Trending Now
LFJ Conversation

An LFJ Conversation with Wieger Wielinga, Managing Director of Enforcement and EMEA, Omni Bridgeway

By John Freund |
January 7, 2025

An LFJ Conversation with Wieger Wielinga, Managing Director of Enforcement and EMEA, Omni Bridgeway

Wieger Wielinga is responsible for Omni Bridgeway’s investment origination in (sovereign) awards and judgments globally and its litigation funding efforts both in EMEA and the UK.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with Wieger.

You have been working in the funding industry for over 25 years and are the president of ELFA. In that capacity you are at the forefront of discussion about regulating funding. Can you provide a short summary of the status of the regulatory discussion in the EU at this moment?

Perhaps the starting point here is to understand who wants regulation and why. It appears to Omni Bridgeway that a clear formulation of the perceived problems, and who would benefit from solving them, should take place before moving to the question of solutions and whether regulation is part of that.

Some of the more understandable concerns that were raised as our industry was developing and gaining spotlight over the past years concerned (i) potential conflicts of interest which could unintendedly occur if arbitrators are not aware who is funding one of the parties and perhaps to some extent (ii) the financial standing of funders and their ability to cover their financial obligations.

The issue of conflict of interest is solved by all institutions nowadays requiring disclosure of funders and the issue of financial standing has been tackled by funders associations obliging their members with respect to capital adequacy and audited accounts etcetera. See for istance https://elfassociation.eu/about/code-of-conduct.

Powerful industries like big tech, pharma, and tobacco have faced successful claims from parties who would never have succeeded without the backing of a funder.  That rebalancing of powers appears to have triggered efforts to undermine the rise of the litigation funding industry. Arguments used in the EU regulatory discussion against funding include suggestions on the origin of the capital and principal aims of the funders, often referring to funders coming from the US or “Wall Street”. It is not a proper argument but opponents know a subset of the EU constituency is sensitive to the predatory undertone it represents.

So the suggestion that Litigation Funding is a phenomenon blowing over from the US or at least outside the EU is misleading?

Indeed. What many don’t realize is that litigation funding was well established as a practice for over a decade on the European continent without any issues before UK funders started to become established. Some funders, like Germany’s Foris AG, were publicly listed, while others emerged from the insurance sector, such as Roland Prozessfinanz and later Allianz Prozessfinanz. At Omni Bridgeway, we have been funding cases since the late 1980s, often supporting European governments with subrogation claims tied to national Export Credit Agencies and since the turn of the century arbitrations and collective redress cases. So it does not come “from” the US, or Australia or the UK. It has been already an established practice since the early 90s of the last century, with reputable clients, government entites, as well as multi nationals and clients from the insurance and banking industry.

Only later, as of around 2007, we witnessed the entry of more serious capital with the entry of US and UK litigation funders. Only as of that moment, questions came about champerty and maintenance issues and in its slipstream, a call for regulation and the abovementioned narrative started being pushed.

Another related misunderstanding is the size and growth of the litigation funding industry. It is in my view often overstated. In absolute terms, it remains small compared to other high-risk asset classes like private equity or venture capital. Sure, it is a growing industry and good funders have interesting absolute returns to provide its institutional LPs whilst doing societal good, especially in the growing ESG litigation space, but one should be suspicious of parties that speak of a “hedge fund mecca” or similar incorrect exaggerations.

So what about the actual risk for frivolous or abusive litigation by or due to litigation funders?

We are in the business of making a return on our investments. Because our financing is non-recourse (unlike a loan) we only make a return if the matters we invest in are won and paid out. Whether there is a win is determined by courts and arbitrators and as such out of our hands but you will understand we put in a lot of time and effort to review matters and determine their likelihood of success. Any matter that makes it through our rigorous underwriting process is objectively worth pursuing and is unlikely to be frivolous. That does not mean all matters we invest in are sure winners, but these are matters that deserve the opportunity to be heard and very often our funding is the only way in which that is possible.

So, in response to the argument of abusive litigation I would put the argument of access to justice. It is not uncommon for legal fees in relatively straightforward commercial matters to exceed EUR 1 million, let alone the adverse cost exposure. If we want a society where the size of your bank account isn’t the only determining factor for whether you can pursue your rights, we have to accept funding as a fact of life.

