Trending Now
  • Certum Group Survey: 70% of In-House Counsel Know Litigation Funding, Only 6% Have Used It
  • Invenio Partner Warns Automation Bias Is the Real AI Risk in Funding Underwriting
Commercial People Moves

Apex Litigation Finance Appoints Gabriel Olearnik as Head of Legal

By John Freund |
August 28, 2025

Apex Litigation Finance Appoints Gabriel Olearnik as Head of Legal

Apex Litigation Finance has strengthened its leadership team with the appointment of Gabriel Olearnik, a highly experienced litigation funding professional with a global track record in high-value dispute resolution and complex commercial matters.

Over the past five years, Gabriel has originated and reviewed more than 451 litigation funding cases worldwide with an aggregate value exceeding $116 billion, closing deals worth over $700 million. His recent work includes the successful settlement of a high-profile BIT matter as well as executive employment claims in the UK.

Gabriel’s career spans senior roles in UK, US and European litigation funders, where he was instrumental in structuring high-value transactions, securing strategic court orders and conducting multi-jurisdictional investigations. In 2023, he closed a £268 million litigation funding deal in just three weeks, underscoring his ability to deliver results under tight timelines.

Recognised by Lexology as one of only 66 lawyers worldwide to receive the Thought Leaders in Third Party Funding accolade, Gabriel has been involved in matters that have attracted daily media coverage and required innovative dispute strategies. His experience extends to training legal teams, advising on politically sensitive disputes, and executing complex enforcement actions.

“Gabriel brings exceptional global experience, deep sector knowledge, and a proven ability to deliver in high-stakes environments,” said Maurice Power, CEO of Apex Litigation Finance. “His appointment further enhances Apex’s market position and it’s ability to originate, evaluate and fund complex commercial claims for our clients.”

“I am delighted to join Maurice and the team at Apex,” said Gabriel. “Apex’s strong financial backing and their speed of execution make this a natural alignment. I look forward to building on the strong foundation set out by my predecessor, Stephen Allinson, and contributing to the future success of the business.”

Gabriel’s appointment reflects Apex’s ongoing growth in funding small to mid-sized UK commercial disputes and builds on the company’s commitment to delivering fast, fair, and competitive non-recourse litigation funding solutions to claimant’s who may be prohibited from pursuing meritorious cases due to cost and/or financial risk.

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Commentary Casts State Funding Disclosure Laws as a Coalition Effort Rather Than an Industry Fight

A commentary piece argues that the momentum behind third-party litigation funding disclosure laws has come from broad business coalitions rather than any single industry, pointing to Ohio as the template other states are now following.

As reported by AMAC, the article traces a run of state legislation beginning with Georgia's Courts Access and Consumer Protection Act, which requires outside financiers to register with state regulators, bars them from influencing litigation strategy and prohibits foreign funding. Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Montana and Oklahoma each enacted their own versions, with Ohio and North Carolina subsequently added to the list.

Ohio State Representative Meredith Craig, a co-sponsor of House Bill 105, told the author that the coalition behind the measure mattered more than anything else. "We ultimately had every major business group supporting the legislation, from the Ohio Farm Bureau to the Ohio State Medical Association," she said. "That broad coalition showed this wasn't about helping one particular industry; it was about protecting Ohioans and the integrity of our courts." On the bill's bipartisan path, she added that members on both sides "agreed that it was time to defend our constituents and our businesses."

The piece frames the federal picture as moving in parallel, citing the Litigation Funding Transparency Act of 2026 introduced in February by Senator Chuck Grassley and co-sponsors, which would require disclosure of funding in federal class actions and multidistrict litigation, alongside a joint filing by the Institute for Legal Reform and Lawyers for Civil Justice seeking amendment of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to create a uniform national disclosure standard.

Writing from the perspective of the Washington Health Innovation Council, the author focuses on medical device and biopharmaceutical companies, arguing that plaintiff recruitment advertising invoking the FDA name and logo can imply regulatory action that has not occurred, and that resources diverted to funded litigation lengthen development timelines.

Commercial

Comments on USPTO Disclosure Rule Split Over Who Is Really Behind Anonymous Patent Challenges

A U.S. Patent and Trademark Office proposal to require third-party requesters for ex parte reexamination to name all real parties in interest has drawn a sharply divided response, with the dispute turning on the same transparency questions that animate the broader litigation funding disclosure debate.

As reported by IPWatchdog, 26 comments were filed before the period closed on 21 August, submitted by 17 organisations and eight individuals. The July rulemaking notice proposed that requests identify the requester and any other real parties in interest, with statements kept confidential on request, so the Office can assess whether statutory estoppel provisions bar a filing. The USPTO said it has received a significant number of reexamination requests aimed at patents already challenged in inter partes or post-grant review.

Eight of the 17 organisational comments opposed the rule outright. Supporters included Adeia, Nokia, Dolby Laboratories and the Council for Innovation Promotion. Adeia said it received ten anonymous requests between October 2025 and April 2026 after more than a decade without any, and had to defend its patents without knowing whether the requester was a licensee, competitor, affiliate of an estopped party or a foreign-backed organisation.

Dolby went further, arguing that a requester's own identification may be insufficient and proposing that requesters answer factual questions about their business model, member or subscriber funding, and the source of funds used for the challenge. Nokia recommended additional guidance covering indemnification obligations, industry consortia and third-party funding.

Opponents including the Business Software Alliance, Unified Patents and the PTAB Bar Association argued the Office has produced little evidence that estopped parties are exploiting anonymous reexamination, and warned that importing a fact-intensive real party in interest inquiry into an examiner-driven proceeding without discovery would generate satellite disputes and deter legitimate filings.

Commercial

Ireland’s 1634 Champerty Statute Is Blocking EU Class Actions Against Big Tech, Report Finds

Ireland's centuries-old prohibition on third-party funding has become the practical barrier to collective redress claims against the technology companies that base their European operations there, with only one class action filed in the country in the five years since the EU opened the door to them.

As reported by POLITICO, Ireland is the only EU member state that bars a funder from financing litigation unless it has a direct or legitimate interest in the case. The restriction stems from the medieval doctrines of maintenance and champerty, written into Irish law in 1634 and still in force. England abolished both offences in 1967; Ireland's courts have continued to uphold the ban, with narrow exceptions such as charitable donations made without expectation of a share of any award.

The prohibition collides directly with the EU's 2020 Representative Actions Directive, which permits only non-profit qualified entities to bring class actions. Those organisations typically depend on outside capital to fund proceedings against well-resourced defendants. Five non-profits are registered in Ireland to bring such claims, but only one case has been lodged — the Irish Council for Civil Liberties' challenge to Microsoft's online advertising system, financed from the organisation's general budget.

Johnny Ryan, who directs the ICCL's enforcement unit, said complex litigation in Ireland costs at least €1 million at first instance and that the organisation "cannot take multiple cases unless the State allows us to raise the necessary funds." He described the combination of the EU's non-profit requirement and Ireland's funding ban as a "fatal contradiction" for consumers seeking compensation.

Ireland's Law Reform Commission is due to publish a report later this year on whether the rules should change, though Justice Minister Jim O'Callaghan has said he is "very hesitant" about permitting third-party funding. The European Commission said it is assessing implementation of the directive and that member states banning funding must ensure costs do not obstruct qualified entities.