Trending Now
Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Heather Collins, Chief Investment Officer, Court House Capital

By John Freund |

Heather Collins is Chief Investment Officer at Court House Capital and a member of the Investment Committee and is responsible for assessing and overseeing investment opportunities across Australia and New Zealand, as well as identifying and managing a portfolio of funded claims through to resolution.

Heather brings over twenty years’ expertise in legal funding, commercial legal practice and in-house corporate counsel roles. In litigation funding, Heather has underwritten significant disputes. She is a veteran commercial litigator with significant experience advising clients on insolvency, banking and finance, property, construction, Corporations law, trade practices and employment matters. Her client base has spanned industry sectors including property, construction, infrastructure, finance and retail and she has acted for leading consumer brands such as Tiffany & Co, Ralph Lauren, Valentino, Aldi and Sephora.

Heather holds a Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Laws (Honours) from the University of Adelaide and is a graduate of the Australian Institute of Company Directors course (GAICD). Heather is the former President of the Women’s Insolvency Network Association NSW branch (WINA) and a Professional Member of the Australian Restructuring & Insolvency Association (ARITA) and the Turnaround Management Association Australia (TMA). She is recognised in Chambers and Partners Litigation Support (2024) and Lawdragon Global 100 Leaders in Litigation Finance (2021-2024).

Company Name and Description: Court House Capital is a leading litigation funder focused on cases in Australia and New Zealand. Court House Capital was established with a mission to provide financial and strategic support to parties seeking capital, risk management and access to justice. Our team is led by industry founders, with Australian based capital, and is renowned for expertise, agility and collaboration.

Company Website: courthousecapital.com.au

Year Founded: 2019

Headquarters: Sydney

Area of Focus: Litigation Finance

Member Quote: We offer cost and risk mitigation strategies for commercial clients and ‘a level playing field’ for those who cannot afford to pursue justice themselves. It is an honour to be co-founders of an industry that provides access to justice for so many, and to be the funder of choice for claimants and professional advisers. Our financial resources, industry network and knowledge has helped many claimants achieve successful outcomes.

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Federal Court Approves $180m Settlement in Northern Territory Stolen Wages Class Action

By Harry Moran |

The combined strength of experienced law firms and well-resourced litigation funders can be a powerful tool for disadvantaged communities seeking justice and compensation from state authorities. However, a recent settlement approval order in Australia was notable for the judge’s pointed questioning of the commercial business model behind these class actions, which sees law firms and funders receive significant payments whilst the victims they represent receive comparatively meagre compensation.

An article in ABC News covers the approval of a $180 million settlement in the Northern Territory stolen wages class action, bringing to an end the claim brought against the Commonwealth of Australia over historic mistreatment of Aboriginal workers in the Northern Territory between 1933 and 1971. Whilst Chief Justice Debra Mortimer approved the settlement along with the related payouts to Shine Lawyers and LLS Fund Services for the claimants, her written judgment raised many questions about the costs accumulated by the legal team and the relatively low value of compensation that the workers would receive.

The judgment approved payments of up to $15 million to Shine Lawyers for legal costs, and a funder’s commission of up to $31.5 million to LLS Fund Services. However, Chief Justice Mortimer’s judgment also contained criticism for both these parties, stating that their “good intentions” in supporting the claimants has been somewhat overshadowed by “the pursuit of the business model”. Mortimer expressed doubt that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities would “see much social justice” in an outcome where these “city based non-indigenous participants in this proceeding come out with so much money compared to their family and friends.”

The settlement in the Northern Territory lawsuit is the latest in a series of similar class actions brought against the Australian state, with previous settlements having been reached with the Western Australia and Queensland state governments.

The full judgment from Chief Justice Mortimer in McDonald v Commonwealth of Australia can be read here.

Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Nick Tsacoyeanes, Managing Director & Counsel, Blue Sky Advisors

By John Freund |

Nick Tsacoyeanes is a founding partner of Blue Sky Advisors and serves as a Managing Director & Counsel at the firm. Nick has spent his career working closely with pension funds, mutual funds, hedge funds and other institutional investors as an attorney and investment consultant.  

Company Name and Description: Blue Sky Advisors is a consulting firm that works with institutional investors and others in the capital markets to address corporate misconduct and serious governance failures. 

The firm provides clients with research into corporate misconduct and a variety of related consulting services. The team includes former securities litigators, chief investment officers, governance experts, litigation consultants and top officials at large state pension funds. 

