Post-Settlement Litigation/Judgment Finance: The Credit Hedge Alternative Investors Need

Institutional investors seeking yield with minimal beta exposure are increasingly turning to alternative investments that offer both diversification and predictable returns. Post-settlement/Judgment litigation finance has emerged as a compelling solution, delivering double digit returns on average while maintaining low correlation to traditional credit markets. This asset class combines the structural familiarity of asset-based lending with the legal certainty of enforceable settlement/judgment proceeds.

The Growing Appeal of Litigation Finance in Credit-Focused Portfolios

Credit-focused institutional investors face a persistent challenge: finding assets that provide stable returns without excessive correlation to market volatility. Traditional private debt markets, while offering attractive yields, often carry operational risks tied to borrower performance and economic cycles. Post-settlement/judgment litigation finance addresses this gap by offering documented, predictable cash flows backed by legally enforceable rights to payment.

Unlike pre-settlement/judgment litigation funding, which carries litigation risk, post-settlement/judgment finance operates after legal resolution has occurred. This timing distinction transforms the investment from speculative to secured, creating an alternative investment opportunity that functions more like traditional asset-based lending than speculative legal betting.

How Post-Settlement/Judgment Litigation Finance Mirrors Asset-Based Lending

The structural similarities between post-settlement litigation finance and asset-based lending (ABL) make this alternative investment particularly accessible to institutional investors familiar with secured lending practices.

Both investment types share fundamental characteristics that appeal to credit-focused portfolios:

• Collateral-Backed Security: Just as ABL uses tangible assets like receivables and inventory as collateral, post-settlement/judgment litigation funding is secured by legally enforceable settlement/judgment proceeds. The key difference lies in the nature of the underlying asset—legal judgments versus physical inventory.

• Predictable Value Assessment: Asset-based lending relies on appraised values of liquidatable assets, often applying conservative advance rates. Similarly, post-settlement/judgment litigation finance involves settlements with clear documentation or judgments entered by a court, defined amounts, and high likelihood certainty of payment, eliminating the valuation uncertainty common in other alternative investments.

• Shorter Duration Profile: Both investment types typically feature shorter repayment horizons compared to traditional term loans. Post-settlement/judgment funding generally expects repayment within 6-18 months post-resolution, while ABL structures often span 1-3 years.

The Credit Hedge Advantage: Legal Enforceability Over Market Sentiment

What sets post-settlement/judgment litigation finance apart from other alternative investments is its fundamental independence from market cycles. While traditional credit assets remain vulnerable to economic downturns, operational failures, and market sentiment, post-settlement finance derives its returns from legal enforceability rather than business performance.

This legal enforcement aspect creates a natural hedge for credit portfolios. When market volatility impacts traditional private debt investments, legally enforceable settlement/judgment proceeds continue to provide more stable, predictable cash flows. The underwriting process focuses on settlement/judgment enforceability, lien status, and payer solvency rather than operational metrics or market conditions.

Custom Underwriting in Litigation Funding

The underwriting process for post-settlement/judgment litigation finance requires specialized expertise that differs significantly from traditional credit analysis. Investment decisions depend on several legal and procedural factors:

• Settlement/Judgment Type Analysis: Different settlement/judgment categories—mass tort, personal injury, commercial litigation—carry varying risk profiles and payment timelines. Mass tort settlements/judgments, for example, often involve established payment protocols and institutional payers, while personal injury settlements may require more detailed analysis of insurance carrier stability.

• Lien Status Verification: Understanding the priority and legitimacy of existing liens ensures accurate advance calculations and payment certainty. This process parallels the asset verification procedures in traditional ABL underwriting.

• Payer Behavior Assessment: Evaluating the track record and financial stability of settlement/judgment payers — whether insurance companies, corporations, or government entities — provides crucial insight into payment reliability.

Portfolio Integration Considerations

For institutional investors considering post-settlement litigation finance, several factors support its integration into credit-focused portfolios:

• Correlation Benefits: Historical data demonstrates minimal correlation between post-settlement litigation finance returns and traditional credit markets, providing genuine diversification benefits.

• Liquidity Characteristics: The shorter duration profile of most post-settlement investments offers more frequent capital recycling opportunities compared to longer-term alternative investments.

• Scale Accessibility: Individual settlement amounts often align with institutional investment minimums, avoiding the aggregation challenges common in some alternative asset classes.

Risk Mitigation Through Legal Structure

While post-settlement/judgment litigation finance offers compelling returns, successful implementation requires understanding its unique risk profile. Unlike traditional credit risks centered on borrower performance, post-settlement/judgment finance risks focus on legal and procedural factors:

• Appeals Risk: Although settlements/judgments are legally resolved, the possibility of appeals can extend payment timelines. Sophisticated investors address this through careful case selection and appropriate advance rates.

• Lien Priority: Complex lien structures can affect payment priority and ultimate recovery. Thorough due diligence and legal review mitigate these concerns.

• Payer Solvency: The financial stability of settlement/judgment payers directly impacts repayment certainty. Diversification across payer types and thorough credit analysis of institutional payers help manage this risk.

Conclusion: A Compelling Addition to Alternative Investment Strategies

Post-settlement/judgment litigation finance represents a maturing alternative investment opportunity that combines the structural familiarity of asset-based lending with the legal clarity of enforceable settlement/judgment awards. For institutional investors seeking to hedge credit exposure while accessing documented, predictable cash flows, this asset class offers compelling risk-adjusted returns with minimal correlation to traditional markets.

The growing sophistication of the litigation finance market, combined with increasing institutional participation, suggests that post-settlement/judgment funding will continue to evolve as a legitimate component of diversified credit portfolios. As yield-starved investors search for alternatives with more predictable returns and lower beta exposure, the legal enforceability inherent in post-settlement/judgment litigation finance provides a unique solution to persistent portfolio challenges.

For institutional allocators considering this alternative investment, the combination of shorter duration, legal enforceability, and uncorrelated returns makes post-settlement/judgment litigation finance a strategic addition to credit-focused portfolios seeking both diversification and yield enhancement.

Ready to explore how post-settlement/judgment litigation finance can enhance your credit portfolio? Contact Tower 3 Investments to learn more about accessing differentiated returns through legally enforceable receivables.

---

Roni Dersovitz is the founder of Tower 3 Investments, LLC a firm offering investment opportunities in Post-Settlement/Judgment Litigation Funding. Mr. Dersovitz has 14 years of experience as a practicing personal injury attorney and has managed portfolios of Receivables since 1998. To learn more about access to differentiated returns through litigation finance, visit www.Tower3Investments.com or contact us at info@Tower3Investments.com.