Trending Now
  • Pravati Capital Establishes Coalition to Advance Responsible Litigation Funding Regulation Across U.S. Following Arizona Law’s Passage
Community Spotlights

Community Spotlight: Philippa Wilkinson, Associate Director, S-RM

By John Freund |
November 19, 2024

Community Spotlight: Philippa Wilkinson, Associate Director, S-RM

Philippa Wilkinson is an Associate Director on S-RM’s Disputes & Investigations team, which is dedicated to providing investigative support to parties to contentious situations. She has experience managing asset tracing investigations, as well as litigation and arbitration support engagements, associated with complex corporate disputes. While her practice is global, Philippa specialises in matters involving Middle Eastern parties, having spent several years in the Middle East, living and working in Tunisia and the UAE. She previously worked as a journalist covering finance and infrastructure in the GCC and wider Middle East, and subsequently covering European infrastructure funds. Philippa has an MA in Near and Middle Eastern Studies from the School of African and Oriental Studies, and a BA in Modern Languages from Durham University. She is a fluent Arabic, Spanish and French speaker.

Company Name and Description: S-RM is a global risk and intelligence consultancy. Founded in 2005, our staff comprises 350+ practitioners across eight international offices, serving clients across all regions and major sectors. Headquartered in London with offices in Cape Town, Hong Kong, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, New York, Utrecht and Washington, D.C., we support our clients by providing intelligence that informs critical decision-making and strategies.

Our dedicated Disputes & Investigations practice was established to provide specialist support to clients engaged in contentious situations. Our intelligence is deployed in a number of scenarios including litigation, international arbitration, internal investigations and investigations related to sanctions or fraud. We provide a full spectrum of dispute-focused services including asset tracing and enforcement strategy; litigation support; eDiscovery and digital forensics; and strategic intelligence. S-RM’s investigators sit alongside cyber security experts and seasoned crisis managers. Our investigations involve their collaboration on a regular basis, be it for physical surveillance, expert witness support, or digital forensics. Since 2021, our practice has received international recognition by leading legal directories, including Chambers & Partners and Who Who’s Legal (Lexology Index).

S-RM’s research and analysis is provided by six regional teams, which provide expert coverage of a range of jurisdictions globally, from the most prominent to some of the smallest and most obscure. Collectively, S-RM’s analysts and managers speak over 45 languages and have come to the business from a broad range of sectors including intelligence, government, finance, journalism, the military and academia. Each team is adept at locating hard-to-find public records and has built an extensive network of human sources on the ground in their region. On every project, we bring together the most relevant and experienced practitioners from across our business, creating teams designed to address unique problems and complex challenges.

Company Website: https://www.s-rminform.com/

Year Founded: 2005 

Headquarters: 4th Floor Beaufort House, 15 St Botolph Street, London, Greater London, EC3A 7DT 

Area of Focus: Corporate intelligence  

Member Quote: “Through our asset tracing work and enforcement advisory, we make sure a judgment or an award is not just a very expensive piece of paper, but a pathway to recovery.”

Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

Commercial

View All
Commercial Fundraising

IVO Capital Partners Launches Fund IV for Litigation Finance

By John Freund |

Paris‑based litigation funder IVO Capital Partners has launched its fourth vehicle, named IVO Legal Strategies Fund IV, targeting €150 million (approx. US$173 million) to back contested commercial disputes and arbitration claims across continental Europe and beyond.

According to an article in WealthBriefing, the fund will deploy capital primarily within France, the Netherlands, Germany, Spain and Portugal, and is focused on claim types such as competition law, data protection infringements and collective redress mechanisms. With over 11 years’ experience investing in cases across Europe, the UK and the U.S., IVO says its team is “uniquely positioned to capitalise on the growing need for capital to fund meritorious cases.”

The vehicle is structured as a closed‑ended fund with an 8‑year life, a 3‑year investment period and a target internal rate of return of 14 percent. Typical individual lawsuits range between €500k and €5m; IVO expects to invest in 50‑60 diversified matters for Fund IV, thereby reinforcing the argument that legal finance can serve as an uncorrelated asset class — largely decoupled from macroeconomic trends. The firm emphasises that the European litigation‑funding market remains nascent compared with the U.S., but regulatory changes such as the EU Damages Directive and the Representative Actions Directive are enhancing access to collective actions and follow‑on claims.

Investors in the preceding fund mix included family offices and wealth managers (wealth advisors now form over a third of the investor base), and the minimum entry into Fund IV is €100k for professional and qualified investors. Key risks remain case‑selection, outcome uncertainty and length of duration; IVO says capital‑protection insurance helps mitigate downside.

Commercial

Third‑Party Litigation Funding Gains Ground in Environmental Cases

By John Freund |

Environmental suits, increasingly seen as tools to hold governments and corporations accountable for ecosystem destruction and climate risk, often stall or never get filed because of steep costs and limited budgets.

An article in Nature highlights the U.S. commercial TPLF market as managing over US $12.4 billion in assets, showcasing the potential scale of the model for environmental justice. The core argument is that by providing funding to plaintiffs who otherwise could not afford the fight, TPLF can enable lawsuits that address pollution, habitat loss and climate change liability — aligning with broader calls to broaden access to justice in sustainability law. At the same time, the author cautions that TPLF carries risks: it may bring conflicts of interest, shift control of litigation away from claimants, or impose commercial pressures that are misaligned with public-interest goals.

For the legal funding industry this correspondence underscores important dimensions. It signals an expanding frontier: environmental litigation is becoming a viable sector for funders, not just mass-torts or commercial disputes. But it also raises governance questions: funders will need to establish best practices to ensure alignment with public interest, preserve claimant autonomy and guard against criticisms of “outsourcing” justice to commercial actors.

The article suggests that regulators, funders and civil-society actors should collaborate to craft transparent frameworks and guardrails if TPLF is to fulfill its promise in environmental realms.

Commercial

How Litigation Funding Evens the IP Playing Field

By John Freund |

Third-party litigation funding (TPLF) is becoming increasingly important for small firms, inventors and universities seeking to enforce intellectual-property rights against major corporations.

According to an article in Bloomberg, funding arrangements enable plaintiffs with viable claims—but limited resources—to access litigation and expert fees that would otherwise be prohibitive. In the complex IP space, cost and risk often preclude smaller rights holders from doing anything meaningful when a financially strong infringer acts. In effect, the commentary argues, litigation finance helps tilt the playing field back toward fairness and innovation rather than letting size alone determine outcomes.

The piece also observes that public debate has at times mis-characterised litigation funding—especially after efforts to tax funder returns—which it says “shined a spotlight on the solution” rather than creating the problem. The authors stress that the proper policy response is not punitive taxation or sweeping disclosure mandates that risk chilling investment. Instead, they advocate for targeted transparency under court supervision, combined with a recognition that accessible funding is a core part of ensuring just enforcement of IP rights.

For the legal-funding industry, the commentary underlines several take-aways: funders who back IP-rights holders serve a social as well as economic role, helping inventors and smaller entities access justice they could not otherwise afford. The industry should engage proactively in outreach: educating IP counsel and claim-holders about funding, telling success stories of smaller plaintiffs, and working with policymakers and legislators to shape rational regulation. The challenge remains to balance the benefits of funding with ethical, transparency and conflict-of-interest safeguards—as discussion in the broader TPLF context shows.