Trending Now
Commercial

Access to Justice for Developing Countries: Third Party Funding for Sovereigns in WTO Disputes

October 4, 2017

Access to Justice for Developing Countries: Third Party Funding for Sovereigns in WTO Disputes

Guest Post by Mauritius Nagelmueller, who has been involved in the litigation finance industry for more than 10 years. Access to justice remains one of the prevailing issues within the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), especially for developing countries. To enforce the promise of a fairer trading system, developing country participation in the DSB must be improved, given that relationships between WTO members are predicated on power dynamics, rather than adherence to the rule of law. Third party funding has provided access to justice for claimants with meritorious claims, but with limited financial capacity in the private sector, as well as in investor-state disputes. The industry is also capable of leveling the playing field in the DSB, as it can be utilized by developing countries to finance a WTO dispute. An expansion of the current third party funding business model to include financing sovereigns in WTO disputes would create a win-win situation, by allowing developing countries to bring claims which they otherwise could not afford, and by granting third party funders the opportunity to adopt a more neutral stance towards sovereigns by providing their services in support, rather than in mere contention (as is the case today). And demand is significant, given that most obstacles to developing country participation in the DSB are related to costs, such as high-priced experts that must be brought on to account for a lack of expertise, the fear of economic pressure from the opposing state, and the lengthy proceedings which often place a strain on a developing country’s resources (member states estimate a time frame of 15 months from the request for consultations to the report of the Appellate Body. A period of at least 6 to 14 months should be added to this, as a reasonable period for the implementation of recommendations. Although this time frame is short in comparison to other international procedures, the financial hardship for developing countries can be fatal). The costs of initiating a dispute of medium complexity in the WTO are in the region of $500,000, however legal fees can sometimes exceed $10,000,000. In many cases, developing countries are forced to rely on the financial support of local industries affected by the dispute. This begs the question, why hasn’t there been an influx of third party funders into WTO dispute resolution? There are two chief concerns which seem to keep funders shying away. The first involves the typical remedies in WTO disputes, which regularly circumvent a direct financial compensation that the funder could benefit from. Still, complainants seek monetary benefits, be it through concessions (the losing country compensates the winning country with additional concessions equal to the original breach), or retaliation (the winning country withdraws concessions in that amount). A simple solution to this issue is for the winning party to provide a share of those benefits to the funder. One possibility is to assess the level of harm caused by the illegal measure challenged in the dispute, and accept that as a basis for the compensation of the funder. If the WTO Panel decisions are implemented, and the disputed measures that were found to be inconsistent with the WTO are withdrawn, a certain value of trade is not affected by those measures anymore and can be realized again. Affected industries, or the affected country, can set aside part of the gain to compensate the funder. In the case of compensation or the suspension of concessions, the complainant gains from increased tariff revenue, and is able to compensate the financing entity from a portion of the same. In any event, financial benefits of a winning party can be measured, and any compensation for the funder will represent only a minor percentage of the gained value of trade. The second main concern surrounds the area of enforceability, and whether WTO mechanisms would allow financing agreements. But those would have to be enforced in local courts, and the WTO DSB technically cannot rule on non-WTO agreement issues. However, there are provisions that allow the DSB to engage in arbitration if the parties both agree. A practical solution would therefore be to include an arbitration or dispute settlement provision in the financing agreement that operates outside of the DSB. Based on the aforementioned demand, as well as the practical solutions which can mitigate possible concerns, it is clear that external funding of WTO disputes can provide a flexible, independent and powerful alternative for developing countries to increase access to justice, as well as for developed countries to “outsource the risk” of a WTO dispute. It’s only a matter of time before third party funding makes its way into the WTO. ** A version of this article first appeared in International Economic Law and Policy Blog

Commercial

View All
Commercial

Westfleet Insider 2025: Commercial Litigation Finance Rebounds as Capital Constraints Persist

By John Freund |

The U.S. commercial litigation finance market posted a notable recovery in 2025, with new capital commitments climbing approximately 23% year-over-year to $2.8 billion across 346 new deals, according to the seventh annual Westfleet Insider report.