A related argument that continues to be recycled by the opponents of TPLF is that funded party’s need protection against the funders pricing and /or control over the litigation. This is also a misconception, for which there is zero empirical basis. After all these years of funding in the EU, thousands of funded cases, there are no cases where a court or tribunal has indeed decided a funder acted abusively, neither in general nor in this particular respect. This is partly because the interests between funder and funded party are typically well aligned. Off course there is always a slight potential for interests starting to deviate between client and funder with the passage of time, as in all business relationships. These deviations in interest are, however, almost never unforeseeable, and typically as “what ifs” addressed in advance in the funding agreements. Both parties voluntarily enter these agreements and accept their terms. Nobody is forced to sign a funding agreement.

That may be true, but how about consumers, who may be less sophisticated users of litigation funding?

A fair question. However, there are two other realities as well: First, there is already a plethora of consumer protecting rules codified in EU directives and national legislation of member states.[1] Second, consumers tend not to be the direct, individual, clients of third-party litigation funders, as they almost always end up being represented by professional consumer organizations, who in turn have ample legal representation and protect the interest of their claimant group.

Interestingly the European Consumer Organization BEUC has just published their view on litigation funding in a report “Justice unchained | BEUC’s view on third party litigation funding for collective redress”. The summary is crystal clear: “Third party litigation funding has emerged as a solution to bridge a funding gap” and “provides substantial benefits to claimant organisations”. Also: “Assessment of TPLF needs to be evidenced by specific cases.” And “The potential risks related to TPLF for collective redress are already addressed by the Representative Action Directive.”  It concludes by saying “additional regulation of TPLF at EU level should be considered only if it is necessary.”  See https://www.beuc.eu/position-papers/justice-unchained-beucs-view-third-party-litigation-funding-collective-redress.

So what do you think will be the ultimate outcome of the regulatory discussion in the EU and will this impact the Funding market in the EU?

So, in summary, when it comes to European regulation, Europe knows that it is crucial to focus on fostering a competitive environment where innovation thrives, accountability is upheld, and access to justice is ensured. This all requires financial equality between parties, ensuring a level playing field. The EC cannot make policies on the basis of an invented reality, of created misunderstandings. That is why the mapping exercise was a wise decision. We should expect regulation, if any, will not be of a prohibitive nature and hence we do not see an adverse impact to the funding market.

In the meantime, there is this patchwork of implementations of the EU Directive on Representative Actions for the Protection of Consumer Rights. Will funders and investors be hesitant to participate in the EU?

Indeed the EC has left implementation of the directive to the member states and that leads to differences. In some jurisdictions funders will have large reservations to fund a case under the collective regime and in other jurisdictions it will be fine. This is best illustrated by comparison of the implementation in The Netherlands and the one in Germany.

The Dutch opt out regime under the WAMCA rules allows a qualified entity to pursue a litigation on behalf of a defined group of consumers with court oversight on both what is a qualified entity, its management board, the way it is funded and how the procedure is conducted.  Over 70 cases have been filed now in the WAMCA’s short history. The majority of those cases concern matters with an exclusively idealistic goal by the way. Although there is clearly an issue with duration, as it typically takes over 2 years before standing is addressed, the Dutch judiciary is really trying to facilitate and improve the process. Any initial suspicion of the litigation funders is also coming to an end now the industry has demonstrated that its capital comes from normal institutional investors, its staff from reputable law firms or institutions and IRRs sought are commensurate to the risk of non recourse funding. Once the delays are addressed with the first guiding jurisprudence, the process will probably be doing more or less what it is supposed to do. Almost all cases funded under the WAMCA have an ESG background by the way.

By contrast, Germany chose to “implement” the EU Representative action directive by adopting an opt-in system. It too is meant for qualified entities, but it is questionable whether it fulfills the purpose intended by the European Commission. The issue which makes it rather unsuitable for commercial cases is that the funder’s entitlement is capped at ten percent (sic!) of the proceeds from the class action at penalty of dismissal. Here it seems the lobby has been successful. No funder can fund a case under that regime on a non-recourse basis.

