Trending Now
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

Personal Injury Firms Want Private Equity Investment

By John Freund |

US personal injury law firms are leading a push to open the doors to private equity investment in the legal sector, even in the face of long-standing regulatory opposition to outside ownership of law practices.

According to the Financial Times, a growing number of US firms that built their practices around high-volume, billboard-driven mass tort and injury representation are quietly exploring capital injections from private equity firms. The motivation is fast growth, increased leverage, and the ability to scale operations rapidly, something traditional partner-owned firms have found difficult in a consolidating market.

The move represents a departure from the conventional owner-operator model historically favored by the legal profession, where practicing attorneys hold equity in their firms. Private capital could provide aggressive funding for marketing, case acquisition, litigation infrastructure, and operational expansion, enabling firms to ramp up nationwide acquisition of cases. Critics, however, warn that outside investors prioritizing returns could create pressure to maximize volume over client outcomes.

Private equity’s entrance into legal services is not entirely new, but the aggressive push by personal injury firms may mark a tipping point. If regulators and bar associations ease restrictions on non-lawyer ownership or passive investment, this could fundamentally reshape how US law firms are structured and financed.

For the legal funding industry, this trend signals a potential increase in demand for third-party litigation financing and capital partners. As firms leverage outside investments for growth and case volume, funding providers may find new opportunities or face increased competition.

Case Developments Commercial

AmTrust Sues Sompo Over £59M in Legal Funding Losses

By John Freund |

A high-stakes dispute between insurers AmTrust and Sompo is unfolding in UK court, centered on a failed litigation funding scheme that left AmTrust facing an estimated £59 million in losses. At the heart of the case is whether Sompo, as the professional indemnity insurer of two defunct law firms, Pure Legal and HSS, is liable for the damages stemming from their alleged misconduct in the operation of the scheme.

An article in Law360 reports that AmTrust had insured the litigation funding program and is now pursuing Sompo for reimbursement, arguing that the liabilities incurred by Pure and HSS are covered under Sompo’s policies. The two law firms entered administration, leaving AmTrust to shoulder the financial burden. AmTrust contends that the firms breached their professional duties, triggering coverage under the indemnity policies.

Sompo, however, disputes both the factual and legal underpinnings of the claim. The insurer denies that any breach occurred and further argues that even if the law firms had acted improperly, their conduct would not be covered under the terms of the policies issued.

This case follows AmTrust’s recent resolution of a parallel legal battle with Novitas, another financial party entangled in the scheme. That settlement narrows the current dispute to AmTrust’s claim against Sompo.

Case Developments Commercial

Woolworths Faces Shareholder Class Action Over Underpayments

By John Freund |

Woolworths Group is facing a new shareholder class action that alleges the company misled investors about the scale and financial impact of underpaying salaried employees. The action, backed by Litigation Lending Services, adds a fresh legal front to the long-running fallout from Woolworths’ wage compliance failures.

According to AFR, at the heart of the claim is the allegation that Woolworths did not adequately inform the market about the risks posed by its reliance on annualised salary structures and set-off clauses. These payment methods averaged compensation over longer periods instead of ensuring employees received correct pay entitlements for each pay period. This included overtime, penalty rates, and other award entitlements.

Recent decisions by the Federal Court of Australia have clarified that such set-off practices are non-compliant under modern awards. Employers must now ensure all entitlements are met for each pay period and maintain detailed records of employee hours. These rulings significantly raise the compliance bar and have increased financial exposure for large employers like Woolworths, which has tens of thousands of salaried employees.

As a result, Woolworths could face hundreds of millions of dollars in remediation costs. The shareholder class action argues that Woolworths failed to disclose the magnitude of these potential liabilities in a timely or accurate way. Investors claim that this omission amounts to misleading conduct, and that they were not fully informed of the risks when making investment decisions.