Jersey, one of Britain’s Channel Islands, has its own legal jurisdiction offering lighter oversight on financial activities. It’s speculated that the TPLF Therium used locally registered “cells” to fund the legal and private intelligence activities of the Sulu arbitration. Image Source: Britannica

At the center of the proceedings are the Sulu claimants, their legal representatives in the UK and Spain, and financial backer Therium. They are named as co-defendants in an allegation of unlawful means conspiracy. The breadth of those named underscores the unusual scope of the suit, which raises questions about whether lawyers and funders moved beyond a conventional representative role. Bloomberg has reported that, during the Jersey hearing, allegations were made that the Sulu claimants’ lawyers—Paul Cohen and Elisabeth Mason—recruited them to initiate the arbitration and that Therium played a leading role in shaping the legal strategy.

The first hearing focused initially on whether Jersey is the appropriate forum for the case, a first line of defense advanced by the defendants. However, the court reportedly appeared skeptical. It had previously allowed substituted service—an alternative method of delivering legal documents—after difficulties in formally serving all parties. According to accounts from the hearing, the court indicated that those served did not contest jurisdiction within the required timeframe, weakening their ability to strike the suit down on the basis of forum.

“It had previously allowed substituted service—an alternative method of delivering legal documents—after difficulties in formally serving all parties.”

Jersey’s relevance to the case is not incidental. Three Therium-linked entities named in the claim are based on the island, which is believed to have been a central hub for financing not only the Sulu arbitration’s legal actions, but Therium’s alleged employment of private intelligence consultancies as well.

At the heart of the dispute is a controversial procedural move during the arbitration itself: the relocation of the arbitral seat from Madrid to Paris. Critics have described this shift as a form of “forum shopping,” suggesting it was intended to sidestep unfavorable rulings.

The change came after a Spanish court annulled the appointment of arbitrator Gonzalo Stampa. Despite that decision, proceedings continued, and Stampa was later convicted of contempt of court for defying the Spanish order. The current claim seeks to establish that the broader group—claimants, lawyers, and funders—played a role in that sequence of events.

The defendants purportedly argued that they were unaware of the full implications of the Spanish court’s ruling when the arbitration seat was moved. That claim may be difficult to sustain. Previous reporting by KnowSulu points to a 2022 video involving Bernardo Cremades Jr of B. Cremades y Asociados, the firm that represented the Sulu claimants in Spain. In the footage, he appears to describe influencing the arbitrator to move the proceedings to Paris and continue the case when the arbitration stalled in Spain.

“Previous reporting by KnowSulu points to a 2022 video involving Bernardo Cremades Jr of B. Cremades y Asociados, the firm that represented the Sulu claimants in Spain. In the footage, he appears to describe influencing the arbitrator to move the proceedings to Paris and continue the case when the arbitration stalled in Spain.”

This material, and other disclosures should the case move to a full trial, could undermine arguments that the parties lacked knowledge of the court’s decision. Indeed, the claimants in Jersey have argued that any such defense based on ignorance of the Spanish court order should be heard in a full trial rather than serve as a basis for dismissing the case out of hand.

Why is a litigation funder stealing the limelight from the Sulu claimants?

Litigation funders are generally expected to remain at arm’s length from the conduct of cases they finance. Yet past arrangements involving the firm have raised questions about whether it unduly influenced the Sulu claimants and their legal counsel. In the widely known case of Bates v Post Office, funding terms allowed Therium to attend committee meetings overseeing the litigation.

In another suit that Therium financed, Gharabe v Chevron, the funder reportedly retained rights to participate in settlement discussions. This case was directly cited in a report by the US Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform on the national security threat posed by litigation funders.

“Therium’s previous funding behavior was directly cited in a report by the US Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform on the national security threat posed by litigation funders.”

Such involvement appears to also sit uneasily with the standards set by the Association of Litigation Funders, which states that funders should not control litigation strategy or settlement decisions. The organization’s board includes Therium founder Neil Purslow. Therium has denied exerting improper influence over the Sulu arbitration.

Seven Years and $20 million

The arbitration itself began in 2019, making it a multi-year legal saga. It stemmed from Malaysia’s decision to halt symbolic payments to individuals claiming to be heirs of the historic Sulu Sultanate, following the Lahad Datu incident. During that episode, a group identifying as the Royal Security Forces of the Sultanate of Sulu entered Malaysian territory, triggering a security crisis that cost the lives of dozens of Malaysian service members and civilians. Notably, those who brought the Sulu arbitration were not the same individuals previously recognized as recipients of the payments.

“Those who brought the Sulu arbitration were not the same individuals previously recognized as recipients of the payments.”

The arbitration ultimately came to an end when the Paris Court of Appeal dismissed the case on 9 December 2025. By that stage, Therium was reported to have committed around $20 million to the effort. The firm has since repositioned itself as an advisory business rather than a direct funder, following a series of cases that observers believe did not deliver expected returns, alongside widely reported layoffs.

Despite the collapse of the arbitration, the legal consequences are far from over. The Jersey proceedings could continue for an extended period, with one legal observer suggesting a full hearing may not take place until mid-2027, and that costs could reach as high as £10 million.

More broadly, the case is being closely watched for its potential implications. It may clarify how far litigation funders and legal advisers can be held directly accountable for the conduct of cases they support, particularly where allegations extend beyond aggressive legal strategy and the unethical steering of clients into claims of coordinated unlawful action.

REFERENCES

Association of Litigation Funders. (n.d.). Code of conduct. Association of Litigation Funders. https://associationoflitigationfunders.com

Knowsulu. (2025, November 11). Corrupt Arbitration? Questions Grow over Stampa’s Ties to Sulu Claimants’ Lawyers in Spain. https://know-sulu.ph

Knowsulu. (2025, December 12). Jersey Court Greenlights Counterclaims Against Sulu Heirs and Funders. https://know-sulu.ph

Knowsulu. (2025, November 14). Therium’s activity underscores national security risks in litigation funding. https://know-sulu.ph

Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry. (n.d.). SMIS0000097: Agreement between Therium Litigation Funding IC and individuals listed. Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry. https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk

Siegel, E. R., & Mudallal, Z. (2026, March 21). Big LitFi report is a bit skinnier this year: Litigation finance. Bloomberg Law. https://news.bloomberglaw.com

Trivedi, U., & Courcoulas, C. (2026, March 27). Litigation funding article. The Edge Malaysia. https://theedgemalaysia.com