IMF

“IMF conducts a detailed due diligence on all applications it receives for funding.  Only claims that meet IMF’s strict investment criteria, and are approved by the relevant IMF Investment Committee, are funded.  The committees consist of IMF’s senior executives and investment managers and, in the case of the Australian and US Investment Committees, include former senior court judges. 

In essence, IMF looks for claims that have strong prospects of success, are against a solvent defendant with an established capacity to meet any likely judgment or award and are likely to result in a monetary outcome.  IMF funds only a very small percentage of the claims it receives, ensuring that only the strongest claims are funded and allowing IMF’s clients to benefit from IMF’s strong reputation for success.” 


 
 

Burford

“Rigorous merits, quantum and recoverability assessment of the case by Burford’s in-house team together with approval by our global Investment Committee.”

“Safe and relatively predictable jurisprudential system and an abundance of bright solicitors with strong pedigrees.”


 
 

Harbour

“Harbour will ask a set of consistent questions to fit with four key criteria. What is the realistic minimum claim value for the claim, and is it minimum £10m? Has the defendant identifiable resources to pay the amount claimed? What are the legal merits of the claim and are they assessed in writing by those running the claim as being more likely than not to succeed? What are the details of the budget, including all costs which need to be paid for? As a guide, we expect the budget to be approximately 10% of the minimum claim value if the economics for the case are to work for all concerned.  That is not an unusual approach for a professional funder. We fund cases at all stages of their life, but the latest we will consider is 60 days before a final hearing.  We will also fund appeals and judgment or award enforcements, but not claims related to personal injury, medical negligence, divorce or defamation”


 
 

Vannin Capital

“Our process is as follows in this order: preliminary assessment, full internal due diligence, separate internal review (by a team member with no involvement in the case), external independent legal review (by senior counsel) – this sometimes also involves external independent review of other issues (for example, forensic accountants reviewing quantum calculations) and approval of Investment Committee. The facts we consider when deciding whether to fund a case include: prospectus of success, ability to recover any judgment, reliability of budgets for future costs, deal terms, amount of funding required compared to potential reports, the expertise and relevant experience of legal team and the person seeking the funding including their history and our ability to form a good working relationship with them.”


 
 

Balance

“We conduct diligence internally and our investment committee meets weekly.  In assessing case opportunities we look for: claims with good prospects of success; damages of at least $5m; a capable and appropriate legal team; at least 1:10 ratio of funding requirement to provable damages; a creditworthy defendant; and a clear path to recovery.”


 
 

Litigation Lending

“The four main criteria used to assess whether a claim is suitable for funding are liability, quantum, recoverability and litigation costs. There are three tiers of due diligence- new applications are initially assessed by the Litigation/Investment Managers, who look at each of the four factors and determine whether claims are sufficiently good investments to refer them to the Case Assessment Committee (CAC) , the second tier of due diligence which is comprised of highly experienced external litigators. The matters which make it through to the CAC are then reviewed by the members of this Committee, who will make a determination as to whether the individual claims are suitable for endorsement and referral to the Board of LLS, for final review and approval.”