Two Malaysian jurists have published a retrospective on the Sulu arbitration, drawing a direct line from the failure of the funded US$15 billion claim against Malaysia to the statutory framework the country has since built around third-party funding of arbitration.

As reported by The Edge Malaysia, the piece is written by Tan Sri Zainun Ali, a former Federal Court judge, and barrister J J Chan. They note that the claim brought by parties describing themselves as heirs of the Sultan of Sulu "was reportedly backed by third-party litigation funding, attributed in public reports to Therium Capital Management," on the usual basis that the funder would take a return if the claim succeeded.

It did not. The Paris Court of Appeal annulled the award in full on 9 December 2025, holding that no valid arbitration agreement capable of binding Malaysia existed. The claimants were ordered to pay Malaysia €200,000 in costs, and separately lost costs orders in proceedings before the Netherlands Supreme Court.

The legislative response is the part with the longest reach. Malaysia's Arbitration (Amendment) Act 2024 took effect on 1 January 2026 and, in the authors' description, "brings third-party funding of arbitration within a clear statutory framework," requiring disclosure of both the funding arrangement and the identity of the funder.

For funders, the sequence is instructive: a single high-profile enforcement campaign against a sovereign produced a disclosure regime that will now apply to every funded arbitration seated in the jurisdiction.

A statewide survey of likely New York voters has found that close to four in five would do away with third-party litigation funding altogether, placing the practice among the least popular items in a broad tort reform poll.

According to the Empire Center for Public Policy, which commissioned the survey from Cygnal and published the results on 2 September, 79.7% said they support ending the arrangement under which outside investors finance lawsuits in return for a share of any recovery.

Litigation funding did not stand alone. The poll found 94.5% supporting prosecution of staged-accident fraud, 83.4% favouring limits on pain-and-suffering awards, 79.7% backing changes to workplace-injury liability rules, 77% supporting reforms aimed at frivolous lawsuits, and 66.6% in favour of amending the Scaffold Law, New York's absolute-liability statute for elevation-related construction injuries.

The clustering matters as much as the individual figures. Funding is being tested here alongside fraud and damages caps rather than as a discrete question about access to capital, and the framing offered to respondents describes investors financing lawsuits for a portion of the proceeds without reference to claimants who could not otherwise bring a case.

New York enacted consumer legal funding protections earlier this year, and the state has no disclosure statute covering commercial funding. Polling of this kind is likely to be cited in Albany as the next session approaches, and funders should expect the 79.7% figure to travel well beyond the survey it came from.