Abstract
Basic economic analysis of litigation funding shows that risk neutral plaintiffs without budget constraints will not accept funding unless they are pessimistic relative to the funder. Risk aversion makes a plaintiff who shares probabilistic beliefs with the funder act observationally equivalent to a pessimistic, risk neutral plaintiff, so she will accept funding as well. An important benefit of litigation funding - evident from the application of a change of measure to risk neutral probabilities, an analytical approach widely used in the pricing of financial derivatives - is that it moves litigation outcomes closer to risk neutral outcomes and therefore closer to actions consistent with the plaintiff's perceived merits, something that is of underemphasized importance in law and procedure. The best funding outcomes (for investors) are likely when plaintiffs are risk averse or budget constrained. Poor outcomes are more likely when funded plaintiffs are risk neutral and unconstrained.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.