As reported by Westfleet Advisors, the rebound follows two consecutive years of contraction — commitments had slipped from $2.7 billion in 2023 to $2.3 billion in 2024 — and signals renewed deployment activity after a period of broad market retrenchment.

Despite the headline recovery, the data paints a nuanced picture. The uptick was driven by incremental deployment among a small cohort of established funders rather than any broad-based expansion of available capital. Of the 39 funders identified as active in the U.S. commercial market, a notable subset deployed little to no new capital during the reporting period, and only one new entrant emerged. Several funders are actively winding down operations, pointing to a quiet but ongoing consolidation across the industry.

Deal economics remained largely stable. The average transaction size held steady at approximately $8.1 million overall, though the composition shifted meaningfully: single-matter deals contracted to $4.5 million from $6.6 million the prior year, while portfolio transactions expanded to $19.6 million from $16.5 million. Portfolio structures continued to dominate, representing 64% of new commitments.

One of the more significant structural shifts in 2025 was the decline in Big Law utilization, with the share of total commitments directed to the 200 largest U.S. firms dropping to 24% from 37% in 2024. Client-directed deals edged ahead of firm-directed arrangements for the first time in recent years, representing 52% of commitments.

Other notable findings include patent litigation accounting for 27% of funded matters, contingent risk insurance coverage ticking up to 21% of deals, and claim monetization declining to 17% of new commitments from 26% in 2024.

Commercial

Gen Re Calls for EU-Wide Third-Party Litigation Funding Regulation

By John Freund |

The reinsurance industry is adding its voice to growing calls for a unified regulatory framework for third-party litigation funding across Europe.

As reported by Gen Re, the European litigation funding market now includes more than 300 funders operating with limited transparency and fragmented oversight across EU member states. The publication highlights a significant regulatory gap, with most countries allowing TPLF under general contract law while lacking specific rules around disclosure, conflicts of interest, or funder control over litigation strategy.

The Netherlands and Germany lead Europe as the most developed markets, while Ireland still prohibits outside litigation funding under common law. France, Spain, and Portugal have introduced or are considering consumer-focused legislation, but no harmonized EU-wide framework exists.

Insurance Europe and the Reinsurance Advisory Board have both called for regulation at the EU level, arguing it is necessary to maintain trust in the justice and financial systems. Their primary concerns include a lack of transparency about funding arrangements, potential conflicts of interest, rising litigation costs, and insufficient investor oversight.

Proponents of the industry counter that professional funders improve access to justice for under-resourced claimants and help filter out weak claims through rigorous due diligence. A cross-sector group of business associations issued a joint statement in January 2026 renewing their call for proportionate, harmonized EU-level rules.

Commercial

The Next Battleground in Consumer Legal Funding: Discovery and Transparency

By John Freund |

A growing legal debate is taking shape over whether consumer legal funding agreements should be subject to discovery during litigation, with significant implications for plaintiffs and the funding industry alike.

As reported by the National Law Review, Eric Schuller of the Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding argues that mandatory disclosure requirements create strategic advantages for defendants by exposing plaintiffs' financial vulnerabilities and sensitive underwriting information.

Defendants and insurers have increasingly pushed for access to funding agreements, framing their requests as transparency measures. Proponents say disclosure could reveal whether funders are influencing litigation strategy and promote accountability in the civil justice system.

Critics counter that forcing plaintiffs to produce funding contracts may discourage injured individuals from seeking legitimate financial assistance during lengthy cases. Consumer legal funding arrangements are non-recourse, meaning plaintiffs repay only if their case results in a successful settlement or verdict.

Several states have proposed or enacted laws requiring varying degrees of disclosure — from simple notification that funding exists to full production of contract terms. The debate reflects broader tensions between transparency and consumer protection that continue to shape litigation funding regulation across the country.