Two Approaches
How litigation capital gets priced.
The litigation finance industry divides into two fundamental underwriting philosophies. The difference determines who benefits from your capital — and who is left exposed.
Industry Standard
Relationship-Based
Capital deployed based on attorney relationships, firm reputation, and collateral.
—
Pricing determined by negotiation, not case data
—
Returns reflect counterparty leverage, not case merit
—
No systematic win-rate analysis by judge or jurisdiction
—
Funder's track record is opaque — no published methodology
—
Adverse cases repriced or exited based on intuition
—
Disclosure of pricing rationale uncommon
Criterica Capital
Outcomes-Based
Capital priced against predicted case outcomes, trained on 106M+ real court records.
—
Pricing derived from calibrated outcome models, not negotiation
—
Returns reflect case probability — not who you know
—
Win-rate analysis by judge, circuit, district, and case type
—
Full transparency: published methodology, rate ranges, ethics opinions
—
Adverse development triggers model re-underwriting, not gut calls
—
Investors can audit our underwriting against published frameworks
The Data Moat
Pricing built on what actually happened in court.
Criterica Capital's underwriting is built on real court records — verdicts, settlements, dismissals, and appeals — not surveys, not intuition, not counterparty relationships. Every case type, every judge, every jurisdiction has a measurable outcome record. That record is what determines our pricing.
Relationship-based funders price based on what they know about the attorney and what they've seen in similar cases. That creates a pricing floor determined by network access, not case merit. Criterica Capital's models are trained on millions of real case outcomes — which means our pricing reflects the actual probability distribution for your specific case type, in your specific jurisdiction, before your specific judge. That is a fundamentally different product.
106M+
Court Records
The largest real-court-record dataset in the litigation finance industry. Every win-rate feature is derived from actual verdicts, settlements, and judgments — zero synthetic data.
23,508
Production Models
Outcome models trained across jurisdictions, case types, judge assignments, and practice areas. No other funder operates at this model depth.
16,302
Verified Judges
Judge profiles built from case history — not peer surveys. Every judge in our active coverage universe has a calibrated outcome record.
4
Jurisdictions
Active coverage in the US, Canada, UK, and Australia — with outcome models validated for each jurisdiction separately.
Transparency
What we publish that most funders don't.
Institutional buyers, law firms, and regulatory bodies are demanding more transparency from litigation funders. Criterica Capital leads on disclosure — not as a differentiator, but as a baseline standard.
Rate Ranges
Published rate structures for each product — pre-settlement funding, law firm capital, commercial litigation finance. See our Pricing Transparency page.
Underwriting Criteria
We publish the factors that go into case evaluation: liability strength, damages methodology, collectability, duration, and jurisdiction win rate.
State Licensing Status
Full license table across 39 states and DC — including which states require licensing, which prohibit consumer funding, and who our regulators are.
Ethics Opinions
ABA and state bar guidance on litigation funding, attorney disclosure obligations, and fee-splitting rules — all compiled and publicly accessible.
Responsible Funder Commitments
Six published commitments: non-interference, transparent pricing, simple interest only, no hidden fees, attorney independence, regulatory compliance.
Case Outcome Validation
Our models are retrained on real outcome data as cases close. We track model accuracy against actual results — and publish our AUC methodology.
Credibility Signals
Verifiable, not claimed.
ILFA Member
International Legal Finance Association — the industry's primary standards body.
Simple Interest Only
We do not compound interest. Rate disclosure is a condition of every funding agreement.
No Interference Clause
Every agreement contains a non-interference provision. We have no role in case strategy or settlement decisions.
Ethics Opinion Library
ABA Model Rules + 9 state bar opinions — compiled and published. Attorneys can verify we comply.
39-State Licensing
Fully licensed in every jurisdiction where we operate. License numbers published on our State Licensing page.
Attorney Review Required
Every funding agreement is reviewed by the client's retained attorney before execution. No exceptions.