Competitive Landscape
Investment Manager at Omni Bridgeway
inpractise.com/articles/law-firm-competition
Why is this interview interesting?
- Advantages that experienced litigation finance companies have over financial institutions by having conducting the due-diligence in house
Ruth Stackpool-Moore
Investment Manager at Omni Bridgeway
Ruth is a cross-border international dispute resolution lawyer, qualified in Australia and the UK. She has 12 years’ experience in private practice at leading global law firms; in global dispute finance and at one of the world’s leading international arbitration centres. She has represented multinational organisations in, acted as tribunal secretary for and reviewed from a commercial and legal standpoint complex cross-border matters throughout Asia Pacific, Europe, USA and the Middle East in a variety of sectors including defence, telecommunications, construction, media, pharmaceuticals and natural resources. One of the first to set up and manage local operations for a global dispute funder in Asia, Ruth has been commercially assessing dispute prospects and funding cases in civil and common law jurisdictions in Asia, and globally, since 2015. She has also worked to develop regional political and legislative frameworks to allow third party funding in key Asian jurisdictions. Ruth is a member of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre Task Force on Third Party Funding. Before joining Omni Bridgeway, Ruth was Managing Director for an exclusive broker to a global litigation funder in the Asia Pacific region. She joined the dispute finance market from the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre where, as Managing Counsel, she led the arbitration team for several years and, in 2014, managed the Centre as Acting Secretary-General.
Interview Transcript
Do you think you can build a leading litigation financer, outsourcing all the due diligence?
My personal view is, no. I have seen operators in the market who do that. I think you run significant risks. In the past, I was looking at a case that had already been funded by a funder and they were approaching us to co-fund with them. That funder was not like us. They didn’t have any legal background and they didn’t really appreciate the risks of the case. They had looked at the investment from an economics perspective and that was it. It was an investment treaty arbitration and, for those types of cases, the value of having legal knowledge and understanding the risks of a particular claim, being able to assess the underpinnings of the legal advice that you are being given by the lawyers, is very important. There are nuances in those cases. If you don’t understand the legalities and the substantive issues, you simply don’t appreciate the risk. I think it’s very hard to get to grips with the economics of a case if you don’t appreciate the underlying factors.
You can’t price it effectively.
Yes; that’s my view. Others take a different view.
Related Content
Copyright Notice
This document may not be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means including resale of any part, unauthorised distribution to a third party or other electronic methods, without the prior written permission of IP 1 Ltd.
IP 1 Ltd, trading as In Practise (herein referred to as "IP") is a company registered in England and Wales and is not a registered investment advisor or broker-dealer, and is not licensed nor qualified to provide investment advice.
In Practise reserves all copyright, intellectual and other property rights in the Content. The information published in this transcript (“Content”) is for information purposes only and should not be used as the sole basis for making any investment decision. Information provided by IP is to be used as an educational tool and nothing in this Content shall be construed as an offer, recommendation or solicitation regarding any financial product, service or management of investments or securities.
© 2024 IP 1 Ltd. All rights reserved.