Question 1

In which countries does Criterica Capital offer litigation funding?

Accepted Answer

Criterica Capital currently operates across four jurisdictions: the United States (39 states and Washington DC), the United Kingdom (England, Wales, and Scotland), Australia (all states and territories), and Canada (all provinces and territories). Each jurisdiction is supported by outcome models trained on local court data and relationships with qualified local counsel. We do not currently operate in continental Europe, Asia, or Latin America for direct investment — though cross-border international arbitrations with nexus in these regions may be fundable through our international arbitration product.

Question 2

Does Criterica Capital have local teams in each jurisdiction?

Accepted Answer

Criterica Capital maintains institutional relationships with qualified local counsel in each jurisdiction where we operate. Our underwriting team has dedicated coverage for UK, Australian, and Canadian matters, with local legal advisors engaged for jurisdiction-specific diligence. We do not maintain physical offices in London, Sydney, or Toronto, but our institutional team works regular overlap hours with counsel in all three jurisdictions and maintains active deal pipelines in each market. Funding documentation is prepared in the local legal format and compliant with local disclosure requirements.

Question 3

Can cases in multiple jurisdictions be funded through a single arrangement?

Accepted Answer

Yes. Cross-border cases — disputes with claims in multiple jurisdictions, parallel proceedings, or international arbitrations with enforcement in various countries — can be funded through a single arrangement with jurisdiction-specific provisions. The funding agreement must address: which law governs the agreement itself, how recovery is distributed across jurisdictional proceeds, and how jurisdiction-specific disclosure rules are satisfied. Multi-jurisdiction cases require more complex structuring but are well within our institutional capability. We have funded cases with parallel US federal court and international arbitration components simultaneously.

Question 4

Are returns taxed differently depending on the jurisdiction?

Accepted Answer

Tax treatment of litigation finance returns varies by jurisdiction, the structure of the arrangement, and the type of claim funded. In the US, litigation finance returns to funders are generally treated as ordinary income. In the UK and Australia, tax treatment depends on whether the funding arrangement qualifies as a financial instrument or a fee arrangement. For cross-border structures, withholding tax and treaty considerations apply. Criterica Capital does not provide tax advice — both the funded party and the funder should engage qualified tax counsel before executing international funding arrangements.

Question 5

Is litigation funding legal and regulated in the United Kingdom?

Accepted Answer

Yes. Commercial litigation funding is legally permitted in England and Wales and Scotland. The UK Litigation Funders Association (UKLA) provides a voluntary code of conduct, and its members agree to maintain minimum capital reserves and comply with non-interference standards. The UK Supreme Court's PACCAR ruling (2023) held that litigation funding agreements structured as Damages Based Agreements (DBAs) are regulated under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, which affects how some agreements must be structured. Criterica Capital structures UK agreements as non-DBA return arrangements — as a multiple of investment rather than a percentage of damages — to avoid PACCAR regulatory implications.

Question 6

How does "After the Event" (ATE) insurance interact with funding in the UK?

Accepted Answer

ATE insurance protects the funded party against adverse costs orders if the case is lost — covering the defendant's legal costs that the plaintiff would otherwise be ordered to pay under the English "loser pays" costs rules. ATE premium can itself be funded as part of a litigation finance arrangement, creating a combined funding + insurance product. ATE insurance is an important risk management layer in English litigation that does not exist in the same form in US or Australian courts. We work with established ATE underwriters to structure combined products where appropriate.

Question 7

What types of UK cases does Criterica Capital fund?

Accepted Answer

UK product coverage includes: plaintiff funding for personal injury cases where ATE insurance is involved, commercial litigation finance for breach of contract, IP disputes, shareholder claims, professional negligence, financial services regulatory disputes, and commercial arbitrations seated in London. We also provide structured capital products for UK-based litigation finance funds. UK coverage does not currently include employment tribunal claims, housing disrepair claims, or consumer-volume claims management company (CMC) structures.

Question 8

Is Australia a major market for litigation finance globally?

Accepted Answer

Australia was one of the first jurisdictions to develop a commercial litigation finance market, and it remains one of the most developed globally. The High Court's decision in Campbells Cash & Carry Pty Ltd v Fostif Pty Ltd (2006) confirmed the legality of litigation funding and effectively ended champerty as a restriction on commercial funding in Australia. The subsequent growth of companies like IMF Bentham (now Omni Bridgeway) created a sophisticated institutional market with established norms, pricing conventions, and regulatory expectations. Australian courts are also familiar with funded cases and have developed procedures for managing funders' roles in litigation.

Question 9

What regulatory requirements apply to litigation funders in Australia?

