Connect with us

World

With lawfare on the rise, courts are becoming a venue for politics

Published

on

With lawfare on the rise, courts are becoming a venue for politics

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent in any way the editorial position of Euronews.

Usually with no leg to stand on, the objective of these claims is to disrupt and clog the system and cause chaos, Pieter Cleppe writes.

ADVERTISEMENT

Long gone are the days when politics was confined to parliaments. Apart from the growingly politicised and polarised media, the courtroom is increasingly becoming a political venue, with third-party litigation funding being particularly concerning.

Both in Europe and the US, there has been increased scrutiny of third-party litigation funding. 

This is a phenomenon where claimants in court cases no longer fund their own cases. Instead, they are bankrolled by investment firms, who basically see it as an attractive, if insecure, investment.

Bloomberg Law recently disclosed how Russian billionaires close to President Vladimir Putin have been secretly pouring money into US courts through third-party litigation funding in a bid to contest the sanctions they have been subject to. 

Advertisement

The gist is that by investing millions without even showing their face in court, some malevolent actors have found lawfare a useful tool to laugh in the face of law and justice and syphon their money across the border while doing it.

Chinese claims are now targeting intellectual property in the US

In another example, a company based in China has been clandestinely funding intellectual property lawsuits against Samsung, using a Florida tech company as a front, to claim that the South Korean giant used its intellectual property in its popular audio products. 

The essence of the problem here is that the funders “often manipulate civil litigation for their own purposes”, according to a letter to the heads of a US congressional committee in October by major pharma companies Bayer and Johnson & Johnson. 

In the letter, they complain that the litigation finance industry “goes to great lengths to operate in complete secrecy,” demanding more transparency. 

The fear here, backed by the US Chamber of Commerce, is that litigation financing could allow Washington’s adversaries to obtain confidential information about sensitive technologies. 

Advertisement

In any case, US House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senator John Kennedy, have already taken legal action, having submitted a legislative proposal that would regulate foreign entities’ ability to fund litigation. 

Business groups like the US Chamber of Commerce support this, as they believe the shortage of available information about who is financing cases opens the door for foreign adversaries to undermine US national security.

An EU directive is in the works

Also in Europe, legal action is on the way. Last summer, the European Parliament recommended to the European Commission to propose a Directive on the regulation of third-party funding in the EU, aptly named “Responsible funding of litigation”, with the goal of regulating third-party funders’ financing proceedings in the EU.

If adopted, it would create a minimum standard for third-party funders in the EU and establish a supervisory authority granting permits to funders and monitoring their activities. 

It would also hold funders jointly liable with the funded disputing party to pay the cost of the proceedings that may be awarded, impose an obligation on funders to adequate financial resources to fulfil their liabilities under the funding arrangement, impose a fiduciary duty of care the funder owes toward the funded disputing party, establish specific disclosure and transparency obligations to inform competent judicial or administrative organs of the existence of a funding arrangement and limit the financial stake of funders to 40% of the amount of compensation awarded, save for exceptional circumstances.

Advertisement

The directive was spurred on by a number of questionable claims that have seen a spike in recent years. Usually with no leg to stand on, the objective of these claims is to disrupt and clog the system and cause chaos, with profits nothing more than a side quest.

Yet, sometimes, a case like this can end up hurting an entire country’s GDP, too.

The Sultanate of Sulu case continues to raise eyebrows

A prominent example in Europe of litigation funding is a case brought by a Spanish private arbitrator, Gonzalo Stampa, who demanded Malaysia to pay a $14.9 billion (€13.7bn) arbitral award to a group of individuals claiming to be heirs of the last sultan of Sulu, a territory now belonging to Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur rejected the claim, arguing the case represented a challenge to its sovereignty.

The legal claims of the sultan’s heirs had been financed by a global litigation and arbitration finance firm, the London-based Therium. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Even if there was no link to Spain, the claimants still brought the case there to the judicial authorities eager to find any judicial forum to get their way. As a result, Stampa, who specializes in international mediation, was appointed by the Civil and Penal Chamber of Spain’s Supreme Court (TSJM) as the arbitrator of the case.

Following legal challenges by the Malaysian government on the grounds that the required procedure had not been followed, Spain’s Supreme Court ruled in June 2021 to remove Stampa from the case, thereby granting the Malaysian government’s request for dismissal. 

Advertisement

While Stampa was ordered to end the arbitration several times, the arbitrator ignored those orders and even changed the arbitration venue from Madrid to Paris on disputable legal grounds. 

