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
Commercial

Certum Group Survey: 70% of In-House Counsel Know Litigation Funding, Only 6% Have Used It

A new research brief from litigation finance and insurance provider Certum Group finds that corporate legal departments are broadly aware of litigation risk transfer products but almost never use them, a gap the firm describes as "the next frontier in corporate litigation strategy."

According to the brief published by Certum Group, which surveyed 44 General Counsel and in-house litigation attorneys, roughly 70% of respondents are familiar with litigation funding but have never used it, while only about 6% have. The brief was authored by Kevin Skrzysowski, a Director at Certum Group, whose litigation funding team also includes Director William Marra, a former U.S. Supreme Court clerk.

The survey characterises in-house litigation risk as operational rather than existential. Employment and intellectual property disputes drew the highest concern levels, while roughly two-thirds of respondents reported no concern at all about antitrust or mass tort exposure. Decision-making was consistent across defensive and affirmative matters, with likelihood of success (~84%) and cost to pursue (~74%) the most frequently cited factors.

On affirmative claims, respondents said they would be more likely to proceed if cost and risk could be shifted to an insurer (~62%), a contingent-fee firm (~49%) or through claim monetisation (~46%). A litigation funder ranked lowest at ~28%. Looking forward, however, roughly 51% said they would consider litigation funding, ahead of capital protection insurance (~43%) and claim monetisation (~41%), with about 30% ruling out all such products.

Cost certainty (~51%) and budget constraints (~46%) were the leading drivers of interest. Among the small group that has used litigation funding, two-thirds reported satisfaction with the decision.

Commercial

UPC Orders €200,000 Security After Finding Patent Claimant Had Pledged Its Assets to a Funder

The Unified Patent Court has ordered a newly formed patent claimant to post €200,000 in security for costs after concluding that the entity was economically assetless because its patents, licences and future income had all been pledged to its litigation funder.

As reported by Mishcon de Reya, the Hamburg Local Division reached that finding in *Nixu v Infoblox* (UPC_CFI_360/2026). Nixu, a US-domiciled claimant, was incorporated in March 2025 and acquired the patent in suit weeks later. The court declined to treat US domicile as a ground for security in itself, holding that "a claimant's domicile in the US did not, in itself, justify security for costs" and noting that US courts recognise European judgments.

What did justify security was the claimant's financial structure. Under a Patent Security Agreement, all patents, licences and future income were pledged to the funder, and part of the purchase price remained unpaid. The court found Nixu was "basically assetless in an economical sense" and dependent on discretionary support from its funder.

The same update reports a second security decision. In *La Siddhi v Athena Pharmaceutiques* (UPC_CoA_48/2026), the Court of Appeal upheld a €75,000 order against an SME claimant, confirming that "a party's SME status does not, by itself, exempt that party from the obligation to provide security for costs." The court distinguished fee reductions and cost ceilings available to SMEs from the security regime under Article 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158, which contains no SME carve-out. Security was set at roughly 60% of the applicable €112,000 recoverable costs ceiling.

Together the decisions suggest the UPC will look through corporate form to the funding arrangement itself when assessing whether a claimant can meet an adverse costs award.

Commercial

Demotech Urges Insurers to Break Out Litigated Claims, Citing Funded Claim Generation

Insurance rating agency Demotech has called for a structural change to the way property and casualty insurers report loss costs, arguing that the current composite format masks the effect of technology-driven claim generation that is sometimes financed by third-party litigation funders.

As reported by PR Newswire, Joseph L. Petrelli, president and co-founder of Demotech, said the firm's 2022 review of failed carriers pointed to litigation as the decisive factor. "In 2022, our postmortem of failed carriers identified new, annual litigation as the proximate cause of what destroyed them," Petrelli said.

The argument turns on an assumption built into loss cost reporting decades ago. Petrelli noted that until the mid-1980s advisory organisations published rates and premiums for insurers to adopt or deviate from, and that "an implicit assumption underlying the original loss cost format was that an equilibrium existed in the relative claim frequency between claims reported and settled with policyholders, and claims litigated and negotiated with plaintiff firms."

Demotech's position is that the equilibrium no longer holds. Its research concluded that industrial-scale increases in litigated claims were achieved through technology, online marketing and advertising, "sometimes financed through third-party litigation funding." Petrelli also pointed to alternative business structures, managed services organisations and what he described as other mutations in the legal profession that "may circumvent the disclosure of third-party litigation funding."

The proposed remedy is to trifurcate loss cost data, disaggregating a single composite figure into claims closed without payment, litigated claims and non-litigated claims, each weighted by its own frequency. Demotech contends that the added granularity would allow insurers and regulators to price the litigated portion of a book directly rather than absorbing it into a blended average.