Trending Now
Commercial

Litigation Finance and China’s Belt and Road Initiative

March 1, 2018

Litigation Finance and China’s Belt and Road Initiative

By Mauritius Nagelmueller China is building a multi-trillion dollar trade and infrastructure network – a new silk road – and the legal world is preparing for the disputes that will inevitably arise. What is the Belt and Road Initiative all about, and what impact will it have on litigation finance? Being one of the largest infrastructure and investment projects in history, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)[1] will alter the global economy and define China’s role in it. The initiative covers 65% of the world’s population in more than 68 countries, and 40% of the global GDP. An anticipated overall investment of USD 4-8 trillion will connect China with the rest of Asia, Europe and Africa, through six main geographic corridors and a Maritime Silk Road. China’s position is that BRI will improve the infrastructure along the route, providing a network of highways, railways, ports, energy and development projects for trade and cultural exchange. Chinese state-owned banks, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (formed in 2015, but already encompassing 84 approved member states, and with a capital of USD 100 billion – half of the World Bank’s capital), the Silk Road Fund, and investors from the private sector are providing the necessary financing. About USD 1 trillion has already been invested. It seems likely that BRI, if successful, will shift more economic and political power to China. Major concerns surround the environmental impact of the vast project, uncertainties regarding the exact parameters and how much local economies will actually benefit. Security risks along the Belt remain constant. Some even fear a new Chinese “empire”. It remains to be seen which of these fears are justified, but it is interesting to note that China’s president Xi Jinping, who unveiled BRI in 2013 and made the initiative a central tenet of his foreign policy agenda, will likely remain in power, as the Communist Party of China just announced plans to abolish the two-term limit on the presidency. To predict that legal disputes will arise under BRI is to state the obvious, and the legal community in Asia and beyond is preparing accordingly. Jurisdictions are already competing for recognition as the prime venue for BRI related proceedings. In an effort to provide wide-ranging dispute resolution services, China plans to establish an international commercial court in Xi’an for disputes surrounding the land-based transport corridors, another in Shenzhen for the maritime route, and a central court headquartered in Beijing. All three bodies will provide arbitration and mediation services. China’s neighbors share its expectations regarding dispute resolution. In 2017, Hong Kong and Singapore permitted litigation finance in international arbitration, and the legalization for state court procedures may soon follow. Hong Kong passed its law shortly after a BRI Forum in Beijing, and partly also to strengthen its position as a go-to center for BRI related disputes, particularly for the maritime and construction fields. Arbitration institutions around the world, including the ICC (International Chamber of Commerce), SIAC (Singapore), and HKIAC (Hong Kong), encourage the adoption of their rules in BRI deals, and Malaysia’s KLRCA and Seoul’s KCAB are preparing accordingly. Chinese and Singaporean mediation centers (CCOIC and SIMC) have plans to cooperate for BRI related mediation proceedings, while Hong Kong is developing an online arbitration and mediation tool specialized on the initiative. Chinese officials have even publicly floated the concept of an innovative hybrid method combining aspects of arbitration and mediation, with courts playing a central role as well. Many legislators view litigation finance as a vital component in their jurisdiction’s status as a prime dispute resolution center, and litigation finance firms are aggressively seizing on the new opportunities presented. Select funders have already opened offices in Asia, others will soon follow, or plan to be involved from abroad. Entities who plan to invest along the Belt, including many Chinese companies, will not only face complex regulatory challenges, but also disputes with foreign governments, possibly in multiple jurisdictions. In addition to first-rate legal advice, parties will sometimes require external financing to pursue their claims under BRI. Both investors and law firms will utilize the benefits of litigation finance, and seek tailored financing solutions for their cases arising under BRI related projects. This will include single cases, as well as multiple disputes from investments being bundled into portfolios of claims. BRI will have a significant impact on litigation finance in the coming years, as a host of challenges and new opportunities present themselves. As has occurred previously, litigation finance will support meritorious claims which could not be brought without the assistance of external financing, help businesses and law firms diversify and boost their portfolios without increasing risk, and continue to promote access to justice. Litigation finance will benefit from this unprecedented trade and infrastructure initiative. It has already become part of the legal world, and it will soon be part of BRI. [1] Originally called One Belt and One Road Initiative.   Mauritius Nagelmueller has been involved in the litigation finance industry for more than 10 years.