So does that mark the end of Germany as a market for funding collective actions and what does it hold for other member states?

No, in practice it means cases will not be financed under this regime. Funders will continue funding matters as they have in the past, avoiding the class action regime of 13 October 2023.  It should serve as a warning though for other member states where discussions are ongoing concerning the implementation of the representative action directive, such as Spain.  Indeed it would have been better if the EC would have given clear guidelines towards a more harmonized set of collective actions regimes throughout Europe.

[1] See, for instance, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, “Unfair Commercial practices (National        Reports)”          (November            2005),  available           at: https://www.biicl.org/files/883_national_reports_unfair_commercial_practices_new_member_states%5Bwi th_dir_table_and_new_logo%5D.pdf. See also, EY “Global Legal Commercial Terms Handbook 2020” (October 2020), available at: https://www.eylaw.be/wp-content/uploads/publications/EY-Global-Legal- Commercial-Terms-Handbook.pdf. Furter, the Belgian Code of Economic Law defines an “abusive clause” as “any term or condition in a contract between a company and a consumer which, either alone or in combination with one or more other terms or conditions, creates a manifest imbalance between the rights and obligations of the parties to the detriment of the consumer”; such clause is prohibited, null, and void (Article VI.84 Belgian Code of Economic Law). Article 36 of the Danish Contracts Act stipulates that agreement can be set aside if they are unreasonable or unfair. Article L.442-1 of the French Commercial Code (applicable to commercial contracts) prohibits significant imbalance provisions, such as a clause that results in one party being at an unfair disadvantage or disproportionately burdened as compared to the other party. Section 242 of the German Civil Code also obliges the parties to abide by the principle of good faith an

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

More LFJ Conversations

View All
LFJ Conversation

An LFJ Conversation with Jason Levine, Partner at Foley & Lardner LLP

By John Freund |

Jason Levine is an antitrust and commercial litigation partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Foley & Lardner LLP.  He previously served as the D.C. office head, and head of U.S. antitrust strategy, at Omni Bridgeway, a global commercial litigation finance company.

Jason’s legal background spans over 25 years in private practice as a first-chair trial lawyer and antitrust litigator in several multinational law firms.  He has tried over a dozen cases and served as lead counsel for plaintiffs and defendants in numerous billion-dollar disputes, including defending against two of the nation’s largest antitrust MDLs.  Jason graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School and clerked for Judge Randall Rader on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Below is our LFJ conversation with Jason Levine:

Where does litigation finance add the most value in antitrust cases, particularly given their scale, duration, and cost profile? 

As in any complex dispute, litigation finance adds significant value in antitrust cases by shifting the risk of fees and legal costs away from the plaintiff or the law firm and to a funder.  Antitrust cases are particularly well-suited to litigation finance because they can be exceptionally costly, require specialized counsel and often multiple expert witnesses, tend to have a long duration, and can involve massive amounts of discovery.

The aspects of the case where a financing arrangement adds the most value will vary depending on the funding mechanism.  If a law firm is handling a matter on a contingent fee basis, then the greatest value from financing typically comes from covering the legal costs the firm would otherwise advance on its own.  Outside a contingent fee scenario, financing is most important in paying counsel’s legal fees, although the funder may also cover legal costs.  The universal point is that, for companies pursuing antitrust litigation, financing can be very attractive because it is non-recourse, permits the company to reserve its legal budget for defensive and compliance matters that are not amenable to financing, and helps convert the legal function from a proverbial “cost center” into a revenue generator.

Funding also increases the client’s options for which counsel to retain, which is particularly important in antitrust cases given their nature.  With outside financing covering legal fees and costs, the client can focus more on the expertise and “fit” of counsel than on their billing rates.  Relatedly, litigation finance can enable a small company to hire a “Big Law” firm that doesn’t offer contingent fee arrangements, rather than potentially being limited to a firm that does.  The same point applies to expert witnesses, making the top echelon available whereas they might otherwise have been prohibitively expensive.

In short, with a meritorious case and litigation financing behind it, a small corporate plaintiff can match a much larger defendant’s litigation resources.  This benefit of leveling the playing field is very clear in antitrust cases, given their scope and cost to litigate, which helps explain why they are funded at a higher rate than most other categories of commercial litigation.

Are there specific types of antitrust claims or procedural postures where you think funding is especially well suited?

Funding is very well suited to antitrust claims where a company has opted out of a class action and is pursuing its claim independently.  This is particularly true if the opt-out occurs after the putative class action has survived motions to dismiss, if not class certification.  At either point, a funder will consider the opt-out case at least partly de-risked.

This benefits the funder because the case is less risky and will have a shorter remaining duration.  It benefits the funding counterparty because the funder’s required return should be lower, given the de-risking, leaving more of the proceeds for the client and the law firm to share.  Substantively, funding is well suited to various kinds of antitrust cases, so long as quantifiable money damages are at stake rather than solely injunctive relief.

What regulatory or legislative developments in litigation finance should antitrust litigators be paying closest attention to right now?

There is significant activity at both the federal and state level that warrants attention, although not specific to antitrust cases.  At the federal level, bills have been proposed that would seek to compel detailed disclosures of the existence and details of litigation financing arrangements, including to the adverse parties.  Another bill would seek to largely shut down the involvement of foreign entities in litigation finance, both by prohibiting the practice by certain state-affiliated actors and also by requiring extremely detailed disclosures by others.

Although it’s fair to say that none of these proposals are a very high legislative priority, they definitely warrant attention, given how far the proposed federal tax on litigation finance proceeds progressed in 2025.  That tax has not been formally re-introduced yet, but that is another possibility that would merit watching.

As the midterm elections in 2026 draw closer, the prospects for movement on any of these proposals will likely decrease, with the exception of a possible “midnight rider” slipped into a year-end Appropriations bill.  That’s something else to watch out for.  In addition, the Advisory Committee on the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is considering potential Rule amendments involving disclosure of litigation funding uniformly in federal cases, and this is worth monitoring as well.  Given all these developments, defendants have an increased incentive to seek information about litigation funding arrangements through discovery requests.

At the state level, at least a dozen states are perennially considering different disclosure regimes and regulations that would complicate the use of litigation finance.  Some of this is performative, having failed multiple years in a row in some states.  I would keep a particularly close watch for state-specific versions of the litigation finance tax that failed to pass in the U.S. Senate last year, especially in California, New York, Texas, Florida, and Illinois.

How do you expect evolving disclosure or taxation proposals to affect big firm strategy in funded matters?

Certainly, large law firms that are considering funding arrangements, or that have them already, will be monitoring the regulatory landscape for important developments.  I would anticipate that the imposition of new regulations in general will cause firms to focus closely on compliance, both on their part as either funded counterparties or as counsel to them, and also on the part of funders.  This might lead to a tendency to favor larger, more established funders that have robust internal compliance capabilities.

Law firms and their funded corporate clients will also likely scrutinize funding agreements even more carefully.  Similarly, if any new industry-specific taxes are enacted, law firms will likely focus on funders’ ability to adapt their return structures to minimize the passed-through impact.  Pricing in line with the market is always important, but potential tax changes could highlight this even more.  Greater regulation could also lead to further consolidation in the litigation finance industry, leaving fewer – but likely larger – companies in the space, making it all the more important for law firms to seek out whatever edge a particular funder can provide in a deal.

I would not expect any new disclosure or taxation regimes to change the way law firms actually litigate their cases, with the exception of disclosure requirements giving rise to more discovery efforts aimed at funding arrangements.  It is possible that a new, aggressive disclosure regime could give certain companies pause about pursuing funding, but I also consider this unlikely to change law firm litigation strategy.

Based on your own transition, what advice would you give Big Law partners or senior associates considering a move into litigation finance or a finance adjacent role?

I would advise them to be patient and to focus on relationships.  Litigation finance companies do not have a classic recruiting pattern like law firms do.  Headcounts tend to remain steady, with opportunistic hiring for purposes of expansion or replacement of departing personnel.  I know several people whose transitions from a law firm into litigation finance took over a year because there simply weren’t openings available.  In that situation, it’s important make contacts at one or more companies and check in with them periodically, because expressing interest in a position and staying top of mind can make all the difference.  A warm internal introduction is much more valuable than cold outreach.

I would also recommend gaining direct exposure to litigation finance before seeking out a position.  Funders will favor partners and associates who have previously handled funded litigation or at least negotiated deal terms with a funder.  This not only credentializes the job-seeker’s interest in a role, it also demonstrates some familiarity with the industry and how it operates.  Relatedly, job-seekers should learn as much as they can about the funder as possible before approaching it.  What kinds of cases does it fund?  Does it have geographical limits, or funding amounts that it favors?  This information is often on the company’s website, and knowing it shows diligence and also helps ensure fit.  For the few publicly traded funders, I strongly recommend reviewing investor materials and annual reports before interviewing.

In addition, particularly for partners, I would emphasize the importance of objectively assessing one’s network and prospects for helping to generate deal flow.  Similar to a law firm, at most funders, origination is a key aspect of a more senior role.  What is your base of potential funding clients?  Do you have strong contacts with litigation business generators at multiple law firms, or with well-placed in-house counsel at companies with suitable litigation?  Are your contacts limited to particular kinds of litigation, and if so, are those ones that tend to receive funding?

These are important questions to answer as granularly as possible before approaching a funder for a job.  For more junior lawyers, consider where you would fit in the funder’s structure, and how you can add value, particularly in the nuts and bolts of underwriting cases.  Here, again, subject matter is important.  Expertise in areas of law that don’t yield funded cases is unlikely to support the business care for a new hire.

LFJ Conversation

An LFJ Conversation with Thomas Bell, Founder of Fenaro

By John Freund |

Thomas is the Founder of Fenaro, a modern fund management platform for litigation finance. He holds a law degree from Durham University and has spent his career designing and delivering large-scale, complex financial services platforms. Prior to founding Coremaker's Fenaro product, he spent much of his career at Accenture, PwC, and other management consulting firms, working with global banks, asset managers, and institutional investors.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with Thomas Bell:

The litigation finance industry has grown to over $16 billion, yet your blog notes that many firms still run on spreadsheets. What specific operational pain points do fund managers face with legacy systems, and how does Fenaro address them? 

Despite the industry’s rapid growth, most litigation funders continue to rely on in-house spreadsheets or fragmented systems that are not designed to handle litigation finance. From our conversations with funders across the market, three operational pain points consistently arise.

The first is calculation risk. Funders regularly tell us about issues arising from manual models and fragile data infrastructure, ranging from investor reports needing to be reissued due to errors (surprisingly common), to material budget discrepancies only being identified late in a case lifecycle (less common, but in some cases career-ending). Purpose-built fund management systems substantially reduce this risk by centralising data and automating complex calculations.

The second is friction with law firms after a deal has closed. One funder summarised their biggest challenge as “getting lawyers to think in IRR terms.” In practice, this reflects the lack of efficient processes for tracking budgets, agreeing drawdowns, reviewing invoices, and sharing case updates. Fenaro addresses this through the borrower portal, which provides law firms with a structured and transparent way to work with funders throughout the life of an investment, resulting in a much more positive relationship.

The third is operational complexity limiting scale. Many funders speak candidly about ambitious growth plans being constrained by manual reporting, bespoke processes, and operational bottlenecks. Without greater standardisation and automation, it is difficult to scale portfolios or support increased institutional participation. Fenaro is built from the ground up to reduce the overhead of operational processes, while giving funders all the key information required to focus on growing and managing the fund.

Mass tort portfolios can involve thousands of individual claims with constantly shifting data. How does your platform help funders track, value, and report on these complex portfolios without drowning in manual updates? 

In mass tort strategies, some funders are managing regular updates across tens or even hundreds of thousands of individual claims and many different law firms. Several have told us that keeping this information accurate and up to date is a data nightmare that quickly becomes unmanageable, and worry they’re spending too much time on administrative data-wrangling efforts, and not enough time on actually mining the content for value.

