A Jersey court has approved direct service on the Sulu Claimants in a case alleging unlawful means conspiracy against not only the claimants, but their arbitration lawyers and litigation funders as well. Image Source: Britannica

The claims filed in Jersey targeted 16 defendants for their role in a long-running arbitration over a $15 billion award against Malaysia.

The most recent ruling approving direct service, issued by the Master of the Royal Court on November 17, 2025, followed an ex parte application from the plaintiffs requesting substitute service in the Philippines. The court found that adhering strictly to Article 10 of the Hague Convention on Service Abroad could delay proceedings by months.

Given the complexity and number of parties involved, the court deemed alternative service necessary to allow the case to proceed efficiently, with a single preliminary hearing scheduled for March 2026. The court argued that faster service would let the Sulu heirs and other defendants align their responses with co-defendants while protecting the professional reputations of those implicated. It also signals that the court has little patience for further delay or obfuscation by the Sulu claimants and their legal representatives, ensuring the case moves forward without procedural gamesmanship.

“The court signaled little patience for further delay or obfuscation by the Sulu claimants and their legal representatives.”

The original foundation of the case lies in the Spanish courts’ intervention in the arbitration. Those courts ruled that the arbitrator’s appointment was invalid and ordered the Sulu heirs to halt their attempts to enforce the award. As a result, enforcement efforts in Spain, France, and the Netherlands were blocked, and the Spanish Supreme Court ultimately confirmed the arbitrator’s conviction of contempt of court for defying orders to step aside.

Against that backdrop, the Jersey lawsuit now alleges an unlawful means conspiracy. In essence, it argues that by continuing with the arbitration and pursuing enforcement in Luxembourg despite the Spanish courts’ rulings, the Sulu heirs, their lawyers, and the funders coordinated to use unlawful means—namely, the violation of Spanish court orders—to advance their enforcement campaign.

Jersey is a key venue for the Sulu arbitration because Therium, the former litigation funder backing the Sulu heirs, has exploited a corporate cell there where oversight laws are weaker. In addition to Therium Litigation Finance Atlas AFP IC, Therium Group Holdings Ltd., and Therium Capital Management Ltd. are also listed in the suit.

“Jersey is a key venue for the Sulu arbitration because Therium, the former litigation funder backing the Sulu heirs, has exploited a corporate cell there to evade oversight.”

These entities were used to channel financing to the claimants and their lawyers, creating a nexus that makes Jersey a strategic forum for pursuing claims against all involved parties. Also named in the lawsuit are Paul Cohen and Elizabeth Mason, the Sulu claimants’ lead lawyers, as well as B. Cremades y Asociados—the law firm that represented the claimants in Spain and, as KnowSulu previously reported, had striking levels of personal connection and influence over the now convicted arbitrator of the Sulu arbitration.

“Also named in the Jersey lawsuit is B. Cremades y Asociados—the law firm that represented the claimants in Spain—had striking levels of personal connection and influence over the supposedly neutral arbitrator.”

Filing in Jersey allows the plaintiffs to consolidate legal action against the heirs, their advisers, and the funders, ensuring that cross-border financial and corporate links do not let defendants evade accountability.

The ruling demonstrates how international defendants, including litigation funders, can face liability even after arbitration awards fail or are blocked in other jurisdictions. By permitting substitute service, the Jersey court is effectively closing avenues for procedural delay, signaling that pursuing or enforcing arbitration through unconventional or cross-border means can generate separate legal exposure.

“The ruling demonstrates how international defendants, including litigation funders, can face liability even after arbitration awards fail or are blocked in other jurisdictions.”

As the case moves toward the March 2026 hearing, the decision highlights the risks embedded in litigation finance and cross-border disputes. It also demonstrates that jurisdictional distance and the use of remote forums such as Jersey will not insulate the Sulu heirs, their lawyers, or their funders from legal consequences.

REFERENCES

KnowSulu. (2025, November 11). Corrupt arbitration? Questions grow over Stampa’s ties to Sulu claimants’ lawyers in Spain. https://knowsulu.ph/

KnowSulu.ph. (2025, July 18). Therium’s gamble: How big money still breeds big losses in litigation funding. https://knowsulu.ph/

KnowSulu. (2025, July 4). What comes after the July 7 Sabah arbitration ruling? https://knowsulu.ph/

Todorovic, H. (2025, December 2). Jersey court permits direct service on Sulu heirs in the Philippines, revealing conspiracy claims brought by Malaysian state‑owned entities caught in long‑running arbitration battle. Investment Arbitration Reporter. https://www.iareporter.com/