The authors at a law firm point out that non-disclosure agreements, compliance safeguards, and legal protections are only as strong as the firms that enforce them. The writers reflect on lessons from a recent court case in London.

A court case in London concerning the alleged misuse of confidential information by a hedge fund demonstrates the kind of issues that private bankers, wealth managers and family offices must be aware of. This is part of the unglamorous due diligence and oversight work that keeps investment ticking along. Failure to sweat the details can be costly. To discuss this case are Piers Strickland and Boris Petri of London-based Waterfront Law. 

This news service thanks the authors for sharing these insights; the usual editorial disclaimers apply to opinions of guest writers. These articles are meant to stimulate debate, so please comment if you have questions, disagreements or want to add data and ideas. Email tom.burroughes@wealthbriefing.com and amanda.cheesely@clearviewpublishing.com

For years, hedge funds and investment firms have operated in a high-stakes environment where proprietary insights are often more valuable than assets. In such a competitive world, trust is the currency that keeps financial partnerships afloat. When that trust is broken, the consequences can be severe – both legally and reputationally.

That is precisely what happened in the recent Illiquidx v. Altana Wealth case. London’s High Court ruled against hedge fund Altana Wealth, finding that it had misused confidential information from its former joint venture partner, Illiquidx. The decision, delivered on 13 February 2025, is not just another commercial dispute – it is a stark warning for investment professionals about the risks of mishandling sensitive data.

As investment firms navigate increasingly complex partnerships, the Illiquidx ruling is a case study of what can go wrong when firms fail to take data protection and confidentiality seriously. 

In 2019, Illiquidx, a specialist in distressed debt investments, entered into a joint venture with Altana Wealth, a hedge fund led by Lee Robinson. The goal was to explore investment opportunities in Venezuelan distressed debt, which is a notoriously tricky asset class due to its legal and regulatory hurdles.

Illiquidx shared proprietary trading strategies, market intelligence, and structuring insights to facilitate their collaboration, all protected under a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). For a while, things progressed smoothly. But when the partnership collapsed, Altana Wealth forged ahead with its own fund, The Altana Credit Opportunities Fund (ACOF), targeting the same opportunities that the partnership had, while allegedly using confidential information obtained from Illiquidx.

A protracted legal battle followed as Illiquidx claimed that Altana had breached the NDA, misused trade secrets, and infringed copyright protections.

Throughout the case, Altana Wealth mounted a forceful defence, arguing that the information it used was not confidential because it was “staggeringly basic” and, therefore, not protectable. The firm also claimed that the details had already entered the public domain, partly due to Illiquidx’s marketing materials.

However, the Honourable Mr Justice Rajah dismissed these claims outright in a scathing judgment. He found that sending out marketing material to potential investors that was marked “confidential” and/or expected to be treated as such meant that such materials had not entered the public domain and were still protectable as confidential information under the NDA.  

On this basis, the Judge had no hesitation in finding that Altana had misused the confidential information in relation to its ACOF fund.

Perhaps the most striking aspect of the ruling was the Judge’s assessment of Altana’s CEO, Lee Robinson. He found Robinson an unreliable witness, accusing him of making up numbers and telling “a significant lie” to intimidate Illiquidx before legal proceedings began. With these findings, the court ruled decisively in Illiquidx’s favour, reinforcing the legal protections for confidential financial data.

While this case concerns two specific firms, its implications extend far beyond Illiquidx and Altana Wealth. The financial sector is built on information, trading strategies, client data, and proprietary analytics, yet many firms fail to implement adequate protections for their most valuable asset: their intellectual capital.

Despite the increasing complexity of financial collaborations and the growing regulatory focus on transparency, too many firms rely on outdated or loosely enforced confidentiality agreements. Proprietary insights often form the foundation of competitive advantage, yet weak internal controls leave firms vulnerable to disputes, data breaches, and reputational damage.

This is why the Altana ruling should serve as a wake-up call. NDAs, compliance safeguards, and legal protections are only as strong as the firms that enforce them. Without such enforcement (and necessary proactive measures) even well-structured agreements can fail to prevent damaging breaches of confidentiality. The investment sector operates on trust, but the legal, financial, and reputational consequences can be severe when that trust is broken. Those who are in that sector need to ensure that they are doing all they can to protect their proprietary information against the threat of trust being broken.

The authors
 

Piers Strickland


Boris Petri