Portfolio Finance vs. Single-Case Funding

Portfolio finance suits firms with a defined group of cases — ten or more matters, or an aggregate expected value in the millions — that want a facility sized to the whole docket rather than negotiating case by case. It fits firms managing concentrated inventory across mass tort, personal injury, or commercial dockets, and particularly firms whose case volume grows continuously enough that renegotiating a new deal for every matter would be impractical.

Single-case funding suits a firm or claimant with one identified high-value matter that needs capital for a specific cost driver — expert fees, e-discovery, trial preparation — where the case itself, not a broader docket, is the asset being financed. It fits firms without enough case volume to build a diversified portfolio, or firms that prefer to keep a single significant matter financed separately from their broader docket.

The funder evaluates the portfolio's composition: case mix, stage distribution, and historical resolution rates, then structures a facility — revolving credit, portfolio purchase, or NAV-based lending — against the diversified whole. As individual cases resolve, proceeds flow back and the facility can redraw against new intake, letting the facility grow or shrink with the firm's actual caseload rather than staying fixed at an initial size. This flexibility particularly benefits firms whose case mix shifts meaningfully over time as new practice areas or referral relationships develop.

The funder underwrites the specific case: liability strength, damages methodology, and the litigation team's capability, then advances capital tied to that matter's resolution. There is no other case to offset if this one underperforms, so due diligence concentrates entirely on the single matter, often including a more detailed review of the case file, expert reports, and procedural history than a portfolio-level review of any individual case would receive.

Portfolio structures typically price more favorably per dollar deployed because the funder's risk is diversified across many independent outcomes — a handful of adverse results does not sink the whole facility, which supports a lower risk premium than a single concentrated bet. Pricing is generally expressed as a return on the facility's outstanding balance rather than a fixed multiple applied to any one case.

Single-case pricing carries a higher risk premium because the entire investment depends on one outcome. The funder has no other matter in the deal to absorb an adverse result, so pricing reflects that concentrated exposure, typically expressed as a multiple of invested capital or a share of the specific case's recovery. Because the case has been individually underwritten in depth, the pricing tends to track that specific matter's risk more precisely than a portfolio-blended rate would.

Risk is diversified across the portfolio. A funder's return depends on the aggregate performance of many cases, so any individual case losing does not by itself threaten the funder's return, and the firm's obligation is tied to the portfolio's proceeds as a whole rather than to any single matter's result. This diversification benefit is the central economic advantage a portfolio structure offers over financing the same cases individually.

Risk is fully concentrated in the one case. If it settles for less than expected, is dismissed, or takes materially longer than projected, there is no other matter to offset that outcome — which is why underwriting for single-case deals is unusually rigorous and why funders scrutinize downside scenarios as carefully as the expected-value case.

Portfolio finance wins when a firm has enough case volume to diversify risk and wants ongoing, revolving access to capital rather than negotiating a new deal for every matter, particularly for firms with a steady pipeline of new intake alongside resolving cases.

Single-case funding wins when a firm has one matter large enough, and strong enough on the merits, to justify capital on its own — often a commercial claim or an unusually high-value personal injury or mass tort case where portfolio-level underwriting would understate the matter's specific strength. In these situations, folding the matter into a broader portfolio facility could dilute the attention and pricing precision the case's own merits deserve.