Connect with us


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



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.


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. 


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. 


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.


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. 


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. 


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.


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.


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

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



'Ron, I love that you're back': Trump and DeSantis put an often personal primary fight behind them



'Ron, I love that you're back': Trump and DeSantis put an often personal primary fight behind them

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis are signaling to donors that they are putting their rivalry behind them after a contentious and often personal primary fight.

DeSantis convened his allies this week in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, to press them to raise money to support Trump, making the case over a seafood and steak dinner that they need to work together to prevent Democratic President Joe Biden from winning a second term. The governor and about 30 people then spent Thursday morning in a hotel conference room raising money for an outside group that supports the former president’s 2024 White House campaign.

Trump called into the gathering to thank members of the group for their work, according to four people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to publicly discuss the private session and spoke on condition of anonymity.

In what three people present described as a warm and gracious call to the group that was heard over speakerphone, Trump praised DeSantis and the effort, saying “Ron, I love that you’re back.”

A reconciliation helps both of them. Trump is trying to make up fundraising ground against Biden while DeSantis hopes to preserve a potential future White House run for which Trump’s supporters could be key.


What to know about the 2024 Election

DeSantis and his top donors are raising money for the super political action committee Right for America, backed by big Republican donors such as Ike Perlmutter, who has agreed to match at least a portion of the DeSantis team’s fundraising rather than funneling money directly to Trump’s campaign.

That arrangement, reached after talks between the Trump and DeSantis camps, is designed to address concerns among DeSantis supporters about their money going to pay the former president’s legal bills, according to people familiar with the matter who requested anonymity to discuss the private talks. Trump notably blessed the structure when he called into the group’s meeting Thursday.

“This is where I want you to focus,” Trump said in a roughly 15-minute call, according to a senior political adviser to DeSantis who was not authorized to publicly discuss the private meeting and spoke on condition of anonymity.

DeSantis’ decision to push money to the PAC instead of giving directly to Trump’s campaign has raised eyebrows among some Trump campaign officials, according to a person familiar with the former president’s campaign thinking who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the arrangement.


Right for America is competing for donors with MAGA Inc., the chief super PAC backing Trump. Such groups are prohibited from directly coordinating with a presidential campaign, something that hamstrung DeSantis during his presidential run due to conflicts between his campaign and his support of Never Back Down, the largest super PAC backing DeSantis’ candidacy.

Other supporters of both men support the arrangement. Right for America is run by Sergio Gor, a longtime Trump ally who is close to the former president’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr. The two run Winning Team Publishing, which published two of the former president books.

Some DeSantis donors had been reluctant to give to Trump because they worried their money would help pay Trump’s lawyers in his criminal cases instead of being used directly to focus on beating Biden.

A number of big-name Florida contributors who have given to DeSantis remain hesitant about contributing to efforts to support Trump, said Al Hoffman, a Palm Beach County Republican donor and former Republican National Committee finance chair.

“I know that there are Republican conservative, big-money donors that are very reluctant to endorse Trump,” said Hoffman, who was also chairman of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s 2002 reelection campaign.


DeSantis endorsed Trump when he dropped out of the race and promised in a face-to-face meeting with the former president in April to work for his campaign. The 45-year-old governor, who has won two terms and pushed a longtime swing state increasingly to the right, may run for the White House again and would need the backing of Trump voters in a future Republican primary.

DeSantis called his allies to Fort Lauderdale this week to raise money for Trump, telling them on Wednesday night that they needed to work to prevent a second Biden term.

The meeting was the kickoff for what is expected to be a coast-to-coast fundraising effort by DeSantis allies, with upcoming events likely in Texas, California, Washington state and perhaps New York.

Trump and DeSantis have also discussed a role for the governor at the Republican National Convention. Aides to DeSantis said it was Trump’s suggestion and was not contingent on any fundraising effort on DeSantis’ part.

Donors who discussed the Thursday event were struck by the collegiality between Trump and DeSantis during the call to the meeting. One person who spoke on condition of anonymity about the closed-door gathering called the conversation “very gracious” and noted that Trump and DeSantis talked about golf, a favorite Trump pastime.



Associated Press writer Jill Colvin in New York contributed to this report.

Continue Reading


The Mystery of Indira Gandhi's assassination by her own bodyguards



The Mystery of Indira Gandhi's assassination by her own bodyguards

Indira Gandhi, a prominent Indian politician and the daughter of Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s inaugural prime minister, was tragically assassinated by her own bodyguards on Oct. 31, 1984. 

Born Nov. 19, 1917, she emerged as a central figure in her country’s political landscape, eventually becoming prime minister in her father’s footsteps. 

The trust she placed in her favorite Sikh security guard, following Operation Blue Star, ultimately proved to be a fatal mistake. In exploring the narrative of Gandhi’s assassination, it is crucial to examine the backgrounds and motivations of her assailants, shedding light on the reasons that led to their fatal decision.

Prior to her time in office, Indira Gandhi studied at prominent institutions, including Somerville College, Oxford and the Visva-Bharati University in West Bengal. (Shukdev Bhachech/Dipam Bhachech)

Who was Indira Gandhi?

Gandhi served as her country’s third and only female prime minister starting in 1966 to 1977, and then served another term from 1980 until she died in 1984.


As a central figure of the Indian National Congress, she was admired for her leadership and criticized for her authoritarian approach. She played a significant role in Indian politics and is often cited as a trailblazer for women throughout the country.


