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

Shine Justice Marks 50 Years as Mass Tort Expansion Leans on Litigation Funding

ASX-listed Shine Justice has marked its 50th year with a return to profitability and an international mass torts strategy that depends heavily on third-party litigation funding.

As reported by TipRanks, the firm now operates across Australia, New Zealand, Thailand and the United States, with practice concentrations in personal injury, class actions and international mass torts.

Results presented on August 28 showed adjusted revenue up 7.8% to A$220.4 million and adjusted EBITDA up 13.9% to A$44.7 million. Net profit after tax attributable to members reached A$9.3 million, up from A$0.6 million, while operating cash flow held steady at A$19 million. Net work in progress rose 0.9% to A$366.6 million, and the company declared a fully franked dividend of A$0.04 per share. Offsetting that, Shine booked an A$11.2 million provision following an adverse U.S. court decision in a legacy class action now under appeal, and reported six in-principle settlement agreements worth more than A$219 million.

The company describes a hub-and-spoke model in which a U.S. hub sources large mass tort cases and exports them to spokes in Australia, New Zealand and Asia, with balance sheet risk minimised through litigation funding. Shine has secured up to A$40 million for talcum powder litigation and expects further backing for comparable claims in New Zealand and Thailand.

Simon Morrison has moved from managing director to a senior role focused on international mass torts, with Carolyn Barker taking over as group chief executive. Chief financial officer Marc Devine guided to high single-digit personal injury revenue growth of about 8% in FY27.

Commercial

Fair-Value Accounting Is Amplifying Case Losses at Listed Litigation Funders

Listed litigation funders are facing renewed scrutiny as fair-value accounting pushes losses from adverse court and arbitration outcomes into earnings well before any cash changes hands.

As reported by Traders Union, reversals at Burford Capital, Litigation Capital Management and others have intensified questions about valuation models that treat lawsuits as financial assets.

One recent flashpoint was a Paris-based ICC tribunal's dismissal of a $680 million claim against Nigeria that Burford had funded. The claim, brought by Sunrise Power, concerned a 2020 settlement the tribunal found had been signed by ministers who lacked authority to bind the state without presidential approval. Recoverability concerns were compounded by Sunrise Power's minimal assets and by cost penalties. Burford has separately absorbed the reversal of a $16.1 billion YPF judgment and a $2.4 billion write-down, while LCM has recorded a High Court loss alongside a 99% decline in its share price.

Under IFRS 9 and ASC 820, model-based unrealised gains and losses flow directly into reported earnings, tying marks to share prices, compensation and debt capacity. Net asset value therefore rests on probability-weighted assessments over which management retains significant discretion.

The scrutiny is not new. Muddy Waters alleged in 2019 that Burford "manipulates its performance metrics and abuses the latitude afforded it under fair value accounting," and the company later restated results for FY2019 through FY2022 following an SEC initiative. Burford has also reported a material weakness in internal controls affecting fair value measurement of capital provision assets, though it has pointed to $518.3 million in cash realizations year to date as evidence that timing, not deterioration, drives the volatility.

Commercial

Apple Moves to Overturn Record $5.7 Billion Patent Verdict Tied to Litigation Funding

Apple has asked a federal court in San Diego to overturn or retry the largest patent verdict on record in the United States, a $5,721,961,750 award that carries a substantial litigation funding stake.

As reported by PYMNTS, a jury found on September 25 that the Taptic Engine used in iPhones and Apple Watches infringes two haptics patents held by Taction Technology. Apple is asking U.S. District Judge Todd W. Robinson to set aside the findings or order a new trial, and could then take the dispute to the Federal Circuit.

Taction sued in 2021 over patents describing tactile transducers that produce bass frequency vibrations. Apple had the case dismissed in 2023, but the Federal Circuit revived it last year after finding the dismissal rested on an unwritten requirement that improperly prevented Taction from relying on certain expert testimony. Apple maintains that the Taptic Engine is "fundamentally different from Taction's technology." Jurors found the infringement was not willful, removing the basis for treble damages.

Burford Capital is entitled to roughly a quarter of the award, or about $1.4 billion, split roughly evenly between its balance sheet and its investment funds. Burford has cautioned that the figure is likely to be altered in post-trial proceedings and that the parties could settle for considerably less. Gronostaj Investments LLC and Kenosha Investments LP were identified as funders in the proceedings. Apple sought unsuccessfully during the case to compel disclosure of the funding arrangements — an issue a federal rules committee is scheduled to take up on October 21.