World

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

Published

2 years ago

April 12, 2024

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 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.

Click to comment

World

Video: Fans in Tokyo Visit Twin Pandas Before They Head to China

Published

22 minutes ago

December 18, 2025

Press Room

Video: Fans in Tokyo Visit Twin Pandas Before They Head to China

new video loaded: Fans in Tokyo Visit Twin Pandas Before They Head to China

Thousands of people have flocked to Ueno Zoo in Tokyo to see two giant pandas before they leave for China. There were fears in Japan that the twins would not be replaced amid political disputes between the countries.

By Jake Lucas and Axel Boada

December 18, 2025

World

Zelenskyy calls for US to respond to ‘signals’ Russia is ‘preparing to make next year a year of war’

Published

1 hour ago

December 18, 2025

Press Room

Zelenskyy calls for US to respond to ‘signals’ Russia is ‘preparing to make next year a year of war’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Wednesday called for the U.S. and other allies to respond to bellicose “signals” from Russia.

“Today, we again heard signals from Moscow that they are preparing to make next year a year of war. These signals are not only for us. It is crucial that our partners see them, and not only see them but also respond — especially partners in the United States, who often say that Russia wants to end the war,” Zelenskyy asserted in a post on X.

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment.

“Over the past few weeks, the President’s team has made tremendous progress with respect to ending the war between Russia and Ukraine, and as the President stated, he believes we are closer now than we have ever been,” a White House official noted.

UKRAINE SAYS IT CARRIED OUT FIRST-EVER UNDERWATER DRONE STRIKE ON RUSSIAN SUBMARINE IN NOVOROSSIYSK

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is pictured during a press conference with Friedrich Merz, Federal Chancellor, on Dec. 15, 2025, in Berlin, Germany. (Florian Gaertner/Photothek via Getty Images)

“Yet the signals coming from Russia are the exact opposite, taking the form of official orders to their army. This Russian mindset must be recognized — and acted upon. When Russia is in this mindset, it will also undermine diplomacy — seeking, through diplomatic language and pressure over specific points in documents — to merely mask its desire to destroy Ukraine and Ukrainians, and the desire to legitimize Russia’s theft of our land. And then come other countries in Europe, which someone in Russia might one day label their so‑called ‘historical lands,’” Zelenskyy asserted in the post.

“Real protection is needed against this Russian case history of madness, and we will continue working with all partners to ensure that protection is in place. Security measures are needed, financial measures are needed — including actions on Russian assets — political measures are needed. And the courage of all partners is required: to see the truth, acknowledge the truth, and act accordingly. I want to thank everyone who supports Ukraine,” his post concluded.

Zelenskyy also conveyed the message in a Ukrainian-language video.

US OFFICIALS TOUT PROGRESS IN TALKS TO REACH ‘LASTING AND DURABLE PEACE’ BETWEEN UKRAINE, RUSSIA

In this photo distributed by the state agency Sputnik, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin speaks during an expanded meeting of the Russian Defense Ministry Board at the National Defense Control Center in Moscow on Dec. 17, 2025. (Mikhail TERESHCHENKO / POOL / AFP via Getty Images)

Russian President Vladimir Putin declared during a Defense Ministry board meeting on Wednesday that Russia will accomplish its goals, through either diplomacy or military force.

“The goals of the special military operation will undoubtedly be achieved. We would prefer to accomplish this and address the root causes of the conflict through diplomatic means. However, if the opposing side and its foreign patrons refuse to engage in substantive dialogue, Russia will achieve the liberation of its historical lands by military means. The task of creating and expanding a security buffer zone will also be carried out consistently,” Putin said, according to a Kremlin transcript.

HEADED FOR THE EXITS: WHY 3 DOZEN HOUSE MEMBERS AREN’T RUNNING FOR RE-ELECTION

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., arrives for a House Republican conference meeting at the U.S. Capitol on May 6, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., a staunch proponent of U.S. support for Ukraine, asserted in a post on X, “Again… the U.S. should send 200 long-range and extremely accurate cruise missiles to Ukraine. Maybe then, Putin will get serious and seek peace. Putin started this war, and he’ll stop this war once he realizes he cannot win and that the cost of war is too high.”

President Donald Trump’s administration has been attempting to help broker peace between Russia and Ukraine.

Alex Nitzberg is a writer for Fox News Digital.

World

Mercosur signature delayed to January after Meloni asks for more time

Published

3 hours ago

December 18, 2025

Press Room

Mercosur signature delayed to January after Meloni asks for more time

Published on 18/12/2025 – 23:27 GMT+1
•Updated
23:35

Following tense negotiations among the 27 member states, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Thursday pushed the signature of the contentious Mercosur agreement to January to the frustration of backers Germany and Spain.

The trade deal dominated the EU summit, with France and Italy pressing for a delay to secure stronger farmer protections, while von der Leyen had hoped to travel to Latin America for a signing ceremony on 20 December after securing member-state support.

Without approval, the ceremony can no longer go ahead. There is not set date.

“The Commission proposed that it postpones to early January the signature to further discuss with the countries who still need a bit more time,” an EU official told reporters.

After a phone call with Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said she supported the deal, but added that Rome still needs stronger assurances for Italian farmers. Lula said in separate comments that Meloni assured him the trade deal would be approved in the next 10 days to a month.

The Mercosur agreement would create a free-trade area between the EU and Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. But European farmers fear it would expose them to unfair competition from Latin American imports on pricing and practices.

Meloni’s decision was pivotal to delay

“The Italian government is ready to sign the agreement as soon as the necessary answers are provided to farmers. This would depend on the decisions of the European Commission and can be defined within a short timeframe,” Meloni said after speaking with Lula, who had threatened to walk away from the deal unless an agreement was found this month. He sounded more conciliatory after speaking to Meloni.

Talks among EU leaders were fraught, as backers of the deal – concluded in 2024 after 25 years of negotiations – argued the Mercosur is an imperative as the bloc needs new markets at a time in which the US, its biggest trading partner, pursues an aggressive tariff policy. Duties on European exports to the US have tripled under Donald Trump.

“This is one of the most difficult EU summits since the last negotiation of the long-term budget two years ago,” an EU diplomat said.

France began pushing last Sunday for a delay in the vote amid farmers’ anger.

Paris has long opposed the deal, demanding robust safeguards for farmers and reciprocity on environmental and health production standards with Mercosur countries.

The agreement requires a qualified majority for approval. France, Poland and Hungary oppose the signature, while Austria and Belgium planned to abstain if a vote were held this week. Ireland has also raised concerns over farmer protections.

Italy’s stance was pivotal.

However, supporters of the agreement now fear prolonged hesitation could prompt Mercosur countries to walk away after decades of negotiations for good.

After speaking with Meloni, Lula said he would pass Italy’s request on to Mercosur so that it can “decide what to do.”

An EU official said contacts with Mercosur were “ongoing,” adding: “We need to make sure that everything is accepted by them.”