Gandhi was a key player in Indian politics for 17 years, whether in office or out of it. She played an active role in the Independence movement and closely worked with her father, Jawaharlal Nehru, a pivotal figure in the establishment of contemporary India, serving as his assistant when he was prime minister. In 1959, she also held the position of president of the Indian National Congress.

Indira Gandhi speaks into microphone to crowd

Indira Gandhi’s tenure has been characterized by significant economic and social changes, but also by allegations of authoritarianism.

Indira Gandhi becomes prime minister

Gandhi rose to power suddenly after Lal Bahadur Shastri died in 1966. At the outset of her leadership, India struggled with significant economic hardships, including high inflation and food shortages. The country’s agricultural sector was vulnerable due to its dependence on the monsoon seasons and aid from the U.S. 

She also faced substantial political challenges and dedicated much of her tenure to overcoming these issues, the same issues Nehru attempted to resolve. She fought to direct India toward self-reliance and economic resilience. By 1980, India had become self-reliant and even became a nation of grain surplus, alongside notable industrial progress — achievements attributed to her governance.

Indira Gandhi with father Nehru

Indira Gandhi’s involvement in politics began at an early age, often accompanying her father on his political campaigns. (Hulton Archive)

Acknowledged milestones during her leadership include the triumph in the 1971 War with Pakistan, the formation of Bangladesh and the cementing of India’s status as a potential nuclear power. All of these developments strengthened India’s self-esteem. 


Her tenure ended with her assassination, leaving behind a legacy of achievements and unresolved tensions. 

Indian society was divided about her; some called her “Mother Indira,” and others viewed her as authoritarian. However, it is widely accepted that her leadership shaped India and set the course for its future.

Ram Bulchand Lalweni being led away to court after a failed assassination attempt of Indira Gandhi

Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her own Sikh bodyguards on Oct. 31, 1984, following the events of Operation Blue Star. (Keystone/Getty )

Operation Blue Star

Gandhi’s time as prime minister was impaired by increasing tensions with Sikh separatists, culminating in Operation Blue Star. This was the Indian army’s response in June 1984 to remove militant Sikh leader Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and his followers, who had hidden themselves within the Golden Temple in Amritsar. The militants’ substantial armaments led to a heavy-handed military response, which included the use of artillery.


The conflict ended on June 10 with the army seizing control of the temple. However, the operation, which coincided with a significant Sikh religious event, resulted in numerous civilian deaths who were present at the time. This resulted in widespread condemnation from Sikhs globally. They interpreted it as an attack on their religious community.

Indira walking during the Inspecting Guard of Honor ceremony

Indira Gandhi served as prime minister of India for three consecutive terms (1966-77) and a fourth term from 1980 until her assassination in 1984.


The repercussions of Operation Blue Star severely damaged Gandhi’s standing with Sikhs, which eventually led to her assassination.

Assassination of Indira Gandhi

Gandhi’s assassination on Oct. 31, 1984, was committed by her bodyguards, notably Beant Singh, who was considered a favorite. The assassination was a consequence of the tensions from Operation Blue Star and led to a planned reassignment of Sikh bodyguards, including Singh. Gandhi canceled the transfer, worried about increasing her anti-Sikh persona. 

Indira Gandhi with son Sanjay

Indira Gandi married Feroze Gandhi in 1942, and together had two sons, Rajiv Gandhi and Sanjay Gandhi. (Keystone/Getty)

On the morning of her assassination, despite being advised to wear a bulletproof vest, Gandhi was not wearing it. 



As she walked through a gate headed to an interview, Singh shot her three times in the abdomen with his .38 revolver. Satwant Singh, another bodyguard, fired 30 rounds from his submachine gun. Following the assault, Beant was located and killed by Border Police, and Satwant was tried and executed in 1989.

Indira Gandhi’s son, Rajiv Gandhi, succeeded her as prime minister of India. 

EDITOR’S NOTE: This report has been updated to clarify Indira Gandhi’s successor.

Continue Reading


Salis under house arrest in Hungary pending trial and EU elections



Salis under house arrest in Hungary pending trial and EU elections

Italian activist Ilaria Salis will be under house arrest until her trial concludes, with another hearing scheduled for Friday in Budapest. However, she could be released if elected in the European elections.


Italian anti-fascist activist Ilaria Salis was released from Budapest’s maximum-security prison on Thursday morning, where she had been held for over 15 months, and placed under house arrest.

“We finally have the chance to hug her again, we hope this is a temporary stage before finally seeing her in Italy,” said Roberto Salis, the Milanese activist’s father.

The release follows a Hungarian court’s decision on May 15 to uphold Salis’ appeal against her pre-trial detention.

The Italian teacher will now be under house arrest in a flat in the Hungarian capital, monitored by an electronic bracelet.

It took several days to enforce the judges’ decision after a €40,000 bail payment.


Salis was arrested on 11 February 2023 together with two German activists on charges of participating in the beating of three far-right militants and being part of a criminal association.

Salis’ lawyers are hopeful for a commitment “from the Italian authorities to secure Ilaria’s immediate transfer to Italy,” as required by European law.

After months of diplomatic tensions and protests against Hungary over Salis’ pre-trial detention, the activist’s case took a turn after she was nominated by the Left Green Alliance for the upcoming European elections in June.

Continue Reading