Construction Equipment Rental

The Construction Equipment Rental Antitrust Litigation consolidates claims alleging that major equipment rental companies coordinated pricing for construction and industrial equipment rentals rather than competing independently, harming contractors and other commercial renters who pay market rental rates. The Judicial Panel centralized the docket before Judge Sara L. Ellis in the Northern District of Illinois in August 2025; with 22 actions now pending, the litigation is in its earliest phase, with consolidated pleadings just taking shape.

Funding availability at this point is limited by the same factors that constrain any newly centralized antitrust docket: no certified class, no established damages methodology, and no settlement framework against which a funder can price claim-level risk. The commercial renters and contractors who make up the plaintiff pool have their own rental invoices and pricing histories, which is a favorable starting point for eventual damages modeling, but that data has not yet been tested through expert discovery or certification briefing. Contractors with high rental volume and long-standing vendor relationships may eventually present the most tractable claim files, since their transaction records span a longer period against which any alleged overcharge can be measured.

Firms building a client base of contractors or equipment-dependent businesses affected by this alleged conduct should expect portfolio-level inventory finance to become more tractable once class certification is resolved — a rental-rate overcharge theory, if certified, tends to produce a relatively standardized claim structure across similarly situated commercial renters. This is a commercial claim set with no medical-lien dimension; structuring will turn on rental volume, contract terms, and expected duration through the certification and merits-discovery phases.

Criterica Capital's commercial litigation finance product is built for law firms and commercial claimants navigating a newly centralized antitrust docket like this one. A structure and litigation brief on the case's procedural posture is also available for teams assessing capital commitments this early in the litigation's life.

Pre-settlement funding is a non-recourse purchase of a portion of the proceeds of a pending legal claim — not a loan. If the case does not result in a recovery, nothing is owed. Rates, fees, and repayment terms are disclosed in full in the funding agreement, which the applicant’s attorney reviews before signing. Availability and terms vary by state.