The MDL Revolution and Consumer Legal Funding

Third-party consumer legal funding, where financial companies advance money on a nonrecourse basis to assist individual plaintiffs with living expenses, is an increasingly popular and controversial part of American litigation. And consumers with mass tort claims pending in Multi-District Litigations (MDLs) constitute the fastest growing sector of those seeking assistance from this billion-dollar funding industry. Policy makers, mass tort plaintiffs\u27 lawyers, and scholars have increasingly raised concerns about exorbitant interest rates and have called for regulations to protect vulnerable consumers from “predatory lending.” To date, however, the policy debate has largely relied on anecdotes and speculation because flinders have not been forthcoming with facts. This Article begins to fill that important informational void. We were given unique, unrestricted access to the complete archive of 225,293 requests for funding from 2001 through 2016 from one of the largest consumer litigation financing firms in the U.S., and we are the first to explore the anatomy of litigant finance in mass tort cases. We find that the Funder systematically offers mass tort claimants larger advances and more favorable terms along multiple dimensions than it does for consumers with motor vehicle accident claims. Our data analyses involving both categories of claimants offer reassurance about numerous asserted abuses in the funding industry and lead us to recommend that restrictions not be imposed on the availability or cost to consumers of this funding. Rather, we propose that existing market competition be enhanced by the adoption of laws that would ensure greater simplicity, transparency, and consistency in the pre-funding disclosures made to consumers and by removing the prohibitions that most states\u27 Rules of Professional Responsibility currently impose on lawyers\u27 ability to provide financial assistance to their clients

The Mysterious Market for Post-Settlement Litigant Finance

Litigant finance is a growing and increasingly controversial industry in which financial firms advance a plaintiff money in exchange for ownership rights in the proceeds of the legal claim on a nonrecourse basis: A plaintiff must repay the advance only if compensation is ultimately received for the legal claim. The nonrecourse nature of this funding exempts it from most states’ consumer credit laws, enabling funders to charge higher interest and fees than would otherwise be permitted. When this funding involves ordinary consumers, critics of the industry contend that the uncapped interest rates exploit vulnerable litigants, while its defenders argue that the availability of these cash advances improves the welfare of consumers, especially those who have no other credit options. This funding made headlines during the recent NFL Concussion litigation, with more than one thousand players reported to have received such cash advances and with class counsel raising concerns of “predatory lending.” Because the industry has not been forthcoming with facts, the larger policy debate thus far has largely relied on anecdotes and speculation. In addition, the debate has ignored the important differences between pre- and post-settlement litigant funding. This Article is the first to present systematic, large-scale data on consumer post- settlement litigant funding—the type of funding most NFL players reportedly received. We were given unrestricted access to the complete archive of sixteen years of funding applications and funding contracts from one of the largest consumer litigant funding companies in the United States. These data, which are robust and representative, enable us to make transparent the terms and true price to consumers of this formerly mysterious funding. We find that the Funder offers not only clearer contract terms but also better financial terms to post-settlement clients relative to pre-settlement clients. Yet these better terms do not come close to reflecting the virtually nonexistent litigation risk to the Funder. We therefore recommend that consumer post-settlement litigant funding be subject to the same regulations as conventional consumer credit and that a standardized, simple disclosure be required

Circadian Effects on Simple Components of Complex Task Performance

The goal of this study was to advance understanding and prediction of the impact of circadian rhythm on aspects of complex task performance during unexpected automation failures, and subsequent fault management. Participants trained on two tasks: a process control simulation, featuring automated support; and a multi-tasking platform. Participants then completed one task in a very early morning (circadian night) session, and the other during a late afternoon (circadian day) session. Small effects of time of day were seen on simple components of task performance, but impacts on more demanding components, such as those that occur following an automation failure, were muted relative to previous studies where circadian rhythm was compounded with sleep deprivation and fatigue. Circadian low participants engaged in compensatory strategies, rather than passively monitoring the automation. The findings and implications are discussed in the context of a model that includes the effects of sleep and fatigue factors

Contracting on litigation

Two risk‐averse litigants with different subjective beliefs negotiate in the shadow of a pending trial. Through contingent contracts, the litigants can mitigate risk and/or speculate on the trial outcome. Contingent contracting decreases the settlement rate and increases the volume and costs of litigation. These contingent contracts mimic the services provided by third‐party investors, including litigation funders and insurance companies. The litigants (weakly) prefer to contract with risk‐neutral third parties when the capital market is transaction‐cost free. However, contracting with third parties further decreases the settlement rate, increases the costs of litigation, and may increase the aggregate cost of risk bearing.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/149242/1/rand12274.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/149242/2/rand12274_am.pd

