NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Mar 30, 2026--
ORIX Corporation USA (“ORIX USA”) announced today the appointment of James Gruver as Managing Director and Head of Capital Formation, representing a significant milestone in the firm’s continued evolution and growth trajectory. Mr. Gruver is based in New York and reports to Jeff Abrams, Group Head of Private Credit and Real Estate and Member, Executive Committee.
This press release features multimedia. View the full release here: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260330704372/en/
In this role, Mr. Gruver will leverage his over 30 years of experience driving business growth in the global institutional investment and wealth industries to lead the Capital Formation strategy, and drive the firm’s fundraising, product development, and investor engagement efforts across all asset classes. Prior to joining ORIX USA, James led successful platforms at BNY Mellon, Black River, Heitman, and most recently Polen Capital, where he was instrumental in developing and executing business growth strategies across private markets, hedge funds and traditional asset classes.
“We are thrilled to welcome James to ORIX USA to help accelerate the expansion of our third-party capital base as we continue to serve as a trusted asset manager for investors around the world,” said Mr. Abrams. “He brings a strategic mindset, proven track record, and deep understanding of the evolving capital landscape that will enable us to continue to scale effectively and deepen our ability to serve the evolving needs of our investor base.”
“ORIX USA has built a truly impressive platform — one defined by disciplined investing across multiple asset classes and a genuine commitment to its investors and partners,” said Mr. Gruver. “I am excited to join the team and bring that capability directly to investors, delivering the tailored solutions and long-term partnerships that create lasting value on both sides.”
About ORIX Corporation USA (ORIX USA)
Established in the U.S. in 1981, ORIX USA has grown organically and through acquisition into the investment and asset management firm we are today. With a specialization in private credit, real estate, and private equity solutions for middle-market-focused borrowers and investors, we combine our robust balance sheet with funds from third-party investors, providing a strong alignment of interest. ORIX USA and its subsidiaries – ORIX Advisers, ORIX Capital Partners, Signal Peak Capital Management, Boston Financial, Lument, Hilco Global, and NXT Capital – have approximately 2,100 employees and $96.9 billion in assets*, which includes $44 billion in assets and commitments, in addition to $52.9 billion in servicing and administering assets, as of December 2025. Our parent company, ORIX Corporation, is a publicly owned international financial services company with operations in 30 countries and regions worldwide. ORIX Corporation is listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange (8591) and New York Stock Exchange (IX). For more information, visit orix.com.
* As of December 31, 2025. Includes $52.9 billion in servicing and administering assets, in addition to $44 billion in funded assets and unfunded commitments across proprietary capital, third party capital and strategic partners investing in ORIX USA’s private credit, real estate and private equity businesses. Unfunded commitments are based on a contractual commitment or an expected commitment for an established program based on ORIX USA Group’s understanding.
James Gruver, Managing Director and Head of Capital Formation, ORIX USA
WASHINGTON (AP) — One of the first things an Argentine emigre did after her son was born in Florida last year was get him a U.S. passport.
She saw the passport as tangible evidence that he's an American. But now people like her are in a legal fight over President Donald Trump's executive order that would deny U.S. citizenship to children born in the United States to people who are in the country illegally or temporarily.
“It’s funny because I actually booked him for his passport application appointment even before he was born,” the 28-year-old woman said, as her now 7-month-old son napped nearby. She spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity, insisted upon by her lawyers, out of fear of possible retribution by the Republican administration if she were publicly identified.
“I would say that I am definitely relieved that at least he is protected,” she said.
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments on Wednesday over whether Trump's order, signed on Jan. 20, 2025, his first day back in office, comports with the post-Civil War 14th Amendment and an 86-year-old federal law that has been widely understood to make citizens of everyone born in the country, with narrow exceptions for the children of foreign diplomats and invading armies. Every court to have considered the issue has found the order to be illegal and prevented it from taking effect.
The call to repeal birthright citizenship is part of the Trump administration's broader crackdown on immigrants that has included stepped-up deportations, drastic reductions in the number of refugees allowed into the U.S., suspension of asylum at the border and stripping temporary legal protections from people fleeing political and economic instability.
The case presents another test for a high court that has allowed some anti-immigration efforts to continue, even after lower courts had blocked them. The case before the court comes from New Hampshire, where U.S. District Judge Joseph N. LaPlante ruled that the order “likely violates” both the Constitution and federal law.
The first sentence of the 14th Amendment, the Citizenship Clause, makes citizens of “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The case turns on the meaning of the final phrase about jurisdiction, which also was used in citizenship laws enacted in 1940 and 1952.
Trump's view, asserted in the order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” and backed by some conservative legal scholars, is that people here illegally or temporarily are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore their U.S.-born children are not entitled to citizenship.
The court should use the case to set straight "long-enduring misconceptions about the Constitution’s meaning,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote.
In that regard, Sauer likened the case to the seminal 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which outlawed segregation in public schools, and the landmark 2008 Heller case, which declared that people have a constitutional right to keep guns for self-defense.
Last year, Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the Trump administration's effort to defend the order "an impossible task in light of the Constitution’s text, history, this Court’s precedents, federal law, and Executive Branch practice.”
Sotomayor was joined by the other two liberal justices in a dissent from a decision by the court’s six conservative justices that used an earlier round of the birthright citizenship dispute to limit the use of nationwide injunctions by federal judges.
The pregnant mothers and their advocates challenging the order, as well as lower-court judges who have blocked it, have said the Trump administration's arguments lack merit.
"We have the president of the United States trying to radically reinterpret the definition of American citizenship,” said Cecillia Wang, the American Civil Liberties Union legal director who will face off against Sauer on Wednesday.
More than one-quarter of a million babies born in the U.S. each year would be affected by the executive order, according to research by the Migration Policy Institute and Pennsylvania State University’s Population Research Institute.
While Trump has largely focused on illegal immigration in his rhetoric and actions, the birthright restrictions also would apply to people who are legally in the United States, including students and applicants for green cards, or permanent resident status.
The woman from Argentina said she came to the U.S. in 2016 on a visa to attend college and has since applied for a green card.
She described a moment of panic following the court’s June ruling, when it was at least possible that the restrictions could take effect, particularly in states such as Florida that had not challenged Trump's order. Lower-court rulings over the summer ensured the order remained on hold and set up the current Supreme Court case.
On top of the predictable worries of a first-time mother, she said, “I never thought that, you know, so close to the end of my pregnancy that I would have to be even thinking about ... the executive order and how it would have impacted my baby.”
She has not reconsidered her decision to come to the United States or her desire to stay, she said, as her son stirred.
“And so nothing that happens, politically or otherwise, would have changed my views of the country, I mean, because it gave me the most beautiful thing I have today, which is my family,” she said.
Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.
FILE - The U.S. Supreme Court is seen in Washington on Feb. 24, 2026. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke, File)
