momentum’s remuneration is wholly success-based (we earn nothing if the case doesn’t succeed). In a successful outcome, our return typically comes as an agreed portion of the recovery.

The exact structure can vary by case, but the industry-standard models include:

• A percentage of the proceeds from the judgment or settlement (for example, a funder might receive X% of the amounts recovered); or

• A multiple of the invested amount (for example, a return of 2–4 times the capital funded);

Often, funding agreements use a combination of these – for instance, the funder’s fee might be the greater of a certain percentage or a minimum multiple. This ensures a fair return for the risk over potentially several years of litigation. The agreed return is negotiated upfront and reflects the specifics of the case: the claim size, the estimated duration, complexity, and risks involved.

Importantly, the funding is non-recourse. This means if the case yields no recovery, you owe us nothing – we do not recoup our investment or receive any fee unless you win or settle favorably. The alignment of interests is key: our remuneration is designed such that we only profit when you do.

In summary, momentum’s compensation is a success fee drawn from the case outcome, structured either as a percentage, a multiple, or a mix of both, and always tailored to fit the deal and comply with applicable regulations.

No, entering a legal finance arrangement does not mean giving up control of your case. Control remains firmly with you, the client. Reputable funders like momentum are passive investors; we provide capital but do not direct litigation strategy or settlement decisions. Your chosen lawyers continue to run the case in your best interest, and any significant strategic decisions remain yours (except in rare, pre-agreed circumstances). In essence, legal finance preserves your decision-making authority while giving you the financial flexibility to pursue the case on your own terms.

Extended, complex litigation can stretch in-house legal teams to their limits, forcing difficult trade-offs between pursuing a major claim and managing day-to-day work. Beyond just funding, momentum brings support and expertise to lighten that burden. Our team – composed of experienced former litigators – works alongside you and your counsel to manage the case efficiently:

Strategic Support: While you retain control, we act as a strategic sounding board. With deep experience in disputes, we can offer insights into litigation strategy or settlement approach – always at your request. This can include helping to line up expert witnesses, sharing industry knowledge, or stress-testing legal arguments.

Objective Case Assessment: We assist in assessing damages and claim strength realistically. Our commercial objectivity (as an outside investor) helps keep focus on the strongest claims and avoids wasting time and resources on weaker issues.

Resource Augmentation: By funding the case, we enable you to hire top-tier external counsel and experts that you might not otherwise afford under a tight budget. In short, your team can pursue the claim vigorously without diverting resources from core business.

Budget Management: We help plan and monitor litigation budgets, ensuring costs are controlled and predictable over the life of the case. This means your team won’t be caught off guard by spiralling legal spend.

Overall, partnering with momentum lets your in-house team proceed with complex litigation confidently, knowing that financial risk, case management tasks, and specialist support are being handled. You stay focused on your business while the case moves forward with expert oversight.

We invest where legal complexity meets financial substance. In practice, this means our “sweet spot” is high-value commercial disputes with strong merits and a clear path to recovery. Specifically, we focus on cases that combine:

 Strong Legal Merits: Claims with a solid legal basis and evidence, and a well-developed theory of liability. We look for cases likely to succeed on their legal arguments (no frivolous or purely speculative claims).

 Credible, Solvent Defendants: The opposing party should be capable of paying the judgment or settlement. Before investing, we consider the defendant’s assets and jurisdiction – a claim is only valuable if it’s enforceable. (We have expertise in asset tracing and enforcement to assist with recovery, even across borders.)

 Enforceable Recovery: Clear jurisdictional or procedural avenues to actually collect on a win. We prefer disputes in jurisdictions with reliable enforcement regimes (for example, North America, UK, EU, and other rule-of-law forums). International arbitration awards or judgments that can be recognized and enforced globally are well within our scope.

 Procedural Clarity: Cases that are procedurally sound – e.g. within applicable limitation periods, with jurisdiction and venue established – ensuring the litigation can progress without unexpected legal hurdles.

 Typical characteristics: We generally fund commercial, antitrust, securities, intellectual property, and other complex business cases. The claim value should be significant (usually in the multi-millions – typically above EUR 10 million) to justify outside financing. We can finance single cases or portfolios, and we consider matters at any stage – from pre-filing through appeals or even enforcement actions. In fact, we ongoing litigation or arbitration that has already commenced, provided it meets our criteria. In summary, if your case is a substantial commercial dispute with merit and a clear route to collect any judgment, momentum is interested.

