It is considered that the third-party funding (TPF) first developed in Australia, initially to aide insolvency proceedings and subsequently for class actions before it was adopted by the international arbitration community. That said, one doesn’t have the exact documentary evidence whether third party funders were operating in ancient civilizations and in particular, Ancient Greece. One can very well imagine the type of claims the ancient Greeks would have sought to be funded.One thought that sprung to mind was whether Ancient Greek claims would have been funded by Profile Investment (Profile)? What would Profile’s reasons be behind the decision-making process?
Greetings from Profile Investment in Ancient Greece. A case which was submitted to Profile concerning the Apples of Hesperides. The Claimant Atlas, with perfect KYC, to whom Heracles promised to take the sky back from him once he finished further padding his shoulders to relieve the weight of the earth and sky which he was keeping in place at the time, but alas never executed. Respondent: Heracles. The cause of action: a broken promise Jurisdiction: The Court of Zeus (who else?). Quantum: The value of the Apples of Hesperides (a luxury and extremely expensive) which Atlas would recuperate, should Heracles be found in breach. Enforcement: Heracles does not have assets, but the success of the case was determined by Profile as being the entitlement to the Apples. Atlas agreed to pay Profile from the sale of the Apples.
Profile’s central operation Level 1 Analysis: Profile proceeds to its level 1 analysis of the claim on the basis of the documents submitted in the language(s) of the applicant. Atlas gives assurances to Profile that it has already collected the Apples previously for Hercules and is able to do it again. Level 2 Analysis: Profile agrees that this assumption can be explored further on Level 2, comes up with other assumptions as per jurisdiction, merits and quantum on the basis of the documentation submitted and which are to be verified at level 2. A term sheet built on a low multiple of the budget funded and a low percentage of the monies recovered is signed with Atlas for 6 working weeks with exclusivity, and Profile dives into further analysis at its own cost. Subject to its analysis, Profile would convene its investment committee to review and get its approval for the funding proposal – all within the exclusivity period.
Profile’s three pillars: Profile brings up its team of legal experts, quantum and enforcement specialists. It assesses jurisdiction, finds that the competence of the Zeus’s court cannot be argued but that the outcome of the dispute can be quite unpredictable. Profile evaluates whether this risk can be tolerated and concludes that it is possible to treat it with the aid of competent lawyers (all in togas or rather in chitons as the former is more a garment of the Ancient Rome and given the jurisdiction it is agreed that the claimant will be best served by ancient Greek lawyers). Profile dives into the merits and quantum analysis, requires additional documents and information, asks questions and finally concludes that the claim is more likely to fail than succeed as Atlas made some erroneous representations about the original contract. Profile discovered that in accordance with the original deal, Atlas was just commissioned to collect the Apples (while Hercules was replacing Atlas in his job), and once the Apples were collected, Atlas was to hand them over to Hercules. This had not actually been done. That is why Hercules applied strategic distracting manoeuvres in pursuit of getting back what was due to him. Through Profile’s assessment, it found that despite a whole myriad of the best lawyers of ancient Greece the impact of losing was higher than the probability of winning and rejected the funding application of Atlas.. Although the application was rejected, Profile Investment’s practical and transparent assessment aided Heracles who subsequently next time brought a portfolio of claims for funding based on his other labours at various stages of judicial advancement. The takeaway? A swift, transparent application process means that even rejected applications can build relationships that will yet yield fruit for all concerned.
The author Paulina Touroude is the head of Enforcement Risk and a senior member of our Legal Analysis team.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to get in touch with Paulina via email on firstname.lastname@example.org