Founders Tier
Description: Below
Seats Remaining: 25 (12 reservations)
Price: £2400 p.a. (monthly) / £1920 p.a. (upfront)
Open: Monday 2nd Feb 2026
Memberships Close: Monday 9th February 2026
To Join Waitlist, Email: Info@Casersrch.onmicrosoft.com
Or Comment on this Post: https://caseresearch.substack.com/p/our-founders-membership-open-now
Past the link,
Click ‘Subscribe’ or ‘Upgrade Subscription’
Context
As we transition to an equity research firm, and I do this full time, I’m uncovering ideas at a much greater rate. Most of them have zero arbitration coverage, so I’d like to use this opportunity to start my equity research service for our founding members,.
We have now opened 25 seats to our founders group, at £2400 a year if monthly / £1920 upfront. Rates permanently locked.
Why 25 People?
I want to be able to devote the proper time to each member, and be able to talk 1-on-1 as much as founders need. Additional seats will only open if we can keep up service to current members, our first priority.
Seats close in 7 days, unless they get filled earlier. We’ve taken reservations, so expect spots to fill in 48 hours.
Once the slots close, our waitlist will open, which you can formally join via commenting on this post or messaging us privately. Your place will be reserved as of your timestamp, and will be first-come first serve.
Why This Pricing?
The mean expected CAGR (ICSID statistic based) of our public ideas is 200%, and founders 269% (1-5 year timelines, fairly spread out). On a $100,000 portfolio this is a c.1% performance fee, and marginally less each year.
For those unfamiliar with our writeups so far, our valuation method revolves around: ICSID average statistics (win probability and award/claim %), expected value, net of all liabilities, and margin of safety.
Of course, returns won’t be smooth, and nothing is guaranteed. Arbitrations are typically met with a speculative crowd until the case concludes, when the value is more apparent.
We understand upsides of this size bring up skepticism, but deep discounts exist for one reason (primarily): As the value driver moves to a legal case, pre-arbitration investors desperately sell down the stock to what they can make of its value - close to nothing, and arbitration investors bid at those incredibly low prices. However, the claim equates to the value of the lost investment, so value remains unchanged.
Why Now?
Well, for two reasons…
With becoming an equity research firm, and making our research public in Q32025, I’m now doing this full time. It’s my sole source of income besides investment returns. I believe this aligns incentives - if my research falls below par, I lose both subscriptions and sponsored coverage deals (we only cover what we believe in.)
A group of very discounted companies have arbitrations set to conclude in the next 1-5 years, so it’s the right time to get the market up to speed regardless.
We have already covered:
Services Included
Private access to highest conviction ideas
Priority access to separate public content
Full valuation models
Studies: approaches, risks, mistakes to avoid etc
Portfolio updates
Head-analyst access between 8:30am - 9pm GMT via call, email, or in-person (London)
Can request due diligence on any idea
Management calls with covered companies (if requested)
Whatsapp group (optional)
Commission: 20% on referred coverage deal revenue
Provide invoices so you can expense the service to your / your employers business
Permanent price lock
Getting Ahead of the Market
We want our members to be the first to hear about our highest conviction ideas, and the ones we’ve already prepared have an average of 2 writeups, most of which is lazy analyst coverage not going into any depth on the arbitration - it’s not their specialty.
Sample Analysis: What You’re in For
Here is a valuation summary from a zero coverage idea I just finished the work on, and we have reserved for founders:
‘So, we have a profitable operating business already trading at c.50% of BV, with 5 arbitration claims (and 1 mutually-exclusive counter claim) worth 3.3x the market cap ($0.33 p/s) based on historical averages and expected value of the award, to be paid in c.4 years post-enforcement proceedings in either [redacted] or foreign courts (wherever [redacted] has assets located). Until then we’d like the share price to depreciate, for the sake of a greater discount.
Essentially, the market is pricing in a 30% chance of the tribunal deciding on that award, despite it being the most statistically likely outcome... It should be at 100%, or in other words, the stock price should currently be at $0.33 v $0.1.
If questioning our valuation, there is a significant margin of safety. To match 8-10% market performance, and so avoid accruing opportunity cost, the award / claim ratio would have to be 22%, and the case take 12.5 years to play out, both of which are highly unlikely per ICSID official statistics.’
Free Subscribers: Nothing Changes
We don’t want to neglect the rest of our readership, so they will continue getting writeups, and occasionally (if enough time has passed) we may make a founders idea public if the group approve. However, our highest conviction / return ideas are reserved for the founders group.
Testimonials: Don’t Take Our Word For It
Below are positive comments from our posts, so you can verify that we are not just touting our own horn. We hope this illustrates how we help investors understand the space, to invest themselves…
Noah: ‘Thanks for all your hard work! I’ve been reading your posts for a while, and after this one, I finally have a solid grasp of this segment of the market. It looks like a great hunting ground. Best of luck!’
Neural Foundry: ‘Really strong breakdown of why shareholder turnover creates these mispricings. The insight about resource investors dumping stocks when cases shift to legal procedings, even though the economic value hasn’t changed, is underrated’
Nico: ‘Great analysis, really appreciate the detail you put into this. The tribunal breakdown and ICSID stats were super helpful.’
M. de Ruyter: ‘Such an excellent write up. Wow’
Duh Wun: ‘Great write up. Also, throwing in the emerita corruption reference in there was *chefs kiss*.’
FJ Research: ‘Thank you for identifying and uncovering this incredibly interesting investment idea. I really respect the depth and detail of your work. Keep up the great work!’
F001337: ‘very well written, the best piece about that case that I found anywhere!’
David: ‘I like the Rusoro Writeup and the level of detail. Keep on going! David’
Conclusion
With the launch of our equity research firm, and now the founders tier, I think this year is going to be extremely interesting.
We’re grateful for the expressed interest in this group, and the reservations already taken in the last week. It is also entirely possible this service expands as we have more cash / employees to deal with, and we aim to continually improve in all aspects of our analysis.
If you wish to join the waitlist, you can do so via commenting on this post / messaging us privately. Your place will be reserved as of that time, and is first-come first serve. We will likely only add a few members each month, if manageable, and the price may rise slightly along with our operating costs / quality and quantity of research. The first 25 seats have a permanent rate lock.
How to Get Your Seat
If you’re already subscribed to our free tier, there will be a sign saying ‘Upgrade to paid’ . If you are not, click ‘Subscribe’ and then you will have the option to join the founders.
Disclosure
Case Research is not authorised, licensed, regulated, or supervised by the UK Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”), the Prudential Regulation Authority, or any other financial services regulator to provide regulated financial services, personal investment advice, or investment recommendations. Under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (“FSMA”), it is generally an offence for an unauthorised person to communicate an invitation or inducement to engage in investment activity unless an exemption applies or approval is obtained from an authorised person. This Report is intended to be general research commentary and analytical information, not a financial promotion under FSMA section 21, and is designed for distribution without FCA authorisation. Recipients should independently determine whether any communication could be interpreted as a financial promotion under applicable law and should seek professional advice if uncertain.