An announcement from Omni Bridgeway confirms the appointment of David Breeney as Global Chief Financial Officer (GCFO), having officially taken over the role on 1 March 2025. The appointment sees Breeney move up from his previous position as Deputy CFO, having first joined Omni Bridgeway as Global Head of Financial Control in November 2023.

Prior to his time at Omni Bridgeway, Breeney spent 12 years at asset management firm Challenger Limited, where he served as Financial Controller for funds management and real estate. In the announcement, Omni Bridgeway said that “the background and experience of Mr. Breeney align well with the stated strategy of accelerated transition towards a fund and asset management model.”

The announcement also revealed that the departing GCFO, Guillaume Leger, will be leading the establishment of a capital formation team to coordinate fund capital raising activities of the group. After a period of three months in this role, Leger will be leaving the company and Omni Bridgeway will look to hire a permanent senior capital formation professional as a replacement.A separate announcement from Latitude Group Holdings confirms that Guillaume Leger will become the company’s new Chief Financial Officer on 16 June 2025.

As LFJ reported in January, a mining company’s investor-state dispute with the Moroccan government over a potash project has led the company to seek and secure third-party funding for its arbitration claim.

An announcement from Emmerson Plc reveals that the potash development company has drawn down the first tranche of its litigation funding, following the signing of an $11 million Capital Provision Agreement (CPA) with an unnamed litigation funder earlier this year. Emmerson explained that this initial draw down will cover all the company’s legal costs to date, whilst allowing its legal team to prepare and complete the next steps in the arbitration proceedings brought against the Moroccan government.

The announcement also detailed that alongside this first draw down, Emmerson and its subsidiaries in the UK and Morocco have “granted certain securities and charges over their assets to the funding counterparty in relation to amounts drawn down.”

The company explained that this is a normal action for litigation funding agreements, with the granting of these securities not to be enforced unless Emmerson fails to meet its obligations under the CPA.

The beginning of 2025 has already been a busy few months for Heirloom Fair Legal, with the funder expanding to the UK through its acquisition of Hayes Connor Solicitors last month, and the legal finance company is continuing to build on that momentum through two new appointments.

An article in The Law Society Gazette covers the appointment of two senior executives at Heirloom Fair Legal (HFL), with Steve Din and Phil Hales joining the funder. Din has taken up the role of senior vice-president at HFL and Hales has been appointed to the position of vice-president of funding relationships, with both sitting on HFL’s investment committee alongside the company’s co-founders.

Both Din and Hales join HFL from Doorway Capital, with Din founding Doorway in 2015 and Hales having spent the last three years at the company as business development director. Commenting on his move to HFL, Din said that the funder’s “larger infrastructure and bespoke approach” would allow them to “provide more flexible structures and be more creative in designing funding packages that meet the legal ecosystem’s needs.”

These new hires form part of HFL’s ambitious growth strategy, with the funder planning to exceed $250 million in funding to law firms and claimants by the end of 2026.

Geoff Dover, co-founder of HFL, highlighted the experience that Din and Hales would bring to the company, pointing out that “at Doorway, they led the way in putting law firms large and small onto solid financial foundations.” Dover went on to add: “We look forward to their contributions toward partnering with law firms and service providers that share our goal of resolving disputes more quickly and cost effectively by combining technology, legal advice and finance solutions.”

Whilst there is much discussion about what level of disclosure should be required around litigation funding, it is rare that outsiders to a claim can gain insight into the structure of these funding agreements. However, the certification of opt-out collective proceedings by the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has offered a rare view of one such funding arrangement.

A judgment handed down by the Competition Appeal Tribunal yesterday granted the application for a Collective Proceedings Order (CPO) in the case of Bulk Mail Claim Limited v International Distribution Services Plc (formerly Royal Mail Plc). The Tribunal certified the opt-out collective proceedings, finding that the Proposed Class Representative’s (PCR) methodology “is sufficiently credible and plausible”, and further stated that it was “satisfied that there is at least a good arguable case that there has been an overcharge.”

The Bulk Mail Claim focuses on allegations that International Distribution Services abused its market dominance to overcharge customers for its bulk mail services. The proposed class is provisionally estimated to consist of 290,477 customers who purchased bulk mail retail services, with the value of the claim estimated to reach £1 billion. Mr Robin Aaronson, an economist specialising in competition policy, is acting as the director of the PCR and Asertis is providing litigation funding for the claim.