Typically, litigation funders ask for a detailed initial case submission to evaluate an investment. This usually includes a substantive case memorandum outlining the facts, legal claims, and defenses, along with a well-reasoned preliminary damages analysis and a stage-by-stage budget for the litigation. In other words, you’d need to do some upfront homework – assembling key documents, legal analysis, and a cost estimate – to allow to conduct due diligence. We understand this can be a substantial project at a very early stage of a case.

momentum takes a different more collaborative approach. We do not expect you to have every piece fully developed on day one. If a claim shows potential, we will work with you through the initial evaluation phase. This can include providing internal case development support or even seed funding to cover early expenses (for example, paying for expert legal opinions or investigations to firm up the case). By contrast, many funders require the client to shoulder all pre-due-diligence costs; momentum is willing to share that early risk when we see a promising claim.

The timeline can range from a few weeks to a few months – the speed largely depends on the case and the client’s responsiveness. In straightforward scenarios where the claim is well-documented (for example, a judgment on appeal or an arbitration award needing enforcement), funding can be arranged in a matter of weeks.

Generally, however, you should anticipate several weeks of due diligence and documentation. For an average commercial litigation matter, once we have the necessary information, it typically takes around 1–2 months from initial review to finalize an investment. This includes time for us to evaluate merits, quantify the risks, discuss terms, and for both parties to negotiate and sign the funding agreement.

More complex cases (for instance, an international arbitration or a case that’s still in early stages) may require a longer diligence process. Delays often arise if key information is incomplete or if external factors (like court schedules or obtaining expert analyses) slow things down. You can help expedite the process by promptly providing documents and access to decision-makers.

Ultimately, momentum works as fast as a case allows – we understand that timing can be critical (e.g., when facing imminent legal deadlines or financial strain). We strive to move quickly and keep you informed at each step, but without compromising a thorough evaluation. From first contact, we can often give an initial indication within a week or two as to our interest. Thereafter, a detailed term sheet and LFA will follow once due diligence concludes successfully.

You do. The choice of legal counsel remains with the client. We do not impose our own lawyers on your case or interfere with the lawyer-client relationship. Maintaining your autonomy includes keeping control over who advocates on your behalf in court. If you don’t yet have a lawyer or need a recommendation for a specialist, we can certainly suggest reputable firms from our network. Many of our clients come to us and ask for a recommendation for a specialized law firm if they do not already have retained lawyers.

We may review the credentials of the legal team as part of our diligence (to ensure the lawyers have relevant experience and no conflicts), and we might discuss whether the budget and strategy are appropriate. But we never dictate the selection of counsel.

In summary: you remain in charge of who represents you. We invest in your case because we believe in it and in your legal team, not to take over the driver's seat.

Yes. Cross-border litigation or international arbitration is actually one of our areas of expertise and a strong fit for legal financing. We routinely fund cases that span multiple jurisdictions – for example, enforcing a European court judgment against assets in another country, or an international arbitration involving parties from different regions. The key consideration is that there must be a viable enforcement path.

In fact, many companies turn to funders specifically for cross-border cases because these disputes can be especially costly and complex. Different legal systems, enforcement hurdles, and prolonged timelines can strain corporate budgets. momentum can alleviate that by financing the proceeding and by leveraging our network of international lawyers, investigators, and asset recovery experts. For instance, if a judgment needs enforcement abroad, we can help coordinate the legal actions in foreign courts and bear those upfront costs.

Our investment criteria already account for enforceability and jurisdictional risk. We prefer jurisdictions with stable rule of law and treaties in place (e.g. the New York Convention for arbitral awards). If your case involves, say, a US company suing an European entity, or a multi-country asset trace, those are scenarios where our funding and expertise add significant value.

Bottom line: a cross-border dimension is not a barrier to funding – often it’s a sweet spot for momentum. We will evaluate the specifics (which countries’ laws apply, where assets are located) and as long as the prospects of ultimately recovering money are sound, we are keen to support such cases.

