Neil Purslow was the founder and chief investment officer of Therium Capital Management Ltd. He now leads the latest iteration of that organization, Therium Capital Advisors LLP. Image Source: Law Society Gazette

Even as the high-profile Sulu arbitration appears to be nearing its conclusion with the upcoming December ruling, fresh details are surfacing that cast a longer shadow over those behind the scenes.

In particular, insiders are now report Therium likely used a Jersey-based incorporated cell to execute the litigation funding agreement (LFA), while simultaneously applying English law to govern that same agreement.

Concerns surrounding Therium’s use of Jersey as a jurisdiction are not new. According to individuals familiar with internal discussions at the time, correspondence from a senior Therium executive in 2019 acknowledged that Jersey’s regulatory framework did not require disclosure of the ultimate beneficial owner (UBO) of claimants. This acknowledgment reportedly followed internal concerns about a claimant funded through Therium’s Jersey-based cell (Therium Litigation Finance A IC), who had been linked to an individual listed on EuroPol’s red alert database.

A senior Therium executive in 2019 acknowledged that Jersey’s regulatory framework did not require disclosure of the ultimate beneficial owner (UBO) of claimants.

According to the legal correspondence, the company further asserted that under Jersey regulations, it was also not obliged to obtain key documents such as shareholder registers or memorandums of association for claimants involved in funded cases. This approach sparked alarm, as it implied that basic checks on the identity and background of litigants were not being conducted—potentially exposing the funder to reputational and legal risk.

This kind of lax approach is particularly troubling in light of Therium’s relationship with the Sulu claimants. It aligns with earlier reports suggesting that Therium prioritized a 60% likelihood of success when selecting cases, rather than conducting thorough background checks on the parties involved. This may explain how the firm proceeded with funding a claim advanced by individuals whose status as legitimate heirs to the Sultanate of Sulu is disputed—undermining the legal credibility of the case. Compounding the concerns, some of the claimants have alleged links to armed militant groups. The lead figure, Fuad Kiram, has been designated a terrorist.

Therium has funded a claimant designated as a terrorist.

The implications of lax due diligence are significant. In high-stakes international litigation, where national security is at play in addition to tens of billions, funders should be expected to conduct rigorous assessments of the claims and the parties involved. In Therium’s case, the opaque regulatory framework in Jersey has potentially been deliberately leveraged to avoid the firm’s ethical obligations.

The issue of Therium’s Jersey cell and transparency also surfaced in one of the most widely publicized class actions in the UK, with litigation funding insiders asserting that Therium cells in Jersey helped finance the legal battle brought by 555 sub-postmasters against the Post Office. Most concerning are accounts of how critical details about the arrangement were not made clear to the claimants. Specifically, members of the steering committee—charged with representing the interests of the group—were reportedly paid retainers over a span of 54 months.

These payments were not made by the lead solicitors, Freeths, suggesting that Therium itself had compensated at least one, if not both, steering committee members. For the sub-postmasters, many of whom assumed the committee was acting solely in their best interest, the existence of financial ties to the funder raises questions about impartiality and informed consent.

Therium likely made payments to the steering committee members of the Post Office group litigation.

As international litigation becomes more prevalent, and as sovereign states seek redress in increasingly complex cross-border disputes, litigation funders such as Therium are facing growing scrutiny. Although the Sabah arbitration is nearing its conclusion, global attention is shifting toward those who enabled and financed the process—intensifying efforts to hold the responsible parties accountable.

Amid this pressure, Therium is attempting to reposition itself as a litigation advisory firm, a move that can be seen as an attempt to sidestep the regulatory and legal risks now associated with third-party funding. However, this strategic pivot may do little to address past failures—and could in fact perpetuate the same problematic practices under a different label, particularly if advisory roles are used to influence or steer claims without the transparency or oversight required of traditional funders.

Therium is attempting to reposition itself as a litigation advisory firm, a move that can be seen as an attempt to sidestep the regulatory and legal risks now associated with third-party funding.

The structure of Therium’s funding arrangement raises serious questions about accountability—especially concerning senior executives who approved the Sulu case while sitting on the firm’s investment committee. As calls for justice grow louder, scrutiny is no longer limited to the claimants, but increasingly directed at the financiers and advisors who enabled the process from behind the scenes.

REFERENCES:

CDR News. (2025, October 6). Therium winds down funding; launches funding advisory arm. CDR News. https://www.cdr-news.com

Jersey Financial Services Commission. (2025, February 20). Guidance for accessing the Obliged Entity Beneficial Owner (OEBO) register. Jersey Financial Services Commission. https://www.jerseyfsc.org

Jersey Law. (2025, February 21). Financial Services (Disclosure and Provision of Information) (Jersey) Law 2020 (as amended). Jersey Law. https://www.jerseylaw.je

KnowSulu.ph. (2025, June 17). Inside the Fortress: Capital, control, and the quiet collapse of Therium. https://knowsulu.ph

KnowSulu.ph. (2025, October 16). Plotting a “lease of Sabah”? The Sulu Heirs’ China gambit. https://knowsulu.ph

Law360. (2025, October 6). Therium shifts focus with new litigation finance advisory. Law360. https://www.law360.com

Law Society Gazette. (2025, October 20). In depth: Litigation funders tap private credit market. Law Society Gazette. https://www.lawgazette.co.uk

Mourant. (2025, February 28). Disclosure of information relating to Jersey entities: Beneficial ownership and significant persons. Mourant. https://www.mourant.com

Therium. (n.d.). Post Office Sub-Postmasters scandal — Case study. Therium. https://www.therium.com

Therium Capital Advisors. (2025). Therium Capital Advisors – Bridging the gap between claimants, law firms and corporates and institutional capital. Therium Capital Advisors. https://www.therium.com

UK Parliament — Hansard. (2022, March 23). Sub-Postmasters: Compensation (statement noting Therium as funder and waiver). UK Parliament — Hansard. https://hansard.parliament.uk

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (EDGAR). (2015). Litigation funding agreement – Therium Finance AG IC & Dominion Minerals Corp. (EX-10.5): Governing law: England & Wales; LCIA seat: London. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (EDGAR). https://www.sec.gov