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Deloitte and Grant Thornton Sued in France Over Atos Accounts in Funded Shareholder Claim

By John Freund |

In what is being described as an unprecedented action in French corporate law, nearly 800 shareholders have filed a civil liability claim against Deloitte & Associes and Grant Thornton, the former statutory auditors of Atos, the once-prominent French IT services company and former CAC 40 constituent.

As reported by Atos Audit Action, the claim targets the auditors for allegedly certifying consolidated financial statements that did not reflect the true financial and asset position of the Atos group across six consecutive fiscal years. Shareholders who purchased Atos shares between February 2018 and March 2024 are eligible to participate. The case has been filed with the Nanterre Commercial Court.

The plaintiffs, represented by law firm Vermeille & Co and supported by the Union for the Protection of Shareholders (UPRA), accuse the auditors of approving accounts containing overvalued assets, overly optimistic revenue recognition, and insufficiently provisioned risks. They further allege that the auditors failed to issue going concern warnings despite the company's deteriorating finances, which they argue had been compromised since the early 2020s. Atos shares collapsed from approximately 70 euros in April 2021 to under one euro by April 2024.

The litigation is backed by an unnamed litigation fund that covers all procedural costs in exchange for a commission on any recovery. The case marks the first time in France that a civil liability action has been brought directly against the auditors of a listed company, potentially setting a precedent for future shareholder claims in the French market.

Case Developments Commercial

Which? Drops £480 Million Funded Class Action Against Qualcomm

By John Freund |

A £480 million collective proceedings claim against chipmaker Qualcomm has been withdrawn in full after the UK consumer group Which? reassessed its position following trial evidence. The settlement, which requires Competition Appeal Tribunal approval, involves no payment from Qualcomm.

As reported by Non-Billable, the litigation-funded claim was originally filed in 2021 under the UK's collective proceedings framework. Backed by litigation funder Augusta Ventures, Which? alleged that Qualcomm's overcharging at the manufacturer level inflated retail mobile phone prices for millions of consumers. Quinn Emanuel and Norton Rose Fulbright represented Qualcomm in the defense.

According to Quinn Emanuel's statement, the class representative concluded that the tribunal would reject allegations that Qualcomm coerced Apple, chipset manufacturers, or Samsung into unfair licensing terms. The firm's partners Miguel Rato and Marixenia Davilla led the defense alongside Norton Rose Fulbright's Caroline Thomas, Helen Fairhead, Nuala Canavan, and US partner Rich Zembek. Hausfeld, led by managing partner Nicola Boyle, represented Which? with counsel from Monckton Chambers.

The withdrawal underscores the ongoing challenges facing the UK's developing competition class action regime, which has faced uncertainty since the Supreme Court's 2023 PACCAR ruling on the enforceability of litigation funding agreements. For funders like Augusta Ventures, the outcome represents a significant loss on what was one of the higher-profile consumer class actions in the UK market.

Announcements Commercial

Nera Capital Secures £50M Asset Mandate

By John Freund |

Nera Capital has strengthened its litigation finance platform with the onboarding of a new South America-based funding partner committing £50 million across litigation finance and legal assets. The mandate not only expands Nera’s available capital base but also sees the firm formally appointed as asset manager for the new funds, reinforcing its growing role as both originator and portfolio steward within the UK litigation market.

In a press release, Nera Capital announced that the £50 million commitment will be deployed across a range of UK-based claims, with the firm responsible for underwriting, structuring, capital deployment, and ongoing portfolio management. The capital will be allocated in line with Nera’s established investment criteria and risk management framework, targeting carefully selected legal assets. The funding partner, described as having an “extensive track record” in high-yielding special situations investments uncorrelated to traditional asset classes, brings prior experience in litigation finance across South America.

Robin Grant, CFO at Nera Capital, emphasized that the partnership aligns with the firm’s disciplined approach to litigation finance and enhances its ability to deliver attractive, risk-adjusted returns to investors. Aisling Byrne, Director at Nera Capital, highlighted the funder’s blend of financial and legal expertise, noting that the asset manager appointment reflects international confidence in Nera’s ability to identify viable claims and manage them through to resolution.

Established in 2011 and headquartered in Dublin, with offices in Manchester and Holland, Nera Capital provides law firm lending across consumer and commercial claim portfolios and is a member of the European Litigation Funders Association.