>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
The strategy is simple.
A wealthy investment group bankrolls a lawsuit against an American company. In many cases, the lawsuit may never have been filed without outside financial backing.
Even weak lawsuits can become enormously expensive to fight.
Faced with years of legal fees, corporate uncertainty, and public pressure, many businesses choose to settle rather than continue bleeding money in court.
That is where the investors cash in.
Foreign litigation funders often collect portions of settlements while structuring their profits in ways that avoid standard taxation. Some overseas firms reportedly pay no U.S. tax at all on those earnings.
Opponents of the system say American courts are effectively being turned into profit centers for foreign financiers.
One major case earlier this year helped expose how far the practice may have spread.
ExxonMobil filed a federal countersuit in Texas accusing Australian billionaire Andrew Forrest and groups connected to his organization of helping finance legal attacks against the energy giant.
According to allegations raised in court filings, Forrest’s interests allegedly supported environmental litigation targeting ExxonMobil through intermediary organizations operating inside the United States.
The controversy escalated when the Department of Justice reportedly required the plaintiffs’ legal representatives to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, commonly known as FARA.
That move stunned legal observers because FARA is traditionally associated with foreign lobbying and covert political influence campaigns.
Republicans immediately pointed to the case as proof that foreign interests are already exploiting loopholes inside the American legal system.
But energy litigation is not the only concern.
A separate controversy involving Samsung raised even more alarms about how hidden foreign funding may already be influencing U.S. courts.
In 2023, reports surfaced that a Chinese litigation investment firm known as PurpleVine IP had financed multiple patent lawsuits against Samsung Electronics in federal court.
The arrangement only became public because one federal judge required funding disclosures in his courtroom.
Without that disclosure rule, the financial backers may never have been identified.
Legal analysts estimate foreign-backed litigation funding now touches a substantial percentage of patent cases filed in the United States.
Meanwhile, critics say the public often has no idea who is truly paying for the lawsuits moving through American courts.
The legislation proposed by Hern and Tillis, known as the Tackling Predatory Litigation Funding Act, seeks to change the financial incentives driving the industry.
The bill would tax litigation funders at the highest individual income rate while adding a 3.8% surcharge tied to profits earned through lawsuit investments.
Supporters believe the higher tax burden would sharply reduce the appeal of foreign-backed lawsuit financing.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board has already voiced support for the proposal, while multiple trade groups and business coalitions are lobbying Congress to move quickly.
Backers argue the financial damage is not limited to large corporations.
They say ordinary Americans ultimately absorb the costs through rising prices, delayed business expansion, reduced hiring, and stalled investment projects.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimated excessive litigation costs American families thousands of dollars annually through higher consumer prices and economic slowdowns.
Republicans now argue the federal government has a choice to make.
Either continue allowing foreign money to quietly profit from America’s court system, or finally force those investors to play by the same rules Americans already follow.
And if Hern and Tillis succeed, one of the least-discussed industries influencing the U.S. economy could suddenly face its biggest threat yet.