As part of its assessment of the CPO application, the CAT evaluated the terms of the litigation funding agreement between the PCR and Asertis, and found “that they do not appear to be unreasonable.” The judgment also offered some detail on the funder’s return as specified in the agreement, which is laid out below:

“In the event of success, the drawn funds will be repaid, plus a multiplier comprising two elements: a priority multiplier of 1.5x of the drawn funds and a balancing multiplier of 0.5x for the first 12 months. There is also an increase in the balancing multiplier of 0.1875 per every quarter. There is a cap of 5.75 overall, which applies to the aggregate of the priority multiplier and the balancing multiplier.”

The Tribunal also noted that the funding agreement had been amended to address its prior concerns that the agreement “did not expressly specify that prior to any settlement there should be a written legal opinion or memorandum on the proposed settlement.” Similarly, the Tribunal responded to concerns raised by the defendant that “Asertis would not be able to meet an adverse costs order”, finding that the PCR’s legal team had provided confirmation of Asertis’ financial position, bolstered by an ATE insurance policy with “a limit of indemnity of £15 million post-CPO”.

The CAT’s judgment can be read in full here.

More information about the Bulk Mail Claim can be found on its website.

As LFJ covered last week, we are continuing to see a push for new regulations governing third-party legal funding in the U.S., with more and more states moving forward with bills aiming to increase disclosure requirements.

An announcement from the Oklahoma House of Representatives details the passage of House Bill 2619, known as the Foreign Litigation Funding Prevention Act. Much like other bills progressing through state legislatures across the country, HB 2619 has a dual focus on increasing transparency around third-party funding, and on the involvement of foreign actors in domestic litigation. HB 2619 passed the House by a vote of 88-2.

The current draft of the bill requires any party to comply with disclosure requests and produce any commercial litigation funding agreements that they have entered into. Furthermore, the bill dictates that this disclosure must include a certification “as to whether any funds encumbered by the terms of the agreement have been or will be sourced from a foreign state or agency or instrumentality of a foreign state.” This certification would also require the disclosure of the identity of the foreign funder. Consumer litigation funding agreements are exempt from these rules.

Representative Erick Harris, who authored the bill, explained the aims of this legislation in the following statement:

"We must ensure that our courts remain a place for justice, free from manipulation by foreign powers seeking to influence the outcomes of cases for their own benefit. This bill strengthens the integrity of Oklahoma's legal system and prohibits foreign adversaries, like Russia and China, from attempting to fund litigation that could undermine the fairness of our courts. This legislation will help preserve the sanctity of our judicial process and protect the rights of Oklahomans from external interference."

The full text of the bill can be accessed on the Oklahoma State Legislature’s website.

The involvement of litigation funders in intellectual property and patent disputes has never been without controversy, with the President’s choice of nominee to lead the country’s patent office only serving to reignite the debate over the role of third-party funding.

Reporting by Bloomberg Law covers the news that President Trump has nominated John A. Squires to lead the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), with the article highlighting the key role Squires played in the founding of Fortress Investment Group’s Intellectual Property fund. Squires’ involvement with Fortress goes back a decade to his time as a partner at Perkins Coie, where he supported the company’s launch of a $4 billion fund dedicated to patent monetization.

The President’s decision to nominate Squires has provoked strong reactions, with Fortress’ billions of dollars poured into litigation funding and patent monetization being a divisive issue in the country’s patent industry.

Joe Matal, former acting director of the PTO, did not hold back in describing Fortress as “the antichrist of the patent world”, arguing that the investment giant “fund just the worst litigation against critical technology sectors and they won’t tell anyone who’s behind any of it.” Joshua Landau, senior counsel at the Computer & Communications Industry Association, offered a more measured response but noted that Squires’ past involvement with Fortress IP finance group is “somewhat concerning.”

However, proponents of litigation funding for intellectual property and patent disputes welcomed the news of Squires’ nomination. Bryce Barcelo, director of intellectual property at Certum Group, said that Squires “has the real opportunity to bring IP litigation funding to the forefront and out of the darkness a little bit and highlight that this can be a good thing.” Sarah Tsou, global head of intellectual property at Omni Bridgeway, expressed hope that Squires “might be more in favor of bringing accessible and efficient processes for acquiring patents and other IP for smaller companies and startups”, but cautioned that his appointment would not “turn a weak patent into a strong one.”

A spokesperson from Fortress highlighted Squires’ work with the firm’s IP team, saying that his “counsel reflected a deep understanding of the intellectual property space”, and underlined the company’s “utmost respect for his intellect, objectivity and expertise.”