Use of expert elicitation to assign weights to climate and hydrological models in climate impact studies

Various methods are available for assessing uncertainties in climate impact studies. Among such methods, model weighting by expert elicitation is a practical way to provide a weighted ensemble of models for specific real-world impacts. The aim is to decrease the influence of improbable models in the results and easing the decision-making process. In this study both climate and hydrological models are analysed, and the result of a research experiment is presented using model weighting with the participation of six climate model experts and six hydrological model experts. For the experiment, seven climate models are a priori selected from a larger EURO-CORDEX (Coordinated Regional Downscaling Experiment - European Domain) ensemble of climate models, and three different hydrological models are chosen for each of the three European river basins. The model weighting is based on qualitative evaluation by the experts for each of the selected models based on a training material that describes the overall model structure and literature about climate models and the performance of hydrological models for the present period. The expert elicitation process follows a three-stage approach, with two individual rounds of elicitation of probabilities and a final group consensus, where the experts are separated into two different community groups: a climate and a hydrological modeller group. The dialogue reveals that under the conditions of the study, most climate modellers prefer the equal weighting of ensemble members, whereas hydrological-impact modellers in general are more open for assigning weights to different models in a multi-model ensemble, based on model performance and model structure. Climate experts are more open to exclude models, if obviously flawed, than to put weights on selected models in a relatively small ensemble. The study shows that expert elicitation can be an efficient way to assign weights to different hydrological models and thereby reduce the uncertainty in climate impact. However, for the climate model ensemble, comprising seven models, the elicitation in the format of this study could only re-establish a uniform weight between climate models

Efficacy of Fumaric Acid Esters in the R6/2 and YAC128 Models of Huntington's Disease

Huntington's disease (HD) is an autosomal dominantly inherited progressive neurodegenerative disease. The exact sequel of events finally resulting in neurodegeneration is only partially understood and there is no established protective treatment so far. Some lines of evidence speak for the contribution of oxidative stress to neuronal tissue damage. The fumaric acid ester dimethylfumarate (DMF) is a new disease modifying therapy currently in phase III studies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. DMF potentially exerts neuroprotective effects via induction of the transcription factor “nuclear factor E2-related factor 2” (Nrf2) and detoxification pathways. Thus, we investigated here the therapeutic efficacy of DMF in R6/2 and YAC128 HD transgenic mice which mimic many aspects of HD and are characterized by an enhanced generation of free radicals in neurons. Treatment with DMF significantly prevented weight loss in R6/2 mice between postnatal days 80–90. At the same time, DMF treatment led to an attenuated motor impairment as measured by the clasping score. Average survival in the DMF group was 100.5 days vs. 94.0 days in the placebo group. In the histological analysis on day 80, DMF treatment resulted in a significant preservation of morphologically intact neurons in the striatum as well as in the motor cortex. DMF treatment resulted in an increased Nrf2 immunoreactivity in neuronal subpopulations, but not in astrocytes. These beneficial effects were corroborated in YAC128 mice which, after one year of DMF treatment, also displayed reduced dyskinesia as well as a preservation of neurons. In conclusion, DMF may exert beneficial effects in mouse models of HD. Given its excellent side effect profile, further studies with DMF as new therapeutic approach in HD and other neurodegenerative diseases are warranted

Ideal cardiovascular health and inflammation in European adolescents: The HELENA study

Background and aims Inflammation plays a key role in atherosclerosis and this process seems to appear in childhood. The ideal cardiovascular health index (ICHI) has been inversely related to atherosclerotic plaque in adults. However, evidence regarding inflammation and ICHI in adolescents is scarce. The aim is to assess the association between ICHI and inflammation in European adolescents. Methods and results As many as 543 adolescents (251 boys and 292 girls) from the Healthy Lifestyle in Europe by Nutrition in Adolescence (HELENA) study, a cross-sectional multi-center study including 9 European countries, were measured. C-reactive protein (CRP), complement factors C3 and C4, leptin and white blood cell counts were used to compute an inflammatory score. Multilevel linear models and multilevel logistic regression were used to assess the association between ICHI and inflammation controlling by covariates. Higher ICHI was associated with a lower inflammatory score, as well as with several individual components, both in boys and girls (p < 0.01). In addition, adolescents with at least 4 ideal components of the ICHI had significantly lower inflammatory score and lower levels of the study biomarkers, except CRP. Finally, the multilevel logistic regression showed that for every unit increase in the ICHI, the probability of having an inflammatory profile decreased by 28.1% in girls. Conclusion Results from this study suggest that a better ICHI is associated with a lower inflammatory profile already in adolescence. Improving these health behaviors, and health factors included in the ICHI, could play an important role in CVD prevention