Generally speaking, litigation finance requires a 60% or greater probability that the case will be won in our favor...here's a typical blurb from the website of a company who provides litigation finance:
"Probability of Success on the Merits
Litigation is inherently uncertain. Each side has its own story, which may or may not be fully revealed until trial. Discovery may provide new information unavailable at the outset of a case. Witnesses may perform well or poorly. Judges or juries may act in unanticipated manners. We therefore believe that the probability of success for any individual claim ranges from 20% to 80%. While handicapping the precise probability of success can be difficult, we invest only in claims to which we assign a probability of success of 60% or greater, meaning that our analysis at the time of investment shows that the party that we are financing has the better of the arguments at issue. The more information available to establish liability and damages, the more valuable the claim and the better pricing a claimholder can expect to receive. Factors that increase the likelihood of success include (i) documentary evidence supporting the case narrative and damages; (ii) strong witnesses; and (iii) favorable discovery."
This suggests to me that if a litigation funder is willing to fund ERHC it is their belief that we have a greater than 60% of winning the case.
What do you suppose the odds are that we settle out of court?
So let's say, we settle out of court and meet half way...we get a nice check for $250 million.
We then split that 50/50 with the litigation funder - (I don't know if the litigation funder would really take that much, but just for fun let's say that)
So that leave $125 million - valuing the company at about $.04
That would be pretty amazing, in my opinion.
The above is all opinion.
Krombacher