There, he issued his final ruling, granting the massive award, making it the second highest ever rendered, and amounting to 1% of Malaysia’s GDP. It’s peculiar that such important cases tend to involve multiple arbitrators, rather than just one, with the entire proceedings including payment to Stampa apparently funded by Therium.

Later, an appeal in France overturned the decision, and remarkably, Stampa was found guilty of contempt of court for failing to comply with an earlier court ruling ordering him to drop the complex legal battle.

ADVERTISEMENT

It’s time to stop and think what to do next

Imposing to disclose who’s funding a court case may deter outside investors and mean “less access to legal finance”, but that hasn’t stopped legal action being initiated both in Europe and the US related to the practice of third-party litigation funding. 

Looking at the whole range of extra bureaucracy the European Parliament has in mind, perhaps it is important to take a pause. 

Allowing judges to decide on a case-by-case basis to what extent claimants need to be transparent, particularly in a contentious case where national security could be at risk, might just be a better way forward.

Advertisement

Pieter Cleppe is the editor-in-chief of BrusselsReport.eu and a former attorney-at-law.

At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at view@euronews.com to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.

ADVERTISEMENT

World

Map: 6.4-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes the Philippine Sea

Published

on

Map: 6.4-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes the Philippine Sea

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 4 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “light,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Philippine time. The New York Times

A strong, 6.4-magnitude earthquake struck in the Philippine Sea on Wednesday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 11:02 a.m. Philippine time about 17 miles east of Santiago, Philippines, data from the agency shows.

U.S.G.S. data earlier reported that the magnitude was 6.7.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Advertisement

Aftershocks in the region

An aftershock is usually a smaller earthquake that follows a larger one in the same general area. Aftershocks are typically minor adjustments along the portion of a fault that slipped at the time of the initial earthquake.

Quakes and aftershocks within 100 miles

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Philippine time. Shake data is as of Tuesday, Jan. 6 at 10:16 p.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Wednesday, Jan. 7 at 12:18 a.m. Eastern.

Advertisement

Maps: Daylight (urban areas); MapLibre (map rendering); Natural Earth (roads, labels, terrain); Protomaps (map tiles)

Continue Reading

World

Pope Leo calls for Christians to treat foreigners with kindness as he closes Catholic Holy Year

Published

on

Pope Leo calls for Christians to treat foreigners with kindness as he closes Catholic Holy Year

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Pope Leo XIV closed the Catholic Church’s Holy Year on Tuesday by urging Christians around the world to help people in need and treat foreigners with kindness.

Leo, who has repeatedly stressed the importance of caring for immigrants during his papacy thus far, said at a Vatican ceremony that the record 33.5 million pilgrims who visited Rome during the Holy Year should have learned not to treat people as mere “products.”

“Around us, a distorted economy tries to profit from everything,” Leo said. “After this year, will we be better able to recognize a pilgrim in the visitor, a seeker in the stranger, a neighbor in the foreigner?”

US CATHOLIC BISHOPS PRESIDENT SAYS DEPORTATIONS INSTILLING ‘FEAR’ IN ‘WIDESPREAD MANNER’: ‘CONCERNS US ALL’

Advertisement

Pope Leo XIV closed the Catholic Church’s Holy Year by urging Christians around the world to help people in need and treat foreigners with kindness. (David Ramos/Getty Images)

Holy years, or jubilees, typically happen every 25 years, considered to be a time of peace, forgiveness and pardon. Pilgrims to Rome can enter special “Holy Doors” at four Rome basilicas and attend papal audiences throughout the year.

Leo shut the special bronze door at St. Peter’s Basilica on Tuesday morning, which officially marked the end of the Holy Year.

The next Holy Year is not expected before 2033, when the Catholic Church may hold a special one to mark 2,000 years since the death of Jesus.

POPE LEO XIV OPENS 2026 URGING WORLD TO REJECT VIOLENCE IN POWERFUL NEW YEAR’S DAY MESSAGE

Advertisement

Pope Leo XIV said the record pilgrims who visited Rome during the Holy Year should have learned not to treat people as mere “products.” (Alberto PIZZOLI / AFP via Getty Images))

On Monday, the Vatican and Italian officials said pilgrims to Rome for the 2025 jubilee came from 185 countries, with the majority from Italy, the U.S., Spain, Brazil and Poland.

The 2025 jubilee was opened by the late Pope Francis, who died in April, and closed by Leo, who was elected in May, making him the first American pope.