Accepted Answer

Litigation funders in Australia operating class action funding must hold an Australian Financial Services Licence (AFSL) — a requirement introduced by ASIC as of 2020 for class action funding arrangements. For single-plaintiff commercial funding, AFSL requirements do not currently apply, though this remains an active regulatory discussion. Funded class actions also require court approval of the funding arrangement, including scrutiny of funder return provisions to ensure they do not compromise the class's interests. Criterica Capital structures Australian class action funding arrangements to withstand court review under the applicable Part IVA procedures.

Question 10

Does Criterica Capital fund class actions in Australia?

Accepted Answer

Yes. Australian class actions under Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act are a core product. Common funded class action types include shareholder class actions arising from continuous disclosure obligations, consumer product liability cases, mass data breach claims, and employment rights class actions. Australia has one of the most active funded class action markets in the world, driven by the opt-out mechanism under Part IVA and ASIC's active approach to enforcement. We maintain ongoing Australian docket capacity and work with Australian litigation firms experienced in class action procedure.

Question 11

Is litigation funding legal across all Canadian provinces?

Accepted Answer

Litigation finance is legally permitted in Canada, but the regulatory landscape varies by province. Ontario is the most developed and permissive market, with courts having addressed funder approval requirements in class proceedings. British Columbia, Alberta, and Quebec also permit third-party funding, with varying court approval requirements. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal have considered funding approval in class actions and provided guidance on appropriate funder terms. In general, Canadian courts are more actively involved in reviewing funding terms than US courts, making funder compliance with court-acceptable standards important.

Question 12

Do Canadian courts require approval of litigation funding agreements?

Accepted Answer

In class proceedings, Canadian courts — particularly in Ontario — have the discretion to review and approve litigation funding arrangements to ensure they do not create conflicts of interest, are in the best interests of class members, and do not improperly compromise the integrity of the proceeding. Court approval is not always required for individual commercial cases outside the class action context. The funding agreement terms that courts scrutinize most closely include: non-interference provisions, disclosure obligations to class members, funder control rights, and the economics of the funder's return relative to class member recovery.

Question 13

What types of Canadian cases does Criterica Capital fund?

Accepted Answer

Canadian product coverage includes Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, and Quebec-seated commercial litigation, class actions, securities regulatory disputes, environmental liability claims, and commercial arbitrations administered under ADRIC or ICC rules with Canadian seat. We also fund cases in the Federal Court of Canada. Consumer pre-settlement funding for personal injury claims is subject to province-specific rules — notably, Ontario's Contingency Fees Act and the Legal Proceedings Trust Fund provisions affect how plaintiff advance repayment is structured. Contact our Canadian desk for province-specific guidance.

Question 14

How is currency risk managed in international funding arrangements?

Accepted Answer

Currency risk in international funding arises when capital is deployed in one currency and recovery is expected in another. Criterica Capital typically funds in the currency of the case — US dollars for US cases, British pounds for UK cases, Australian dollars for Australian cases, Canadian dollars for Canadian cases. For international arbitrations with multi-currency recovery profiles, hedging provisions or currency-adjustment mechanics can be built into the funding agreement. For large international arrangements, we engage currency risk specialists to structure appropriate provisions. We do not deploy USD capital into non-USD cases without explicit currency management provisions.

Question 15

What law governs international funding agreements?

Accepted Answer

The governing law of the funding agreement is a negotiated point and depends on the jurisdiction of the funded proceedings, the funder's home jurisdiction, and the preferences of funded counsel. For UK cases, English law is standard. For Australian cases, New South Wales or Victorian law applies. For Canadian cases, Ontario law typically governs. For international arbitrations, governing law is often New York or English law regardless of arbitration seat. The choice of governing law determines: which champerty and maintenance rules apply to the agreement itself, how disputes between funder and funded party are resolved, and which professional responsibility rules govern attorney disclosure obligations.

Question 16

Does Criterica Capital fund international investment treaty arbitrations?

Accepted Answer

Yes, for qualifying matters. Investor-state disputes under ICSID, UNCITRAL, and SCC rules are fundable where the underlying treaty claim is strong, the quantum of damages is substantial (generally $50M+), and the sovereign respondent is capable of paying an award. Treaty arbitrations present unique funding challenges: jurisdiction disputes, bifurcation of merits and quantum, potentially decade-long timelines, and the possibility of award annulment. These risks are priced into our return requirements for treaty arbitrations. We have experience with ICSID and UNCITRAL proceedings and understand the specific regulatory and ethical considerations that apply.

International litigation finance — your questions answered.