Fenaro is designed to process high volumes of case data from multiple law firms in a consistent format. Updates can be submitted through borrower portals or uploaded directly, allowing funders to see the status, valuation, and history of every claim at a glance. As part of this process, the platform runs validation checks and identifies potential duplicate claimants, a serious and well-known issue in mass tort funding. The same validated data is then used to produce investor and internal reports without the need for manual reconciliation.

You've written about the challenges funders face when lending to law firms—particularly around monitoring how capital is deployed. What visibility does Fenaro provide, and how does that change the funder-firm relationship? 

We frequently hear that fund visibility tends to drop sharply after capital is deployed. Monitoring budgets, drawdowns, and expenditure often relies on periodic reporting and manual review.

Fenaro provides funders with continuous visibility at both the portfolio and case level. At the same time, Fenaro gives law firms access to a free borrower portal. Contrary to the perception that firms resist new technology, many lawyers have told us directly that they are willing to adopt tools that reduce administrative burden and improve clarity. The borrower portal allows firms to track funding, compare spend against budgets, submit updates, and request additional capital, reducing friction on both sides and improving the overall relationship.

You've recently launched complex waterfall and scenario modelling functionality. Can you walk us through a use case—how would a fund manager use this feature when evaluating a potential investment or communicating with LPs about projected returns? 

Funders often tell us that building and maintaining waterfall models in spreadsheets is one of the most time-consuming and error-prone parts of the investment process. Fenaro allows complex waterfalls to be configured in seconds, with multi-step logic based on capital return, interest, IRR, MOIC and other calculation types.

A flow view presents the waterfall logic in plain English, and scenario-modelling functionality allows users to test scenarios and explain outcomes to investment committees and LPs. Once a deal is live, waterfalls update automatically as cashflows occur, removing the need for repeated spreadsheet rework and reducing calculation risk.

Looking ahead, where do you see the biggest opportunities for technology to transform how litigation finance firms operate? Are there capabilities that funders are asking for that don't exist yet?

Many funders we speak to see the biggest opportunities in greater standardisation, which would help unlock institutional capital and support a more liquid secondary market. There is still significant friction in how funders, law firms, investors, insurers, and brokers interact, and we’re tackling this one step at a time, focusing on the most pressing pain points first.

We are also frequently asked about AI and machine learning. Our view is that near-term value lies in decision support rather than decision replacement—particularly in reducing the time spent evaluating the majority of cases that are ultimately declined, while equipping underwriters with better information to make faster, more confident decisions. It will likely be some time before the technology is sufficient to take underwriting decisions on behalf of the funder, given the complexity and variation of the underlying legal cases, but things are moving quickly in the AI space so we continue to test and review various models as they evolve.

LFJ Conversation

An LFJ Conversation with Rory Kingan, CEO of Eperoto

By John Freund |

Rory is the CEO of Eperoto, championing the use of decision analysis to improve clarity around litigation and arbitration risk. Originally from New Zealand, he's worked within legal technology for decades, delivering innovative solutions to the top global firms, government, as well as specialist legal boutiques.

Below is our LFJ Conversation with Rory Kingan:

Eperoto’s approach emphasizes using lawyer judgment rather than AI or data-driven models. Why is that distinction important, and how does it build trust among lawyers, funders, and other stakeholders?

At Eperoto, we believe that lawyer judgement is the foundation of credible litigation and arbitration analysis. High-stakes disputes aren’t like consumer tech problems where large-scale historical data exists and small inaccuracies are insignificant. They're unique, context-dependent situations where experience and nuanced legal reasoning are irreplaceable. In most commercial cases, AI simply doesn’t have the training data or contextual nuance to make defensible predictions. Right now it also struggles with the complexity of jurisdictional variation and the role of precedent. No funder or sophisticated client should rely on a generic model to value a multi-million-dollar dispute.

Litigation and arbitration are inherently grey-zones. Outcomes turn not only on points of law, but also on credibility assessments, witness performance, tribunal psychology, and how fact narratives are perceived. These are areas where AI is weak and where judges and experts routinely disagree. Research across behavioural psychology and negotiation theory shows that human reasoning is still essential in these environments. Lawyers will often use an AI tool as a sounding board to explore different ideas and arguments, but ultimately they rely on their own judgement and reasoning to assess how different elements of the case are likely to unfold.

Eperoto is therefore built around a simple principle: Lawyers make the judgement; the platform helps them to structure and quantify it.

This distinction builds trust for three reasons:

  1. It reflects how top practitioners already work. Clients retain leading counsel for their experience, intuition, and ability to form a reasoned opinion, not for machine-generated answers.
  2. It avoids “false precision.” AI-driven confidence levels often create a misleading impression of certainty. Eperoto keeps the human experts in control.
  3. It aligns with stakeholders’ expectations. Funders, insurers, GCs, CFOs and boards want a lawyer’s professional assessment, but expressed in a structured, decision-analytic way. Eperoto strengthens, rather than replaces, that judgment.

The result is a decision-analysis workflow that is transparent, explainable, and fully grounded in legal expertise. Precisely what stakeholders need to trust the numbers behind a funding or settlement decision.

When litigation funders assess potential cases, they often rely on intuition and experience. How does Eperoto help them quantify risk and likely outcomes in a way that strengthens those investment decisions?

Every litigation funder knows that a case is a contingent asset, and valuing that asset depends on understanding the likelihood of outcomes at trial or arbitration. Yet the process used to reach those views is usually unstructured, highly subjective, and difficult to defend when presented to an investment committee or external partner.

Eperoto addresses this by helping lawyers to apply decision-tree analysis. This is a method used for decades in energy, pharma, finance, and indeed litigation. Instead of relying purely on intuition, lawyers:

  1. Map the key uncertainties. What issues drive liability? Likely quantum outcomes? How might damages be reduced? Where do procedural or evidentiary risks sit?
  2. Assign probabilities grounded in legal judgment. No AI predictions: purely the lawyers’ professional view expressed clearly rather than implied.
  3. Estimate costs & cost-shifting, interest, and any enforcement risk.

From this the tool calculates a visual quantitative risk report, showing funders the likely outcomes, expected value, downside scenarios, tail risk, and more.

This sort of analysis:

  • makes an investment case more rigorous,
  • dramatically improves internal and external defensibility, and
  • surfaces insights impossible to see from narrative memos alone.

Funders, insurers, and counsel repeatedly tell us that this level of clarity is transformative. It sharpens decisionmaking, strengthens underwriting discipline, and improves alignment across stakeholders. Over time, a consistent, structured approach creates a more disciplined portfolio and generates a feedback loop that measurably improves investment decisions.

Clearer communication of risk and value benefits all stakeholders. What are the biggest barriers to achieving that clarity in practice?

The biggest barrier is language ambiguity. A typical merits opinion reads something like:

“It's most likely the defendant will be found liable for X, with only an outside chance the court will accept the argument Y. Damages could be as high as Z.”

Terms such as “very likely,” “little chance,” or “low risk” are interpreted wildly differently by different people, even among seasoned professionals. Research consistently shows a huge disparity in how people interpret such terms. For example "unlikely" can be interpreted as meaning anywhere from below 10% to over 40% likely to occur. Your investment decisions shouldn’t be subject to this margin of error just from internal communications.

A second barrier is complexity overload. Lawyers often present lengthy written analyses where different legal issues are explained sequentially:

“X might happen, but if not then Y. In that case Z will determine…”

Decision-makers are left to combine all these uncertainties mentally, plus litigation costs, insurance, interest, enforcement risks, appeal probabilities, and timing assumptions. Even highly experienced professionals can't intuitively do this correctly.

Eperoto solves these issues in three ways:

a) It forces clarity through quantification. “80% likelihood the contract is valid” is unambiguous, whereas “very likely” may be understood as 65% by one person and 95% by another.

b) It combines the factors automatically. No one needs to mentally integrate legal issues, damages pathways, costs, or conditional dependencies.

c) It presents the analysis visually. Charts and diagrams let stakeholders see the shape of the dispute, rather than reading dense text.

Together these remove unnecessary complexity, leaving stakeholders to focus on the true strategic questions rather than being stuck in ambiguous details.

Many lawyers hesitate to provide quantitative estimates because they fear being “wrong.” How do you encourage practitioners to engage with uncertainty in a more structured, transparent way?

This is a common concern, but it fundamentally misunderstands what quantification achieves. Providing estimates numerically doesn't remove uncertainty, it communicates it transparently. The alternative isn't "not being wrong"; it's being vague, which is far worse for the client or investor.

Sophisticated clients, funders, and boards understand that litigation outcomes are uncertain. What they want is clarity, not perfection. Yes, you should still make clear that a percentage estimate is not a promise; it is a transparent reflection of professional judgement, less ambiguous than vague adjectives. But once everyone accepts that, it allows for greater clarity and indeed honesty.

We encourage lawyers to adopt a mindset similar to experts in other industries:

  • Quantification is not about being right; it’s about making uncertainty explicit.
  • A structured model allows you to compare multiple scenarios, e.g. optimistic vs pessimistic or comparing different counsel’s assessments.
  • Visual decision-trees help practitioners and clients see how different issues interact without needing to commit to one “correct” narrative.

Lawyers often find that once they begin using numeric estimates and decision trees, discussions with clients become easier, expectations align more quickly, and advice becomes more defensible. Many even rely on the visual component alone when presenting paths, strategy, and what truly drives the dispute.

How can tools like Eperoto help bridge the gap between legal reasoning and financial analysis, bringing dispute resolution closer to the standards of decision-making seen in other business contexts?

Business-critical decisions in energy, pharmaceuticals, and corporate strategy have used quantitative decision analysis for decades. A pharmaceutical company wouldn't greenlight a $50M clinical trial based on phrases like "good chance of success" or "strong scientific rationale". They'd model probabilities, conditional outcomes, and expected value. Yet litigation decisions involving similar amounts often rely on purely that kind of qualitative language.

The gap isn't from a lack of judgment. It's that legal reasoning and financial decision-making speak different languages. Lawyers think in terms of arguments, precedents, and likelihoods. Funders think in terms of expected values, downside risk, and portfolio returns. Eperoto translates between these worlds.

Here's a concrete example: A law firm presents a case with "strong liability prospects" and "substantial damages potential." The investment committee sees an attractive headline but struggles to assess the risk. Using Eperoto, counsel maps the decision tree and reveals that while liability looks good at 70%, the real value driver is a secondary issue: whether a contractual damages cap applies. If the cap doesn't apply, a 40% likelihood, it would triple the recovery. The investment thesis becomes clear: this isn't a simple 70% bet on liability; it's a case where the upside scenario creates most of the expected value. That fundamentally changes how you price the funding, structure the terms, and think about settlement strategy.

This kind of insight can easily be buried in a narrative memo but obvious when properly structured.

Specifically, Eperoto enables:

1. A common analytical framework - When counsel says "we have a strong case but quantum is uncertain," Eperoto forces that assessment into a structure funders recognize: probability-weighted scenarios with costs, timing, and enforcement risk factored in. This isn't dumbing down legal analysis; it's making it actionable.

2. Proper treatment of uncertainty - In portfolio management, no one expects point estimates: they expect distributions, scenarios, and sensitivity analysis. Eperoto brings that same rigor to litigation assets, showing not just expected value but the shape of the risk distribution. What's the 10th percentile outcome? How sensitive is the return to different assumptions? This is standard practice in all other asset classes.

3. Defensible investment decisions - Just as a PE firm documents the assumptions behind an acquisition, funding decisions should have the same analytical discipline. Eperoto creates an audit trail showing why a deal was approved or a settlement accepted, based on structured analysis rather than gut feel. Critical for investment committee scrutiny and stakeholder confidence.

4. Portfolio-level insights over time - Applying decision analysis consistently across a portfolio creates compounding benefits. Funders develop better calibration of their judgment, identify patterns of cases that outperform or underperform expectations, and build institutional knowledge about what drives value. Over time, this disciplined approach strengthens underwriting quality and improves portfolio returns. Just like how data-driven decision-making in other industries creates feedback loops that enhance performance.

The result is that litigation funding can be managed with the same analytical rigor as any other alternative asset class. Lawyers retain their essential role as expert judgment-makers, but that judgment gets expressed in a framework that investment committees can understand, stress-test, and defend to stakeholders.