coulomb/target-revenue
4
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Add Global Contingency Share Determination Rule to Enforcement Network concept

Browse source 
Per maintainer request, replaces the flat "working default 50%" Contingency
Share with a systematic per-jurisdiction rule, directly responding to
WP-0005's finding that 50% is unsafe almost everywhere except the UK:

1. 50% applies if lawful in the jurisdiction.
2. Otherwise, the higher of:
   (A) the Jurisdiction Percentage Cap - the actual local statutory
       maximum, published by the Enforcement Registry as background
       information for prospective Enforcement Partners; or
   (B) a Standard Bounty Amount - a fixed sum (not a percentage),
       defaulting to $1,000 local-currency-equivalent, recalculated
       annually to 50% of the trailing-18-month average unpaid-fees
       amount where more than 10 settled cases exist (a sample-size floor
       to avoid thin-sample noise), announced by 31 July, effective the
       following 1 January, always capped at the specific case's own
       unpaid fees.

Flags, as the highest-priority open question this rule itself introduces:
whether a fixed, non-percentage bounty actually escapes contingency-fee
prohibitions worded around outcome-contingency generally (India's Rule 20:
"contingent on the results of litigation") rather than percentage-
proportionality specifically (Germany's quota-litis-style rules) - the
Standard Bounty Amount may not solve what it was designed to solve in
exactly the jurisdictions that motivated it, and this is not yet verified.

Added as new specs/EnforcementNetworkConcept.md §13 (Concise Definition
renumbered §14; no other section numbers changed, so existing cross-
references to §5.5/§6/§8/§9/§11 from workplans and history/ artifacts
remain valid). Updated §5.5, §5.7, and §8's key findings to point to the
new rule. Folded the rule's population and open questions into
WP-0005-T10's synthesis scope.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
tegwick 2026-07-29 18:12:45 +02:00
parent 937e67a280
commit 8f316a466f
3 changed files with 70 additions and 4 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

26
workplans/TREV-WP-0005-enforcement-network-research.md
View file

@ -341,3 +341,29 @@ synthesis and proposed concept-doc edits and leave this task `todo` —
**Deliverable:** `history/<date>-TREN-Synthesis.md`, plus proposed (not yet
applied) edits to `specs/EnforcementNetworkConcept.md`.
---
**Added 2026-07-29 (maintainer request):** `specs/EnforcementNetworkConcept.md`
§13 now defines a Global Contingency Share Determination Rule (50% where
lawful; otherwise the higher of the Jurisdiction Percentage Cap or a
Standard Bounty Amount — a fixed, non-percentage sum defaulting to
US $1,000 local-currency-equivalent, recalculated annually from a
>10-case sample where available, announced by 31 July, effective the
following 1 January). This task's synthesis must additionally:
- Populate §13.2's Jurisdiction Percentage Cap for all 8 researched
jurisdictions/families from the T01–T08 findings (values are already in
each jurisdiction's `history/260729-TREN-Jurisdiction-*.md` file and the
consolidated table in `specs/EnforcementNetworkConcept.md` §8.1).
- Treat §13.4 open question 1 (does a fixed, non-percentage bounty actually
escape outcome-contingency prohibitions worded around "contingent on
results," as opposed to prohibitions worded specifically around
percentage-proportional fees?) as the **highest-priority legal question**
in the entire WP-0005 program — it determines whether the Standard
Bounty Amount actually solves anything in India (Rule 20's wording) and
Germany, or merely relocates the same compliance problem.
- Resolve §13.4 open questions 2–4 (FX reference methodology, exact
18-month window definition, and how (A)/(B) interact with the
Litigation Funder/Local Counsel split where one applies) or state
plainly they remain open pending counsel.