Skip to content
  • CAREERS
  • CONTACT US
Search
Close
anthony ostlund logo
  • PEOPLE
  • LITIGATION
    • APPEALS
    • COMPLEX COMMERCIAL LITIGATION
    • EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
    • FRAUD AND FIDUCIARY DUTY
    • FINANCIAL LITIGATION
    • OWNER/SHAREHOLDER DISPUTES
    • PLAINTIFF CONTINGENCY CASES
    • PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE
    • REAL ESTATE LITIGATION
    • TRUSTS AND ESTATES LAW
  • SUCCESSES
  • NEWS
  • ABOUT
  • FEE ARRANGEMENTS
Menu
  • PEOPLE
  • LITIGATION
    • APPEALS
    • COMPLEX COMMERCIAL LITIGATION
    • EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
    • FRAUD AND FIDUCIARY DUTY
    • FINANCIAL LITIGATION
    • OWNER/SHAREHOLDER DISPUTES
    • PLAINTIFF CONTINGENCY CASES
    • PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE
    • REAL ESTATE LITIGATION
    • TRUSTS AND ESTATES LAW
  • SUCCESSES
  • NEWS
  • ABOUT
  • FEE ARRANGEMENTS

Charting Litigation Financing in Minnesota

  • September 29, 2022

Minnesota Lawyer and Finance & Commerce – Partner Content

Author: Kathryn Campbell

 

Litigation financing is having a moment. Increasing in popularity, litigation financing (also known as champerty) allows third parties to provide funding to the plaintiffs in exchange for a portion of the financial recovery from the lawsuit. While proponents of litigation financing argue that it increases access to justice and decisions on the merits for those with limited financial resources to pursue costly litigation, such funding is not without its concerns.

 

Champerty was prohibited under Minnesota law until June 2020 when, in the case Maslowski v. Prospect Funding Partners LLC, the Minnesota Supreme Court abolished the state’s long-standing prohibition. 944 N.W.2d 235 (Minn. 2020). In that case, Ms. Maslowski sought litigation financing services from Prospect Funding Partners LLC to help fund her living expenses while her personal injury matter remained pending; in exchange, she agreed to turn over a portion of her settlement or judgment proceeds to Prospect Funding Partners. Maslowski, 944 N.W.2d at 236. However, upon settlement, Ms. Maslowski refused to pay the agreed-upon amount, arguing that the litigation financing agreement was unenforceable due to Minnesota’s prohibition against champerty. Id. at 237. Noting shifts in societal and market attitudes towards litigation financing, as well as developments in the rules of civil procedure ande professional responsibility which address “the abuses of the legal process that necessitated the common-law prohibition,” the Court overturned the prohibition, and thus opened the door to third-party litigation financing in Minnesota. Id. at 238–39.

 

While it is now legal, litigation financing is not limitless. In issuing its opinion, the Minnesota Supreme Court expressed its concerns about “uncounseled” financing agreements and attempts by litigation financiers to “control the course of the underlying litigation”—a particular concern that necessitated the original prohibition against champerty. Id. at 241. A critical eye towards litigation financing agreements, therefore, is warranted.

 

The case was then remanded to the district court for an enforceability determination. On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the findings of the district court that parts of the agreement—namely, the liquidated damages provisions, the penalty clauses, and the interest rate provision—were unenforceable, unconscionable, and usurious, respectively. Maslwoski v. Prospect Funding Partners LLC, 978 N.W.2d 447, 454–59 (Minn. Ct. App. 2022).

 

Notably, the Court found that the penalty clauses in the financing agreement impeded Maslowski’s relationship with her attorneys and her ability to control her lawsuit. Id. at 457. The penalty clauses maintain certain requirements, such written notice of Maslowski’s intent to hire new counsel, a requirement that the new counsel execute the acknowledgements of the financing agreement, and reasonable efforts by Maslowski “not to enter into any settlement agreement or covenant” that would restrict Prospect Funding’s rights to information relating to lawsuit proceeds, all at the risk of financial penalty. Id.

 

The court found that such penalties were unconscionable, as they could have induced Maslowski to remain with an unsatisfactory attorney or to select an attorney based on Prospect Funding’s preferences, all of which restricted “the freedom of [Maslowski] to select counsel of [her] choice” and to control her lawsuit.  Id. The Court also agreed with the district court that the 60% annual repurchase rate of the financing agreement was usurious and in violation of Minnesota Statue § 334.01. Id. at 458. Maslowski’s “absolute obligation” to pay this interest if she recovered financially in the lawsuit, coupled with the restrictive nature of the agreement, resulted in an agreement that was “designed to compel Maslowski to bring her underlying legal claim to financial resolution, which results in Prospect receiving excessive interest.” Id.

 

While these recent opinions have helped establish safeguards against exploitation through litigation financing, they also demonstrate that great care should be taken when reviewing a litigation financing agreement. Agreements should be written such that the client maintains the ability to control their lawsuit; the financing arrangement should not be the source of pressure on a client to pursue a trial over other avenues, such as settlement. Agreements should also plainly spell out the terms of the funding, including the source of the funds and any repayment terms, so as to avoid any future confusion or unexpected liability.

 

Ultimately, litigation financing can be a powerful tool that provides access to justice to individuals and companies lacking the financial resources to maintain a lawsuit. However, Minnesota’s recent court decisions on the subject highlight how easily litigation financing may go from resourceful to exploitative. Thus, it is important that all parties—lawyers, clients, and financiers—are on the same page before proceeding with such an agreement.

 

Kathryn Campbell is a trial lawyer at the Minneapolis law firm Anthony Ostlund Louwagie Dressen & Boylan P.A. Kathryn’s practice involves advocacy in state and federal court for businesses and individuals and has ranged from small-scale business disputes to broader matters involving constitutional questions.

 

View as PDF

related attorneys

Loading...

Kathryn Campbell

related practice areas

Loading...
AO-logo-initials

90 SOUTH 7TH STREET, SUITE 3600
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
P 612.349.6969       F 612.349.6996

 

© 2021 ANTHONY OSTLUND LOUWAGIE DRESSEN BOYLAN P.A.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

  • 651•312•6500
  • 651•312•6618
  • People
  • Litigation
  • Successes
  • News
  • About
  • Fee Arrangements
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • People
  • Litigation
  • Successes
  • News
  • About
  • Fee Arrangements
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • PEOPLE
  • LITIGATION
    • APPEALS
    • COMPLEX COMMERCIAL LITIGATION
    • EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
    • FRAUD AND FIDUCIARY DUTY
    • FINANCIAL LITIGATION
    • OWNER/SHAREHOLDER DISPUTES
    • PLAINTIFF CONTINGENCY CASES
    • PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE
    • REAL ESTATE LITIGATION
    • TRUSTS AND ESTATES LAW
  • SUCCESSES
  • NEWS
  • ABOUT
  • FEE ARRANGEMENTS
  • PEOPLE
  • LITIGATION
    • APPEALS
    • COMPLEX COMMERCIAL LITIGATION
    • EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
    • FRAUD AND FIDUCIARY DUTY
    • FINANCIAL LITIGATION
    • OWNER/SHAREHOLDER DISPUTES
    • PLAINTIFF CONTINGENCY CASES
    • PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE
    • REAL ESTATE LITIGATION
    • TRUSTS AND ESTATES LAW
  • SUCCESSES
  • NEWS
  • ABOUT
  • FEE ARRANGEMENTS
search
disclaimer
Linkedin
Join Our Email List

© 2021 ANTHONY OSTLUND LOUWAGIE DRESSEN BOYLAN P.A. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT