Trending Now
Commercial Covid-19

Trade Secrets Expert: Stephanie Southwick

April 28, 2021

Trade Secrets Expert: Stephanie Southwick

There are a number of reasons for the spike in IP cases experienced in recent years. These include the passage of the Defend Trade Secrets Act, as well as increased use of litigation funding—which has allowed small and medium-sized businesses the funds they need to pursue IP claims. To better serve clients in this area, Omni Bridgeway brought in Stephanie Southwick in September 2019. Omni Bridgeway details that Southwick’s experience and expertise make her an ideal choice to assist and advise clients with IP disputes. Southwick was a litigator for more than fifteen years and was the former Managing Partner of Greenfield Southwick LLP (an IP litigation firm) before joining Omni Bridgeway. In addition to expertise in intellectual property matters, she is also well-versed in contract and founder disputes, business torts, and employment law. In her current role, Southwick assesses cases for investment, about a third of which are related to trade secrets. When clients seek advice on preparing for a trade secrets case, she suggests three areas of focus:
  • Clearly outlining the exact trade secret at issue
  • Defining and demonstrating its value
  • Presenting evidence of the defendant’s actions regarding the use of trade secrets
According to Southwick, Omni Bridgeway can work with clients who have their own legal team in place. And it may behoove them to get their case analyzed by a specialist before hiring counsel. With IP claims set to soar even further alongside the broader legal sector, funders are wise to invest in IP expertise now, to capitalize on the continued growth.

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Esquire Financial’s Litigation-Related Loans Climb to $1.22 Billion

Esquire Financial Holdings continues to build its bank around the legal industry, with commercial litigation-related lending now the clear centerpiece of its loan book rather than a sideline. The firm's strategy leans into a niche most banks avoid: financing law firms and litigation-related credit at scale.

According to Esquire Financial Holdings, the company's commercial litigation-related loans increased $386.9 million, or 46.3%, to $1.22 billion as of March 31, 2026. That single segment now accounts for roughly two-thirds of Esquire's $1.82 billion total loan portfolio.

The litigation book grew a net $44 million during the quarter — about 15% on an annualized basis — at a yield of approximately 9%, well above conventional commercial lending. Total assets rose 23.9% to $2.42 billion, and the bank's net interest margin reached 6.04%, reflecting how the litigation-related concentration lifts overall returns.

The figures underscore a deliberate design rather than opportunistic growth: a specialized commercial bank concentrating on law-firm and litigation-related credit, funded in large part by legal-industry deposits. Net income for the quarter was $12.2 million, or $1.40 per diluted share. As litigation finance draws regulatory scrutiny elsewhere, Esquire's model shows how a chartered bank is embedding itself in the sector's plumbing.

Commercial

Ohio Advances Litigation Funding Registration and Foreign-Funding Ban

Ohio is moving to join the growing roster of states regulating third-party litigation funding, advancing a bill that pairs registration and disclosure requirements with an outright prohibition on foreign funders.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, House Bill 105 — passed by the Senate and sent to Governor Mike DeWine — would require both commercial and consumer funders to register with the state and disclose their funding agreements to the attorney general after cases resolve. Sponsors have described the sector as an "opaque," billion-dollar industry operating largely out of view.

The measure would bar funders from influencing how lawsuits are handled or settled, and would prohibit funding agreements with individuals or entities domiciled outside the United States. It draws on the National Conference of Insurance Legislators' "Transparency in Third Party Litigation Financing Model Act," creating a uniform registration and oversight framework under the attorney general.

Unlike North Carolina's first-in-the-nation outright ban enacted last month, Ohio's approach centers on transparency and foreign-influence guardrails rather than blanket prohibition — a model other states weighing regulation are likely to study closely. For the defense bar, mandatory disclosure of funding agreements would offer a clearer view of the financial interests behind a claim, potentially informing settlement posture and trial strategy.

Commercial

Op-Ed Warns Congress’s Litigation Finance Bills Threaten Privacy and Free Speech

A new commentary argues that pending federal legislation to regulate third-party litigation funding could do more constitutional harm than substantive reform, raising First Amendment and privacy concerns for funded parties and their backers.

As reported by Bloomberg Law, legal scholar John Shu points to two efforts on Capitol Hill: a bill from Senator Thom Tillis and Representative Kevin Hern that would impose a 41% tax on litigation finance recoveries, and a separate disclosure bill from Representative Darrell Issa that would require funders and financiers to be publicly identified.

Shu contends that mandatory disclosure would expose confidential backers to "doxxing, harassment, retaliation, or worse," and that the tax-enforcement mechanism would force plaintiffs' lawyers to identify private funders to the IRS. He points to the agency's history of controversy over the "targeting of the Tea Party and other conservative groups" as reason for caution about compelled disclosure to federal authorities.

He grounds the constitutional argument in Supreme Court precedent — including NAACP v. Alabama (1958) and Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (2021) — decisions that shielded confidential donor and membership lists from compelled disclosure. The piece lands as a notable counterweight to the transparency push gaining momentum in statehouses and Congress, reframing the debate around civil liberties rather than courtroom economics.