Video is exclusive to members, sign up now to enjoy this and many other features.

Responsibilities

Ruth Stackpool-Moore
Investment Manager at Omni Bridgeway

Learning outcomes

  • How the role and responsibilities are split and aligned with funders and lawyers
Print

Executive Bio

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. Read more

View Profile Page

Interview Transcript

Going back to my example, I’m the law firm and I work with you, at Omni. What is really my expertise in this? If I’m running the case, where does the expertise lie between Omni and a law firm?

It’s really a collaboration. We will only fund cases that we think have an experienced legal team running them. The day to day issues, such as the writing of correspondence, the making of submissions, the appearance in court, are all done by the law firm. We don’t do that; we don’t purport to do that. While we have, mostly, all done that in the past, we fully recognize that that is not our day job anymore and it’s not our current experience. All of that expertise has to come with the firm. If we don’t think that they have that, we won’t fund a case, even if we think the merits and the economics are strong.

We think of ourselves as a strategic partner. We are looking to collaborate with the law firm, to provide useful input. Ultimately, we’re not doing the day to day work; we’re not directing how the case is going to unfold. That stays, very much, with the law firm.

From their perspective and what added value we provide, I do think they value the strategic input that we can bring. It’s not necessarily challenging to their expertise; it helps to augment it, so that we have the strongest and best team, going forward. Also from their perspective, I think it can be very helpful, particularly at stages where pleadings might be going to be filed or other steps being taken, because we are not involved in the day to day, we have a slightly more independent birds eye view of the case. When we read pleadings, for example, we’re looking at it more from the way an arbitrator or a judge might look at it. By being a bit less engaged on the day to day, we can take a more global view of what’s being argued or how it is being presented.

What about the US, where the law firm can take a stake in the claim? Is that a different dynamic?

Sign up to read the full interview and hundreds more.

FORUM

Company Channels

PARTNER

Speak to Executive

Join waiting list for IP Partner
Did you like this article ?