Institutional Partners

Legal-asset finance is underwritten differently from most institutional asset classes because the underlying risk, how a legal matter resolves and when, has historically been priced on manager judgment rather than a shared, checkable data layer. That makes manager selection and structure diligence harder than it needs to be, since two managers can describe similar underwriting standards while pricing risk very differently in practice.

Criterica supplies the outcome-intelligence layer behind Criterica Capital's own deployment, LP access, co-investment, NAV lending, and warehouse facilities, and separately licenses the same underwriting intelligence to external capital partners deploying independently. In both cases the object is the same: settlement and duration distributions built from a real court-record corpus, with confidence intervals and support size disclosed alongside every figure.

For institutional partners, that means diligence on the underwriting process itself, not just on historical returns, since a manager with a checkable, model-driven process is a materially different risk than one relying on individual underwriter judgment.

The distinction that matters most in diligence is governance: whether the function that prices probability and the function that prices capital are actually separated, with an auditable record connecting a prediction to the position it eventually priced.

This distinction matters most in a down market. A manager whose underwriting was actually model-driven and disciplined behaves differently under stress than one whose stated process was aspirational, and that difference only shows up in diligence that goes deep enough to check it.

The same governance question applies whether the vehicle in question is small or large. A young, smaller manager with a genuinely disciplined, model-driven process is a different risk than a larger, longer-tenured one relying on individual judgment, and size alone does not answer the governance question.

Provides the underwriting intelligence Criterica Capital uses to structure and price its own vehicles.

Makes the same intelligence available under license to institutional partners building or evaluating their own legal-asset exposure, independent of any Criterica Capital vehicle.

Supports diligence directly: model coverage, corpus composition, and governance structure, the separation between the function that prices probability and the function that prices capital, are things Criterica can walk an allocator through directly.

Where an allocator is evaluating a third-party manager rather than a Criterica vehicle, Criterica can still speak to what a rigorous, model-driven underwriting process should look like, without commenting on that manager specifically.

Supports an allocator building its own internal underwriting capability rather than allocating to a manager at all, licensing the intelligence layer directly to a desk that wants to underwrite legal-asset exposure in-house.

Where an allocator already has exposure through an existing manager, describes, at a general level, what questions a model-driven diligence process should be able to answer, without commenting on that manager's specific book.

The specific exposure being evaluated, a Criterica Capital vehicle, an external manager's book, or a build decision, since the conversation differs materially by scenario.

Standard institutional diligence materials: mandate, ticket size, and timeline.

Any specific governance or reporting requirements the allocator's own mandate imposes, so materials can be prepared against them directly rather than in a second pass.

Allocators evaluating a build decision should have a rough sense of the internal underwriting resources already in place, since that shapes whether a licensing relationship or a fuller build-support engagement is the right fit.

The first call confirms which scenario applies, scopes the underwriting or governance questions the allocator needs answered, and routes to the correct materials, whether that is Capital's LP process or a direct licensing conversation.

From there, the pace is set by the allocator's own diligence process; Criterica's role is to keep the underwriting materials and governance answers available on the timeline that process requires.

Materials are typically shared under a standard NDA before deeper underwriting detail is discussed, consistent with how any institutional diligence process runs.

Where the conversation involves an external manager rather than a Criterica vehicle, Criterica participates as an independent intelligence provider, not as a party to the allocator's decision on that manager.