WIREFRAME · non-functional design mockup · Litigation-Finance Case Underwriting · static illustrative data (LF-2026-0312)
Synthetic Funder · Litigation-Finance underwriting

Project Halyard · LF-2026-0312

Commercial / international arbitration · funding application reviewed by DiligenceWorks
40cred.
Case-credibility score. $37M of $48M claimed value unsupported or at-risk.
$48.0M
Claimed case value (sought damages)
Six adversarial underwriting factors
Merits Flag
Adverse appellate authority undercuts the central liability theory; limitation / timeliness exposure (cited)
p ≈0.55 vs 0.75
Counsel Pass
Experienced, forum-matched arbitration counsel; adequate analogous record
Adequate
Damages Reject
Lost-profits growth 14% unsupported by claimant's own historicals; comparator non-analogous
−$26.0M
Counterparty Reject
Respondent distressed (recent covenant breach); full award not collectable
Recovery capped
Enforceability Reject
Respondent's primary assets in a non-Convention jurisdiction; enforcement doubtful
Enforcement doubtful
Economics Reject
Coverage ≈1.8× vs 3.0× minimum at the requested $6.0M facility
1.8× < 3.0×
Cards reveal in sequence during the demo. Green = pass · Amber = flag (negotiate terms) · Red = reject. Merits / Counsel / Enforceability are grounded, cited assistants — the IC keeps the legal opinion. Every figure is traceable (see the recoverability-bridge drawer).
Exception report
FactorVerdictFindingClaimedSupportedDeltaSource
DamagesRejectLost-profits growth 14% unsupported by claimant's own historicals; comparator non-analogous$48.0M$22.0M$26.0Mdamages model · evidence
MeritsFlagAdverse appellate authority undercuts the central theory; limitation / timeliness exposurep 0.75p 0.55—pleadings · authority
CounterpartyRejectRespondent distressed (recent covenant breach); full award not collectablefull awardimpaired—respondent financials
EnforceabilityRejectPrimary assets in a non-Convention jurisdiction; enforcement doubtfulenforceabledoubtful—asset map · NY Conv.
EconomicsRejectCoverage ≈1.8× vs 3.0× minimum at the requested $6.0M facilityfacility $6.0M~$3.0M—recompute · funder policy
Damages overstatement (hard removal)$26.0M*+ $11.0M at-risk → $37.0M of $48.0M · RRV $11.0M
Recommended position — recoverability of the claimed value
$11.0M
Recoverable
$11.0M
At-risk
$26.0M
Unrecoverable
Funding decision  DECLINE the $6.0M facility as requested · restructurable $3.0M staged (coverage 1.8× → 3.5×).
Export underwriting memo (PDF) Send to IC / deal system (stub) Accept / override factors
Recoverability bridge (on click): claimed $48.0M → (− $26.0M damages overstatement) supported $22.0M → × 0.55 merits, capped by respondent solvency & non-Convention enforcement → realistic recoverable value $11.0M. Requested facility $6.0M ⇒ coverage 1.8× < 3.0× minimum ⇒ decline as requested; restructurable $3.0M staged (merits-milestone tranches, budget cap, higher return share, adverse-cost cap) ⇒ coverage 3.5×.

Portfolio screening — this fund

$310M
requested facility screened across 42 applications YTD · 71% declined at triage (assess more deal flow, decline poor matters earlier)
Bars = applications screened per month · amber = high-decline months.
Mockup only — illustrative figures, no live engine. Final figures come from the six-factor underwriting engine per DESIGN-litigation-finance-case-underwriting-verification.md.