Trending Now
Commercial

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

Sony and Apple Challenge Enforceability of Litigation Funding Models

By John Freund |

A pivotal UK court case could reshape the future of litigation finance agreements, as Sony and Apple reignite legal challenges to widely used third-party funding models in large-scale commercial disputes.

An article in Law360 reports that the two tech giants are questioning the validity of litigation funding arrangements tied to multibillion-pound cartel claims brought against them. Their core argument: that certain litigation funding agreements may run afoul of UK laws governing damages-based agreements (DBAs), which restrict the share of damages a representative may take as remuneration. A previous Court of Appeal decision in PACCAR Inc. v. Competition Appeal Tribunal held that some funding models might qualify as DBAs, rendering them unenforceable if they fail to comply with statutory rules.

This resurrected dispute centers on claims brought by class representatives against Apple and Sony over alleged anti-competitive behavior. The companies argue that if the funding arrangements breach DBA regulations, the entire claims may be invalidated. For the litigation funding industry, the outcome could severely curtail access to justice mechanisms in the UK—especially for collective actions in competition law, where third-party financing is often essential.

The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal previously stayed the proceedings pending clarity on the legal standing of such funding arrangements. With the dispute now heading back to court, all eyes will be on whether the judiciary draws a clear line around the enforceability of funder agreements under current law.

The decision could force funders to rework deal structures or risk losing enforceability altogether. As UK courts revisit the DBA implications for litigation finance, the sector faces heightened uncertainty over regulatory compliance, enforceability, and long-term viability in complex group litigation. Will this lead to a redefinition of permissible funding models—or to a call for legislative reform to protect access to collective redress?

Case Developments Commercial

Funder’s Interference in Texas Fee Dispute Rejected by Appeals Court

By Harry Moran |

A Texas appeals court has ruled that a litigation funder cannot block attorneys from pursuing a fee dispute following a remand order, reinforcing the limited standing of funders in fee-shifting battles. In a 2-1 decision, the First Court of Appeals found that the funder’s interest in the outcome, while financial, did not confer the legal authority necessary to participate in the dispute or enforce a side agreement aimed at halting the proceedings.

An article in Law360 details the underlying case, which stems from a contentious attorney fee battle following a remand to state court. The litigation funder, asserting contractual rights tied to a funding agreement, attempted to intervene and stop the fee litigation between plaintiffs' and defense counsel. But the appellate court sided with the trial court’s decision to proceed, emphasizing that only parties directly involved in the underlying legal work—and not third-party financiers—are entitled to challenge or control post-remand fee determinations. The majority opinion concluded that the funder’s contract could not supersede procedural law governing who may participate in such disputes.

In dissent, one justice argued that the funder’s financial interest merited consideration, suggesting that a more expansive view of standing could be warranted. But the majority held firm, stating that expanding standing would invite unwanted complexity and undermine judicial efficiency.

This decision sends a strong signal to funders operating in Texas: fee rights must be contractually precise and procedurally valid. As more funders build fee recovery provisions into their agreements, questions linger about how far those rights can extend—especially in jurisdictions hesitant to allow funders a seat at the litigation table.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Oklahoma Moves to Restrict Foreign Litigation Funding, Cap Damages

By John Freund |

In a significant policy shift, Oklahoma has enacted legislation targeting foreign influence in its judicial system through third-party litigation funding. Signed into law by Governor Kevin Stitt, the two-pronged legislation not only prohibits foreign entities from funding lawsuits in the state but also imposes a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in civil cases—excluding exceptions such as wrongful death. The new laws take effect November 1, 2025.

An article in The Journal Record notes that proponents of the legislation, including the Oklahoma Civil Justice Council and key Republican lawmakers, argue these measures are necessary to preserve the integrity of the state's courts and protect domestic businesses from what they view as undue interference. The foreign funding restriction applies to entities from countries identified as foreign adversaries by federal standards, including China and Russia.

Critics, however, contend that the laws may undermine access to justice, especially in complex or high-cost litigation where third-party funding can serve as a vital resource. The cap on non-economic damages, in particular, has drawn concern from trial lawyers who argue it may disproportionately impact vulnerable plaintiffs without sufficient financial means.

Oklahoma’s move aligns with a broader national trend of state-level scrutiny over third-party litigation funding. Lawmakers in several states have introduced or passed legislation to increase transparency, impose registration requirements, or limit funding sources.

For the legal funding industry, the Oklahoma law raises pressing questions about how funders will adapt to an increasingly fragmented regulatory landscape. It also underscores the growing political sensitivity around foreign capital in civil litigation—a trend that could prompt further regulatory action across other jurisdictions.