Blue Sky monitors global stock markets and court dockets daily to detect corporate misconduct that may impact capital markets—often before litigation is filed. This includes material securities devaluations linked to alleged misconduct, significant government and regulatory actions, and newly filed or developing securities fraud cases.

Blue Sky Advisors’ subscriber list includes pension funds, mutual funds, hedge funds, AmLaw 100 law firms, boutique litigation firms, accounting firms, insurance companies as well as a variety of other institutional investors. 

Please contact Nick Tsacoyeanes at ntsacoyeanes@blueskyadvise.com to learn more about Blue Sky’s research and consulting services.

Company Website: www.blueskyadvise.com

Year Founded: 2022

Headquarters: Boston, MA

Commercial Special Features

Key Takeaways from LFJ’s Virtual Town Hall: Spotlight on Patents & Trade Secrets

By John Freund |

On Thursday, April 17th, LFJ hosted a virtual town hall featuring key stakeholders in the legal funding for patents and trade secrets markets. The panel featured Anup Misra (AM), Managing Director of IP at Curiam, Robin Davis (RD), Director at Fortress Investment Group, Erick Robinson (ER), Partner and Co-Chair of the PTAB Practice Group at Brown Rudnick, and Scott Davis (SD), Partner at Klarquist Sparkman. The panel was moderated by Salumeh Loesch (SL), Founder at Loesch Patents, LLC.

Below are key takeaways from the panel discussion:

Do you feel like in the litigation world generally, that there is a greater interest in trade secret enforcement and litigation just because of the difficulties with patent enforcement? Do you feel like there's a growing interest from the funder's perspective to fund trade secret cases?

AM: I think every funder is going to be a little bit different on how interested they are in trade secrets litigation. Just to be perfectly candid, for example, Curium has not typically been as interested in this because collectively in our practices and in funding, we haven't had the best experiences with trade secret cases. Other funders, though, probably love trade secret cases.

Now, that's not to say we won't do them. And we certainly see more of them. And we're certainly seeing a lot more sort of combo trade secret / patent litigation, which I think is extremely interesting for funders. And if you can manage that, it really puts your case on the upper shelf of what funders are going to consider.

I want to get a sense of how we should consider the multijurisdictional approach in the patent context and how this applies when you're seeking funding?

RD: Obviously, if you have patents in multiple jurisdictions, the US, Europe, beyond, that is a real asset and obviously something you should be bringing to the attention of a litigation funder if you're seeking investment in your case. The key is going to be to make sure that whatever international strategy you're considering is one that takes advantage of the various strengths and differences between different forums around the world.

For instance, many people have always enjoyed filing in the US because there's the potential for large damages awards. However, US district court litigation, especially with the advent of stays for IPRs, can be slow depending on where you're litigating. There are faster forums in other parts of the world; Germany has long been considered a favorite in that regard. And with the advent of the UPC, the Unified Patent Court, which is now in many of the EU member states, this gives you both a faster timeline to a resolution and a much bigger market now that you've got multiple EU member states that are all able to be adjudicated in a single proceeding.

What are your thoughts on the impact of that [PTAB rule changes], in terms of the changes to the types of cases that may potentially arise in both patent litigation and patent litigation funding.

SD: Discretionary denials are increasing. Just in our own practice, we've seen a dramatic change very quickly on that. And I think that's going to continue as a trend for some time, at least until folks filing petitions figure it out as far as what the rules are and as far as what the standards are and what factors are weighed most heavily in the analysis in order to basically present the best argument they can to keep their petition on track.

Certainly in the short term, discretionary denial is a real thing and it's surging. So there's an opportunity to take advantage of that while the rules shake out and both litigants and the board are trying to adapt and adjust to the new reality.

Do you have any tips for how companies can protect their trade secrets but still obtain litigation funding?

ER: My first advice to companies is to have a trade secret management system. That can be as complicated as having an entire software suite. That can be as simple as having a spreadsheet that has trade secret, date, who came up with it, and additional details.

That actually feeds into the real answer, which is you need to know what the trade secret is. Once you know what the trade secret is, things get easier. And that's easier said than done. I've been in cases where nobody really knew what the trade secret was until throttle, which is what makes it crazy. The good news is that damages are a lot more flexible, for instance, in the patent world; you can get actual losses, you can get unjust enrichment, you can get reasonable royalty, you can get punitive damages. There's just a much broader system of damages.

To view the entire discussion, please click here.