If your case does not succeed (no settlement and no award in your favor), you owe nothing to momentum. Our financing is non-recourse, meaning we only get paid from the proceeds of a successful outcome – if there are no proceeds, we absorb the loss. You do not have to repay the invested capital or cover our fees in the event of a loss. This is precisely how legal finance shifts risk away from you: the financial downside of the litigation is on us.

 Moreover, in many jurisdictions (such as most of Europe) the losing party in litigation may be required to pay the winner’s legal costs (the “loser pays” rule). Clients often worry about this adverse costs exposure. When we fund a case, we address that concern too. Typically, our funding package or the litigation plan will include provision for adverse costs insurance or an indemnity for the opponent’s fees if you lose.

In practical terms, this means that if the court orders you to pay the other side’s costs, either the funder has already covered insurance premiums for an after-the-event policy (ATE insurance) or otherwise will bear that liability according to the funding agreement. We ensure that pursuing the claim will not leave your company worse off even in a downside scenario.

 In summary: momentum shoulders the financial risk so that you can pursue valid claims with peace of mind. Our interests are aligned on winning; if the outcome is unfavourable, we take the hit, not you. This “downside protection” is a cornerstone of our value proposition, allowing corporate claimants to litigate without the fear of a bad result ruining their balance sheet.

In short:

Claim valuation follows a disciplined, investment-style underwriting process.

We assess:

• Probability of success based on legal merits and procedural posture,
• Expected quantum using robust economic modelling and scenario analysis,
• Enforcement risk including counterparty strength and jurisdictional recoverability,
• Duration and cost risk, reflected through an appropriate risk-adjusted discount rate.

The result is a probability-weighted, discounted present value of the expected recovery – comparable to underwriting a contingent asset with defined risk and time parameters.

Monetization structures can include an earn-out component, allowing the original claim holder to participate in additional upside if recoveries exceed base-case assumptions.

This approach combines immediate liquidity with disciplined risk transfer and retained exposure to exceptional outcomes.

More in detail:

The valuation of a claim in a monetization structure follows a structured, capital-markets-based assessment. The objective is to determine the risk-adjusted net present value (NPV) of the expected recovery profile.

The analysis typically focuses on the following key parameters:

1. Legal merits (Probability of Success)

The starting point is an assessment of the probability of prevailing. This includes:

• liability strength and evidentiary support,
• procedural posture (e.g. follow-on action),
• jurisdictional considerations,
• anticipated defences and litigation strategy of the defendant.

These elements determine the weighted probability of success applied in the valuation model.

2. Quantum and economic modelling

The expected damages form the economic upside of the claim. This requires:

• modelling the overcharge or loss scenario,
• analysing potential pass-on effects,
• incorporating statutory or compound interest,
• running base, upside, and downside scenarios.

The robustness and defensibility of the damages model materially affect valuation.

3. Enforcement and counterparty risk

A claim only has economic value if recovery is realistically achievable. The analysis therefore considers:

• the financial strength of the defendant,
• enforceability across relevant jurisdictions,
• insolvency or restructuring risks.

These factors influence the haircut applied to the expected gross recovery.

4. Duration and cost risk

Expected timeline has a direct impact on discounting. The assessment includes:

• time to first instance judgment,
• appeal probability,
• settlement likelihood,
• projected litigation and expert costs.

The longer the anticipated duration and the greater the procedural uncertainty, the higher the discount rate applied.

Valuation Methodology

The outcome of this analysis is a probability-weighted expected recovery stream, discounted to present value using an appropriate risk-adjusted discount rate reflecting duration, enforcement, and litigation risk.

From an investment perspective, claim monetization resembles the underwriting of a contingent asset with a defined risk and time profile – comparable to structured or opportunistic investments.

Earn-Out: Participation in Upside

Monetization structures can include a contingent earn-out component.

This allows the original claim holder to participate in additional upside if the ultimate recovery exceeds the base-case assumptions underlying the valuation. Such structures combine:

• immediate liquidity and balance sheet clarity,
• defined IRR realisation,
• and retained exposure to exceptional outcomes.

Monetization therefore does not necessarily imply a full economic exit. It can be structured as a disciplined risk transfer that balances certainty today with participation in unexpected upside.