RD Legal Fin., LLC v. White (In Re Nat'l Football League Players' Concussion Injury Litig. RD Legal Funding, LLC)
923 F.3d 96
3rd Cir.2019Background
- The NFL concussion class settlement (approved May 2015) included an anti-assignment clause and retained the district court’s continuing jurisdiction over settlement administration. The settlement was later affirmed by this Court.
- Many class members (awaiting awards for years) entered cash-advance agreements with third‑party funders that purported to assign portions of future settlement proceeds in exchange for immediate cash; some agreements purported to let funders collect directly from the Claims Administrator, others did not.
- Judge Brody (E.D. Pa.) issued a December 8, 2017 order declaring all such assignment agreements void and directed procedures for rescission; later orders directed disbursement of funds and enjoined Thrivest from pursuing arbitration to enforce its contract with a class member.
- Several litigation financiers (RD, Atlas, Thrivest) appealed; some appeals were dismissed here for lack of jurisdiction as untimely or non-appealable administrative orders.
- The Third Circuit concluded the district court had authority to invalidate true assignments that let funders step into class members’ shoes, but exceeded its authority by voiding entire agreements and by enjoining arbitration/dismissing Thrivest’s suit where only post-disbursement rights remained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had authority to void third‑party cash‑advance agreements entered by class members | Brody/class: Court retained broad jurisdiction to enforce settlement terms and protect class; anti‑assignment clause forbids assignments and any assignment must be voided | Funders: Court lacked authority over nonparties and overcontractual rights that do not affect settlement administration | Court: Had authority to void any “true assignments” that let funders collect via the claims process, but lacked authority to void entire agreements or provisions unrelated to assignments |
| Whether the settlement anti‑assignment clause covers assignments of settlement proceeds (i.e., proceeds assignments) | Brody/class: Clause bars any assignment "relating to the subject matter" of the complaint, including proceeds assignments | Funders: Proceeds transfers are loans/secured transactions, not assignments of claims; UCC/Article 9 may preempt | Court: Agreed with district court—true assignments of proceeds falling within clause are void ab initio under New York law incorporated into the settlement |
| Appealability/timeliness of various orders (Dec. 8 order; Feb. 20 disbursement order; injunctions/dismissal re Thrivest) | Class: Some appeals untimely or involve non‑appealable administrative orders; collateral‑order review inappropriate for ministerial disbursement order | Funders: Appeals timely; orders are final/collateral because they conclusively affect funders’ rights | Court: Dismissed some appeals as untimely; had jurisdiction over Dec. 8 order (final/collateral) and injunction/dismissal but not over Feb. 20 ministerial disbursement order |
| Whether district court could enjoin arbitration/enforce dismissal of Thrivest suit enforcing its cash‑advance agreement | Brody/class: Having voided the agreement, court could enjoin arbitration and dismiss related suit to protect settlement administration | Thrivest: Court exceeded authority; contract gave only post‑disbursement right to funds; arbitration and suit are proper fora to adjudicate remaining contract claims | Court: Vacated injunction and dismissal—court lacked authority to preclude Thrivest from litigating or arbitrating non‑assignment rights remaining under its agreement after limiting Dec. 8 order |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Nat’l Football League Players Concussion Injury Litig., 821 F.3d 410 (3d Cir. 2016) (this Court affirmed the settlement and class certification)
- In re Cendant Corp. Prides Litig., 233 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2000) (standards for reviewing settlement‑agreement interpretation)
- Allhusen v. Caristo Constr. Corp., 103 N.E.2d 891 (N.Y. 1952) (clear anti‑assignment clause can render subsequent assignment void)
- Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463 (1978) (collateral‑order doctrine requires a conclusively resolved question)
- IPSCO Steel (Ala.), Inc. v. Blaine Constr. Corp., 371 F.3d 150 (3d Cir. 2004) (nonparty appellate standing requires stake, participation, and equitable consideration)