IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v296y2022i2p738-747.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Third party funding: The minimum claim value

Author

Listed:
  • Merlone, Ugo
  • Lupano, Matteo

Abstract

Third Party Funding (TPF) is an agreement between a claimant and a funder, where the funder provides money to pursue or defend a lawsuit in return for a financial reward, usually a percentage of the sum recovered by the claimant. TPF is a useful tool to improve access to justice and through which the funded party can better allocate its financial resources. It is widely used in international arbitration and, in some countries, even in domestic litigation and arbitration. Many factors affect the decision of funding a lawsuit, in the first place its value, which has to be high enough to justify funder’s allocation of capital. In this paper, we analize litigation from the certainty equivalent perspective and provide interpretation on how differences between the parties may affect the size of the pie. Furthermore, we formalize TPF and – considering Italian costs, cost shifting rules and length of trials – derive a formula to compute the minimum value of a claim suitable for the funding agreement. Finally we use the formula to provide estimates for three-stage proceedings before two jurisdictions with different length of proceedings.

Suggested Citation

  • Merlone, Ugo & Lupano, Matteo, 2022. "Third party funding: The minimum claim value," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 296(2), pages 738-747.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:296:y:2022:i:2:p:738-747
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2021.04.059
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221721003945
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2021.04.059?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Babcock, Bruce A. & Choi, E. Kwan & Feinerman, Eli, 1993. "Risk And Probability Premiums For Cara Utility Functions," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 18(1), pages 1-8, July.
    2. Fran Ackermann & Colin Eden & Terry Williams, 1997. "Modeling for Litigation: Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 48-65, April.
    3. Williams, Terry & Ackermann, Fran & Eden, Colin, 2003. "Structuring a delay and disruption claim: An application of cause-mapping and system dynamics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 148(1), pages 192-204, July.
    4. Hughes, James W & Snyder, Edward A, 1995. "Litigation and Settlement under the English and American Rules: Theory and Evidence," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(1), pages 225-250, April.
    5. Safra Zvi & Zilcha Itzhak, 1993. "Bargaining Solutions without the Expected Utility Hypothesis," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 288-306, April.
    6. Howick, Susan, 2005. "Using system dynamics models with litigation audiences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 239-250, April.
    7. Lundberg, C. Gustav, 2004. "Modeling and predicting emerging inference-based decisions in complex and ambiguous legal settings," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 153(2), pages 417-432, March.
    8. John S. Hammond, III, 1974. "Simplifying the Choice between Uncertain Prospects Where Preference is Nonlinear," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(7), pages 1047-1072, March.
    9. Enrique Guerra-Pujol, 2015. "A Bayesian Model of the Litigation Game," Papers 1506.07854, arXiv.org.
    10. Babcock, Linda, et al, 1995. "Biased Judgments of Fairness in Bargaining," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1337-1343, December.
    11. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    12. Lucian Arye Bebchuk, 1984. "Litigation and Settlement under Imperfect Information," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 15(3), pages 404-415, Autumn.
    13. Cocioc, Paul, 2017. "On the attitude to risk and the decision-making behavior," MPRA Paper 83609, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2017.
    14. Theodore Eisenberg, 2004. "Appeal Rates and Outcomes in Tried and Nontried Cases: Further Exploration of Anti‐Plaintiff Appellate Outcomes," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(3), pages 659-688, November.
    15. Lambert, Eve-Angéline & Peterle, Emmanuel & Tisserand, Jean-Christian, 2019. "Pretrial settlement and coercion: An experiment," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    16. Harinck, Fieke & De Dreu, Carsten K. W. & Van Vianen, Annelies E. M., 2000. "The Impact of Conflict Issues on Fixed-Pie Perceptions, Problem Solving, and Integrative Outcomes in Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 329-358, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Argenton, Cedric & Wang, Xiaoyu, 2020. "Litigation and Settlement under Loss Aversion," Discussion Paper 2020-008, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    2. Hong Luo & Julie Holland Mortimer, 2017. "Copyright Enforcement: Evidence from Two Field Experiments," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 499-528, June.
    3. Bogdan Genchev & Julie Holland Mortimer, 2016. "Empirical Evidence on Conditional Pricing Practices," NBER Working Papers 22313, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Andrea Gallice, 2009. "Self-serving biased reference points," Department of Economic Policy, Finance and Development (DEPFID) University of Siena 0909, Department of Economic Policy, Finance and Development (DEPFID), University of Siena.
    5. Cédric Argenton & Xiaoyu Wang, 2023. "Litigation and settlement under loss aversion," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 56(2), pages 369-402, October.
    6. Yang, Erya, 2020. "Optimism and pessimism in bargaining and contests," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    7. Howick, Susan & Eden, Colin & Ackermann, Fran & Williams, Terry, 2008. "Building confidence in models for multiple audiences: The modelling cascade," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(3), pages 1068-1083, May.
    8. Hooi Hooi Lean & Michael McAleer & Wing-Keung Wong, 2013. "Risk-averse and Risk-seeking Investor Preferences for Oil Spot and Futures," Documentos de Trabajo del ICAE 2013-31, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Instituto Complutense de Análisis Económico, revised Aug 2013.
    9. Peter Van Wijck & Ben Van Velthoven, 2000. "An Economic Analysis of the American and the Continental Rule for Allocating Legal Costs," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 115-125, March.
    10. Paulson, Nicholas D. & Babcock, Bruce A., 2010. "Readdressing the Fertilizer Problem," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 35(3), pages 1-17, December.
    11. Katharina Momsen & Sebastian O. Schneider, 2022. "Motivated Reasoning, Information Avoidance, and Default Bias," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2022_03, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    12. Nathalie Chappe & Raphaël Giraud, 2013. "Confidence, Optimism and Litigation: A Litigation Model under Ambiguity," Working Papers 2013-05, CRESE.
    13. Andrea Gallice, 2022. "Bankruptcy Problems with Self-Serving Biased Reference Points," Carlo Alberto Notebooks 683 JEL Classification: D, Collegio Carlo Alberto.
    14. Noah Lim & Teck-Hua Ho, 2007. "Designing Price Contracts for Boundedly Rational Customers: Does the Number of Blocks Matter?," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(3), pages 312-326, 05-06.
    15. Orley Ashenfelter & David E. Bloom & Gordon B. Dahl, 2013. "Lawyers as Agents of the Devil in a Prisoner's Dilemma Game," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(3), pages 399-423, September.
    16. Dari-Mattiacci, Giuseppe & Deffains, Bruno & Lovat, Bruno, 2011. "The dynamics of the legal system," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 79(1), pages 95-107.
    17. Hooi Hooi Lean & Michael McAleer & Wing-Keung Wong, 2010. "Market Efficiency of Oil Spot and Futures: A Stochastic Dominance Approach," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-705, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    18. Baptiste Massenot & Maria Maraki & Christian Thoeni, 2016. "Legal compliance and litigation spending under the English and American rule: Experimental evidence," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du Département d'économie 16.19, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, Département d’économie.
    19. Wang, Charles X. & Webster, Scott & Suresh, Nallan C., 2009. "Would a risk-averse newsvendor order less at a higher selling price?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 196(2), pages 544-553, July.
    20. Alex Lehr & Jana Vyrastekova & Agnes Akkerman & René Torenvlied, 2018. "Horizontal and vertical spillovers in wage bargaining: A theoretical framework and experimental evidence," Rationality and Society, , vol. 30(1), pages 3-53, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:296:y:2022:i:2:p:738-747. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.