Litigation Funding

It means that if the case recovers nothing, you generally owe the funder nothing. The funder is betting on the outcome rather than lending against your credit. That is genuinely different from a loan — and it is also why the pricing is higher than a loan, because the funder is absorbing the risk of a zero.

It varies with the size of the advance, the risk profile of the case, and how long the money is outstanding — and it compounds over time, which is the part people miss when they compare offers. A modest advance on a case that takes three years can consume far more of the recovery than the headline rate suggests. Read the schedule, not the summary.

Third-party litigation financing is used in Minnesota, and the Minnesota Supreme Court has addressed the doctrines that historically restricted it. That said, the enforceability of any particular agreement still turns on its own terms, and consumer-facing funding is subject to its own requirements. This is an area where the specific agreement matters more than the general rule.

It should not. Litigation decisions belong to you and your lawyer, and an agreement that hands settlement authority or strategic control to a funder is a serious problem — including for your lawyer's professional obligations. Control provisions are one of the first things we look at when reviewing a proposed agreement.

Yes, and preferably one who is not receiving anything from the funder. These agreements are drafted by the funder, the pricing terms are often buried in an exhibit, and the differences between offers are rarely visible on the front page. A review before signing is where those differences come out.