expenses or finance the growth of your firm, we will provide you with the financial confidence necessary to secure the best result for your clients.

Product Highlights

Key Benefits for Class Action Lawyers

Significantly more capital than a bank can offer
Increased financing as your case inventory grows
Flexible repayment terms
One-on-one business and financial support
Power to combine operating financing with post-settlement financing as cases resolve

Litigations Financed

$1.2 Billion Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation Settlement

In 1997 and 1998, two class-action lawsuits were filed on behalf of groups of African-American farmers against the U.S. Department of Agriculture alleging discrimination based on race. These cases were Pigford v. Glickman (“Pigford”) and Brewington v. Glickman (“Brewington”). The lawsuits alleged violations of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.

The two cases were consolidated and settled in April of 1999, which is known as one of the largest civil rights settlement in history. The terms of the settlement stated that any other eligible claimants were required to file claims by October 12, 1999, only six months after the Pigford and Brewington settlement was reached. Should a claimant have missed that October deadline, he or she would be allowed submit claims by the “late-filing” deadline of September 15, 2000, only if the claimant could show "extraordinary circumstances" for missing the 1999 deadline.

Approximately 61,000 claimants requested to file claims after the October 12, 1999 claims deadline, but before the September 15, 2000 "late-filing" deadline. Of those who filed late, less than 3,000 were found to have demonstrated "extraordinary circumstances" for receiving extra time to file their claims. As a result, more than 58,000 late-filers did not have their discrimination claims heard. Farmers’ advocate John Boyd took the lead in lobbying Congress to provide enabling legislation to allow Pigford late-filers another opportunity to have their claims determined on the merits. Congress held hearings on the matter, and in the meantime, law firms began signing up potentially eligible farmers in the event enabling legislation was passed.

On June 18, 2008, Congress passed a law providing claimants with a new right to sue for those discrimination claims if they had petitioned to participate in the Pigford case. The 2008 Farm Bill as it was known, is Section 14012 of the Farm, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008.

Consequently, the lawsuit, In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation, No. 1:08-mc-00511, arose to address the injustice suffered by black farmers who filed late under the Pigford and Brewington settlements. The new lawsuits were consolidated before Judge Paul Friedman in the District of Columbia.

On February 18, 2010, recognizing that $100 million would not be enough to pay all valid claims, and after nearly two years of litigation, the U.S. Department of Justice entered into a settlement agreement that would require Congress to fund an additional $1.15 billion settlement for tens of thousands of farmers, for a total funding of valid claims equal to $1.25 billion.

BP Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Settlement

The case, In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, No. 2:10-md-2179, in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, involves claims of individuals and businesses for damages proximately caused by the explosion of British Petroleum’s oilrig, “Deepwater Horizon,” which released of over 200 million gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010 (the “BP Oil Spill).

On March 2, 2012, days before trial was scheduled on liability for the BP Oil Spill, BP and the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (“PSC”) agreed to resolve certain economic loss and property damage claims (“EPD Settlement”) with no limit on the total dollar amount of the settlement, with the exception of the Seafood Compensation Program, which was capped at $2.3 billion (“SCP” and, together with EPD Settlement, the “Settlement”). See http://www.deepwaterhorizoneconomicsettlement.com/.

As part of the agreement, a Court-Supervised “Settlement Program” was established to review and pay qualified claims made by individuals and businesses that are members of the EPD Settlement class. Funds remaining in the Gulf Coast Claims Facility (“GCCF”), a $20 billion settlement fund set up on June 16, 2010, were used to pay any qualified claims under the Settlement Program, as determined by the Deepwater Horizon Economic Claims Commission (“DHECC”). Accordingly, the Settlement Program replaced the GCCF, so the Court issued an Order requiring that all claims-related information, files and data previously submitted to the GCCF be transferred and paid under to the Settlement Program.

The class members entitled to compensation under the Settlement consisted of businesses and individuals in certain geographic zones: Alabama; Mississippi; Louisiana; four Coastal Counties in Texas; and 14 Coastal Counties in Western Florida & the Florida Keys. Excluded from the class were: financial institutions, funds or other financial vehicles, the gaming industry, insurance entities, the oil and gas industry, defense contractors and subcontractors, real estate developers, or governmental organizations.

All class member settlements are payable from the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Trust (“Trust”). The Settlement Program will operate until the last timely filed claim has been processed and the last appeal has been completed. When the cash balances in the Trust are exhausted, payments and other costs will be made directly by BP.

Volkswagen $10 Billion Consumer Class Action Settlement

On June 28, 2016, Volkswagen AG announced that it reached settlement agreements with individual plaintiffs, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to resolve civil claims regarding eligible Volkswagen and Audi 2.0L TDI diesel engine vehicles in the United States. Volkswagen has submitted this proposed settlement to the Court, and upon approval will establish a funding pool with the maximum of $10.033 billion to settle consumer class action claims.

The class action, In Re: Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 15-2672, stems from a notice issued by the Environmental Protection Agency on September 18, 2015, alleging violation of the Clean Air Act to Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, and Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. In the notice, the agency alleged “the four-cylinder Volkswagen and Audi diesel cars from model years 2009-2015 include[d] software that circumvent[ed] EPA emissions standards for certain air pollutants.” The EPA contended that Volkswagen manufactured and installed software in some of its vehicles that could sense when the car was being tested for compliance with EPA emissions standards. Purportedly, the software knew when the vehicle was being tested based on various inputs, including the position of the steering wheel, vehicle speed, the duration of the engine’s operation and barometric pressure. Thus, during testing the software produced compliant emission results, but otherwise emissions of nitrogen dioxide (NO 2) increased by a factor of 10 to 40 times EPA compliant levels. The notice provided that the affected vehicles included: Jetta Sportwagen (MY 2009-2014); Beetle (MY 2012-2015); Beetle Convertible (MY 2012-2015); Audi A3 (MY 2010-2015); Golf (MY 2010-2015); Golf Sportwagen (MY 2015); and Passat (MY 2012-2015).

Of approximately 499,000 2.0L TDL vehicles that were produced for sale in the United States, approximately 460,000 Volkswagen and 15,000 Audi vehicles are currently in use and eligible for buybacks and lease terminations, or emissions modifications. This settlement amount of $10.033 billion makes the assumptions of 100% participation and 100% of the eligible consumers will choose either lease termination or buyback. This settlement is currently subject to the approval of the Court.

$1.4 Billion Sidewalk Accessibility Settlement

On January 8, 2016, the City of Los Angeles executed a settlement agreement that would require it to pay approximately $1.4 billion over a 30-year period to make its public sidewalk and crosswalk system accessible to persons with mobility disabilities. Specifically, the agreement, which provides relief to an estimated class of 280,000 people, compels the City to “install, repair, and upgrade curb ramps; repair sidewalks and walkways damaged by tree roots; repair broken or uneven pavement; correct non-compliant cross-slopes in sidewalks; install tree gates and missing utility covers; and remediate other inaccessible conditions.”

In the class action, Willits v. City of Los Angeles, Docket No. 2:10-cv-05782 (C.D. Cal.), plaintiffs Mark Willits, Judy Griffin, Brent Pilgreen and the non-profit organization, Communities Actively Living Independent and Free (“CALIF”), on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, alleged among other things, violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Sections 51 and 54 of the California Civil Code, and Sections 11135 and 4450 of the California Government Code. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the City of Los Angeles, claiming that the lack of access to the City’s system of pedestrian rights-of-way deprived people with mobility disabilities of their independence – essentially relegating them to second-class citizen status.

Prior to reaching the proposed settlement agreement, the parties participated in eight full-day mediation sessions under the supervision of the Hon. Dickran Tevrizian (Ret.) and the Hon. Edward A. Infante (Ret.). In the end, the City agreed to make the necessary improvements to assure that its pedestrian facilities are readily accessible to individuals with mobility disabilities. Accordingly, the City will initially commit $31 million to accessibility improvements during each of the first five fiscal years from the date of the Court’s final approval, and then incrementally increase the amount of funding at five-year intervals.

$1.8 Million Settlement in Uber Class Action

On November 20, 2015, after 45 days of negotiations, Uber Technologies Inc. reached a $1,785,913 settlement over claims that the popular ride-sharing company misrepresented airport fees it charged to consumers in California. It is estimated that in 2013 and 2014 more than 350,000 Uber riders paid the company between $1.25 and $4.50 per trip to and from various California airports for “airport fee tolls.” Uber claimed that the airports charged the tolls it collected, however, the lawyers in the class action suit contended that the Uber drivers pocketed the money.

The settlement is particularly noteworthy because class members will be reimbursed for 100% of the fees they were charged and will not have to submit claim forms. Any remaining settlement funds that cannot be credited to class members will go to cy pres recipients, the National Consumer Law Center and East Bay Community Law Center. Attorney for plaintiffs Todd Schneider commented, “We commend Uber for doing the right thing in reimbursing its customers 100% of the fees that they were charged.”

Uber is still involved in a similar suit brought by the district attorneys for San Francisco and Los Angeles over the airport fee toll.

Class Certification Granted in Employment Status Dispute

A federal judge granted class certification on March 2, 2016 to insurance agents who claim that the company who hired them, American Family, mislabeled its sales force as “independent contractors” to avoid compliance with the requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”).

Walid Jammal and Dana LaRiche, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, filed the lawsuit, Jammal v. American Family Ins. Group, No. 1:13-cv-00437, N.D. Ohio, in February 2013. In the class action, the plaintiffs assert that American Family hired insurance agents as independent contractors to sell retirement product, as well as home, auto, life, umbrella, business, health and other policies. Despite American Family’s classification of the agents as independent contractors, the plaintiffs contend the agents, in fact, qualify as employees under ERISA because American Family “retained the right to exercise control over the manner and means by which they conducted every material aspect of their business.” Consequently, the plaintiffs argue they should have received retirement benefits and health, life, disability and dental plans like other employees of the company.

The plaintiffs proposed three classes in the case—two relating to termination benefits and one relating to health, dental and disability benefits. American Family opposed them all, arguing that the plaintiffs “failed to demonstrate commonality for any of the proposed classes,” and that the named plaintiffs did not satisfy the typicality requirement under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(a)(3).

In finding in favor of certifying the class, Hon. Donald C. Nugent held American Family’s arguments as to issues of commonality among the class members was not supported by applicable case law. Further, Judge Nugent ruled that the plaintiffs satisfied the typicality requirement since the named plaintiffs had the same claims that will be determined by a common question: “were the agents misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees?” As such, Judge Nugent determined class certification in this case was appropriate.

Significantly more capital than a bank can offer

Increased financing as your case inventory grows

Flexible repayment terms

One-on-one business and financial support

Power to combine operating financing with post-settlement financing as cases resolve

Litigations Financed