For Funders
The underwriting layer for litigation finance, insurance, and regulated capital.
Twelve guides on the specific problems that determine whether a litigation finance portfolio performs: how to read a calibrated outcome distribution, why duration dominates IRR, where portfolios carry hidden correlation, and what to demand from any provider claiming to supply outcomes intelligence. No point estimates presented without their distribution. No realized-return predictions. No invented statistics.
01
What a Fundable Case Looks Like, by Vertical
Case-selection criteria are not portable across verticals. What clears underwriting in commercial litigation would be rejected in mass tort, and the reverse is equally true — the variables that predict a fundable case change with the case type.
02
How to Read a Calibrated Outcome Distribution
A single number — "68% probability of a favorable outcome" — is the least informative thing a calibrated model produces. The distribution behind it is the underwriting object. Here is what to look at instead.
03
Duration Risk and IRR: Why Time Dominates Return
At a fixed multiple, the difference between an 18-month case and a 36-month case moves IRR more than a meaningful swing in win probability. Most underwriting processes still spend the bulk of their diligence on the number that matters less.
04
Portfolio Construction Across Case Types and Jurisdictions
A book of two hundred cases is not automatically diversified. Correlation in litigation portfolios runs through judges, venues, defendants, and causation theories — axes that case-count diversification does not touch.
05
Jurisdiction Selection as an Underwriting Input
Where a case is filed changes its outcome distribution before either side argues a single fact. Jurisdiction is an underwriting input with measurable effects on probability, duration, and appellate exposure — not a strategic afterthought.
06
Judge Behavior as an Underwriting Input
A judge behavioral profile is a record of docket-management and ruling patterns, built from that judge's own rulings — not a prediction of how any single pending case will be decided. The distinction determines how underwriting should use it.
07
Collectability and Enforcement
Winning is not the same as getting paid. Collectability risk — can this defendant actually satisfy a judgment, and where — is frequently underwritten as an afterthought when it should be priced at intake.
08
Monitoring, Drawdown Gates, and Early-Warning Signals
The underwriting decision made at intake is a snapshot of a case that keeps developing for months or years afterward. A monitoring framework that only re-underwrites at the next capital call is missing most of the useful signal.
09
Pricing Leakage — Where Funders Systematically Misprice
Mispricing in litigation finance is rarely one bad case-by-case call. It is structural, repeats across the entire book, and is detectable in the pattern of realized versus underwritten outcomes if anyone looks for it.
10
Insurer–Funder Collaboration on Litigated Claims
An insurer and a litigation funder are adversaries in a coverage dispute and structurally aligned underwriters of the exact same litigation risk in a growing number of other contexts. Both problems are worth naming precisely.
11
The Secondary Market for Legal Claims
A litigation position can be sold before it resolves — to another fund, a specialty buyer, or as part of a portfolio transfer — but the market stays thin because there is no shared reference price two counterparties can negotiate from.
12
Regulatory-Outcome Assets as an Underwritable Class
Regulatory enforcement outcomes — EPA, SEC, ERISA, antitrust — follow statistical patterns as identifiable as civil litigation outcomes, and capital markets have built almost no systematic underwriting infrastructure around them.