It was a historical rarity not seen in 300 years for it to be opened by one pope and closed by another. The last jubilee held under two different popes was in the year 1700, when Innocent XII opened the Holy Year that was then closed by Clement XI.

Pope Leo XIV shut the special bronze door at St. Peter’s Basilica on Tuesday morning, which officially marked the end of the Holy Year. (Gregorio Borgia/AP)

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Leo, who has promised to keep Francis’ signature policies such as welcoming gay Catholics and discussing women’s ordination, echoed his predecessor’s frequent criticisms of the global economic system during his remarks on Tuesday.

The markets “turn human yearnings of seeking, traveling and beginning again into a mere business,” Leo said.

Reuters contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

World

How strong are Latin America’s military forces, as they face US threats?

Published

on

How strong are Latin America’s military forces, as they face US threats?

Over the weekend, the United States carried out a large-scale military strike against Venezuela and abducted President Nicolas Maduro in a major escalation that sent shockwaves across Latin America.

On Monday morning, US President Donald Trump doubled down, threatening action against the governments of Colombia, Cuba and Mexico unless they “get their act together”, claiming he is countering drug trafficking and securing US interests in the Western Hemisphere.

The remarks revive deep tensions over US interference in Latin America. Many of the governments targeted by Trump have little appetite for Washington’s involvement, but their armed forces lack the capacity to keep the US at arm’s length.

US President Donald Trump issues warnings to Colombia, Cuba and Mexico while speaking to reporters on Air Force One while returning from his Florida estate to Washington, DC, on January 4, 2026 [Jonathan Ernst/Reuters]

Latin America’s military capabilities

The US has the strongest military in the world and spends more on its military than the total budgets of the next 10 largest military spenders combined. In 2025, the US defence budget was $895bn, roughly 3.1 percent of its gross domestic product.

According to the 2025 Global Firepower rankings, Brazil has the most powerful military in Latin America and is ranked 11th globally.

Advertisement

Mexico ranks 32nd globally, Colombia 46th, Venezuela 50th and Cuba 67th. All of these countries are significantly below the US military in all metrics, including the number of active personnel, military aircraft, combat tanks, naval assets and their military budgets.

In a standard war involving tanks, planes and naval power, the US maintains overwhelming superiority.

The only notable metric that these countries have over the US is their paramilitary forces, which operate alongside the regular armed forces, often using asymmetrical warfare and unconventional tactics against conventional military strategies.

INTERACTIVE - Latin America military capabilities - JAN6, 2026-1767695033
(Al Jazeera)

Paramilitaries across Latin America

Several Latin American countries have long histories of paramilitary and irregular armed groups that have often played a role in the internal security of these countries. These groups are typically armed, organised and politically influential but operate outside the regular military chain of command.

Cuba has the world’s third largest paramilitary force, made up of more than 1.14 million members, as reported by Global Firepower. These groups include state-controlled militias and neighbourhood defence committees. The largest of these, the Territorial Troops Militia, serves as a civilian reserve aimed at assisting the regular army against external threats or during internal crises.

In Venezuela, members of pro-government armed civilian groups known as “colectivos” have been accused of enforcing political control and intimidating opponents. Although not formally part of the armed forces, they are widely seen as operating with state tolerance or support, particularly during periods of unrest under Maduro.

Advertisement

In Colombia, right-wing paramilitary groups emerged in the 1980s to fight left-wing rebels. Although officially demobilised in the mid-2000s, many later re-emerged as criminal or neo-paramilitary organisations, remaining active in rural areas. The earliest groups were organised with the involvement of the Colombian military following guidance from US counterinsurgency advisers during the Cold War.

In Mexico, heavily armed drug cartels function as de facto paramilitary forces. Groups such as the Zetas, originally formed by former soldiers, possess military-grade weapons and exercise territorial control, often outgunning local police and challenging the state’s authority. The Mexican military has increasingly been deployed in law enforcement roles in response.

History of US interference in Latin America

Over the past two centuries, the US has repeatedly interfered in Latin America.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the so-called Banana Wars saw US forces deployed across Central America to protect corporate interests.

Advertisement

In 1934, President Franklin D Roosevelt introduced the “Good Neighbor Policy”, pledging nonintervention.

Yet during the Cold War, the US financed operations to overthrow elected governments, often coordinated by the CIA, founded in 1947.

Panama is the only Latin American country the US has formally invaded, which occurred in 1989 under President George HW Bush. “Operation Just Cause” ostensibly was aimed at removing President Manuel Noriega, who was later convicted of drug trafficking and other offences.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending