Litigation finance allows a claimant to use third-party capital to fund some or all of the costs of pursuing a legal claim. Funding can cover law firm fees, counsel, experts, disbursements and other agreed case costs.

It is typically provided on a non-recourse basis: if the claim succeeds, the funder receives an agreed return from the recovery. If the claim fails, the claimant does not repay the funder for the capital it has invested.

It can also often be structured on an off-balance-sheet basis, helping businesses preserve cash and borrowing capacity while transferring much of the financial downside of pursuing the claim.

These two features address different issues: non-recourse finance can reduce the claimant’s downside risk, while off-balance-sheet treatment can help preserve borrowing capacity and financial flexibility and, depending on the accounting treatment, reduce the impact of litigation spend on reported financial performance, including EBITDA.

Recourse commercial finance is conventional borrowing where repayment is an obligation of the borrower rather than being contingent on winning the claim.

Depending on the business and its financial position, this may include secured lending, asset-backed finance or other forms of specialist commercial finance.

It can be relevant where a claimant has sufficient cash flow, assets or borrowing capacity to support debt and wants to avoid giving a litigation funder a share of the recovery.

Unlike non-recourse litigation finance, however, the borrower generally remains responsible for repayment even if the claim fails.

There is no universal answer.

Self-funding allows the claimant to retain the full recovery, but also means bearing the legal spend and litigation risk.

Non-recourse litigation finance transfers much of the funded downside to an external investor, but the claimant gives up part of a successful recovery in return.

Recourse commercial finance may offer lower overall financing costs where the business can support conventional borrowing, but the debt will generally remain repayable regardless of the outcome of the claim.

The right route depends on the claim, the claimant's financial position, available capital, risk appetite and the economics of each option.

Generally, no. The claimant remains the party to the dispute and continues to instruct its legal team.

A litigation funder will usually have contractual rights to receive information and monitor the claim, and the funding agreement may contain provisions giving them some limited rights in relation to significant claim developments or settlement.

But funding should not mean handing control of the litigation to the funder. The precise rights of each party depend on the terms of the specific funding agreement.

Because the funder risks losing its investment if the claim fails, its return is generally success-based rather than charged as conventional interest.

Common structures include:

— a percentage of the recovery;
— a multiple of the capital invested; or
— a combination of the two, sometimes subject to a cap.

Pricing varies materially between claims and providers. Relevant factors can include the amount of capital required, claim value, legal merits, likely duration, enforcement risk and the stage of proceedings.

The important question is not simply whether litigation finance is expensive. It is whether the cost of transferring risk and preserving capital is justified when compared with the available alternatives.

Litigation finance is not limited to claimants that could not otherwise afford their legal fees.

A well-capitalised business may choose external funding to:

— reduce the amount of its own capital at risk;
— preserve cash and borrowing capacity;
— improve predictability around litigation spend;
— avoid committing capital to a long and uncertain asset; and
— deploy its own capital elsewhere in the business.

The decision can therefore be about capital allocation and risk-adjusted return, rather than simple affordability.

No. Non-recourse funding can transfer the risk of the funder's invested capital, while ATE insurance can reduce exposure to adverse costs. But litigation still carries legal, commercial and financial risks.

There may be uninsured costs, policy limits, contractual obligations under the funding agreement and risks if the claim materially deteriorates.

The objective is therefore to reduce and reshape the downside, not to make litigation entirely risk-free.

Adverse costs insurance, commonly known as after-the-event or ATE insurance, can protect a claimant against liability for some or all of an opponent's recoverable legal costs if the claim fails.

It is particularly relevant in jurisdictions such as England and Wales where the unsuccessful party may be ordered to pay some or all of the successful party's costs.

ATE is often used alongside litigation finance, but it can also be arranged separately. Policy limits, exclusions and premiums vary, and the appropriate level of cover depends on the circumstances of the case.

Case Capital focuses on substantial commercial and other high-value claims where the economics can support external finance.

Relevant matters can include contract, shareholder, intellectual property, real estate, insolvency, competition, construction and other commercial disputes, as well as domestic and international arbitration.

Providers will usually look at factors including:

— the value of the claim;
— legal merits and supporting evidence;
— the legal budget;
— likely duration;
— recoverability from the defendant; and
— the route to enforcement.
‍
A strong claim is not automatically financeable. The economics need to work as well as the legal case.

Litigation finance can be used by a wide range of claimants, including:

— private and public companies;
— SMEs and owner-managed businesses;
— institutional investors;
— insolvency practitioners and other fiduciaries;
— start-ups and founders;
— universities and research organisations;
— charities and other organisations; and
— individuals with substantial claims.

Eligibility depends much more on the claim and its economics than on the size of the claimant.

Case Capital's principal focus is substantial commercial claims, but some high-value claims brought by individuals can also support institutional finance.

Yes. A claim does not need to be funded from the outset.

Finance can potentially be introduced after proceedings have begun and, in suitable matters, at later stages including trial, appeal and enforcement.

Some providers may also be willing to include previously incurred legal costs within the transaction, particularly where those costs are well documented and the overall economics support it.

The later the matter has progressed, the remaining legal budget, likely recovery and stage of the case become particularly important.

Yes. Commercial and investment arbitration can be well suited to litigation finance, and specialist funders operate across many of the major arbitral jurisdictions.

The same core issues usually apply: merits, claim value, legal budget, likely duration, recoverability and enforcement.

International arbitration can also raise additional questions around governing law, seat, award enforcement and the location of assets, all of which can affect provider appetite.

In some circumstances.

Rather than simply funding future legal costs, a provider may advance capital against the value of an existing claim, judgment or arbitral award. This can allow a claimant to realise part of the value earlier rather than waiting for the dispute or enforcement process to conclude.

Depending on the structure, the claimant may retain an interest in the eventual recovery.

Availability varies by provider, jurisdiction and the characteristics of the underlying claim or award.

Yes, although availability varies materially between jurisdictions.

The relevant questions are not limited to where the claimant is based. Providers will also look at:

— where the dispute is being heard;
— the applicable law;
— where the defendant is located;
— where assets are situated; and
— where any judgment or award would ultimately need to be enforced.

Case Capital can work with appropriate international claims and arbitrations and has relationships with funders in a number of jurisdictions.

Case Capital helps claimants decide how to finance substantial commercial and other high-value claims and, where external capital makes sense, reach the right part of the market.

‍Finding the names of funders or lenders is rarely the difficult part. The harder question is knowing which providers have a genuine mandate for the claim, whether they are actively deploying, what information they need and when they are worth approaching.

We use our market knowledge, provider relationships and understanding of current mandates to match the claim and financing requirement with relevant funders or lenders.

We then coordinate a focused approach and the initial information flow through to a financing decision.

Case Capital is independent and is not tied to any single funder or lender.

See how the Case Capital process works →

We do not simply circulate every claim indiscriminately across the market.

We use our market knowledge and provider relationships to match the claim against current funder or lender mandates and appetite. Relevant factors can include claim type, size, jurisdiction, procedural stage, financing requirement, security, portfolio exposure and the provider’s current deployment priorities.

A strong claim can still reach the wrong provider — or the right provider at the wrong time. A funder or lender may decline a matter because of concentration risk, existing exposure to a particular sector, jurisdiction, or defendant, or due to changing investment priorities— rather than because the underlying claim is weak.

The aim is therefore to make a selective approach to providers whose mandates and appetite genuinely fit the claim, rather than pursuing an untargeted market approach.

We first review the claim, the financing requirement and what you are trying to achieve.

If the matter appears suitable for our process, we arrange an initial discussion and work through the available financing routes — including whether external finance is the right answer at all.

Where external finance is pursued, we match the claim against current provider mandates and appetite, taking account of factors such as claim size, jurisdiction, stage and financing requirement. We then coordinate a selective approach, information flow and provider discussions through to a financing decision.

The objective is not simply to put a claim into the market. It is to identify the right route, target the right section of the market and run the process in a way that leads to the right outcome.

You do not need a complete funding application before contacting us. For an initial review, the most useful information usually includes:

— a short description of the dispute;
— estimated claim value;
— the defendant;
— current stage of the matter;
— approximate legal budget or financing requirement; and
— details of your existing legal team, if applicable.

If the matter progresses, providers are likely to require more detailed documents, which can include pleadings, legal analysis, evidence, damages material, budgets and information relevant to recovery and enforcement.

There is no fixed timetable.

An initial view can sometimes be obtained relatively quickly where the claim, budget and supporting material are clear. Full provider diligence and investment approval can take considerably longer, particularly for complex or high-value matters.

Timing is affected by the complexity of the claim, the amount of finance required, the quality and completeness of the information available and the provider's own diligence and approval process.

If financing is time-sensitive, tell us at the outset so that this can be taken into account when deciding whether and how to approach the market.

We do not treat litigation finance as the default answer.

Depending on the circumstances, the better route may be:

— self-funding;
— using existing borrowing capacity;
— obtaining new recourse commercial finance;
— a law-firm risk-sharing arrangement;
— ATE insurance without full litigation funding; or
— not pursuing external finance at all.

Case Capital's role is to help work through that financing decision and, where an external route is appropriate, access the relevant part of the market.

Yes. Most claimants approaching Case Capital will already have legal advisers involved, and we can work alongside the existing legal team on the financing process.

Lawyers, barristers, insolvency practitioners and other professional advisers can also approach Case Capital on behalf of clients, subject to the client's authority and any confidentiality considerations.

If you are a lawyer or other adviser who'd like to discuss a client matter, please contact us .

We conduct diligence on all funders, insurers, and law firms within our network to ensure they meet the standards our clients expect. This includes:
‍
— Assessing case experience and track record;
— Evaluating decision-making processes;
— Monitoring the consistency and reliability of their service;
— Confirming and monitoring their regulatory position.

We also actively seek feedback from clients to ensure our partners continue to perform to a high standard. Only trusted partners are introduced to clients.

Case Capital is usually paid by the finance provider when an introduction results in a completed financing arrangement or a successful claim outcome.

The precise fee depends on the provider and the structure of the transaction. Where relevant, we will explain how Case Capital is being paid so that the commercial position is clear.

There is normally no fee payable by the claimant to Case Capital unless a separate fee has been agreed with you in writing in advance.
‍

You can explore our practical guides on funding, pricing, risk mitigation, adverse costs insurance, and claim preparation here:

Get the guides→

And you can learn more about the Case Capital service here:

Our process→