The U.S. House Ways & Means Committee held a hearing this week examining the multi-billion-dollar effort by foreign individuals and organizations to fund a network of activist groups in the United States – many of which target the American energy industry through climate lawsuits. [some emphasis, links added]
Lawmakers and witnesses described a sprawling network of foundations, nonprofits, and litigation funders that channel resources into lawsuits against American companies – often through tax-exempt entities and third-party legal financing arrangements.
The hearing comes amid heightened scrutiny of outside influence on the legal ecosystem surrounding climate litigation.
That scrutiny intensified after the Federal Judicial Center removed a climate science chapter from its Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence following criticism from state attorneys general and legal scholars who argued the material reflected the views of climate litigation advocates.
Together, the developments signal growing concern in Congress that activist networks are shaping U.S. policy outcomes through the courts.
Arabella Network and Hansjörg Wyss
A recurring theme of the hearing was the role of the Arabella network and Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss in funding climate advocacy and litigation infrastructure in the United States.
As EID Climate noted in November, the New Venture Fund – a fiscal-sponsorship that was founded and administered by Arabella – has been accused by watchdog groups of directing millions of dollars toward climate litigation efforts.
Among the beneficiaries: Sher Edling, the plaintiffs’ law firm representing numerous states and municipalities suing energy companies.
Sher Edling has received millions in contributions from nonprofits and activist organizations to support these cases, while standing to collect substantial contingency fees if the lawsuits succeed.
A complaint filed by the American Accountability Foundation alleges this arrangement may violate federal tax rules by steering tax-exempt resources into politically charged litigation.
The Washington Free Beacon reports:
“According to tax filings, in three years, the NVF has provided more than $8.4 million in grants to Sher Edling and has raised an additional $10 million that could be disbursed to the for-profit firm in the future.
“[The] American Accountability Foundation argued that the NVF’s support for Sher Edling violates federal law since it is not an activity that furthers its tax-exempt purpose and is instead ‘meant to financially benefit Sher Edling and its attorneys.’”
Arabella has since rebranded to Sunflower Services but continues to provide services to the New Venture Fund.
The network has also received substantial backing from Wyss, who has poured tens of millions of dollars into Arabella-managed entities.
A 2021 New York Times profile noted both the scale of Wyss’s contributions and uncertainty surrounding his U.S. citizenship status:
“Another nonprofit managed by Arabella, the New Venture Fund, which is set up under a section of the tax code barring it from partisan political spending, received more than $27.6 million from the Wyss Foundation from 2016 through 2019.”
Andrew Forrest and Litigation Targeting U.S. Industry
Witnesses also highlighted the role of Australian billionaire Andrew Forrest in financing litigation campaigns against American companies.
Scott Walter, president of the Capital Research Center, pointed to filings under the Foreign Agents Registration Act showing that an American law firm representing environmental groups in plastics litigation is acting on behalf of a foreign charity linked to Forrest’s Minderoo Foundation:
“One Australian billionaire funded a foreign charity to pay an American law firm to represent four tax-exempt environmentalist groups in a lawsuit against a major U.S. energy company. … The law firm representing the nonprofits (Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy) was required to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Materials accompanying that registration disclosed that the firm was acting on behalf of an Australian charity called the Intergenerational Environment Justice Fund.
“…The Fund’s contract with its lawyers revealed the Fund ‘views litigation as a means to achieve environmental objectives’ and that the lawsuit’s ultimate goal was ‘to bring positive change to the plastics industry.’ So in classic lawfare fashion, this litigation was launched to achieve a political objective without the trouble of going through the democratic process. And who made an end run around American democracy? A foreign national billionaire, the Australian mining magnate Andrew Forrest, who endowed the $10 billion Minderoo Foundation, which in turn, the FARA registration reveals, controls the Intergenerational Environment Justice Fund.”
EID Climate has extensively tracked Forrest’s influence on this plastics lawsuit in California, as well as the fact that the plaintiff’s law firm, enlisted by Forrest to sue a U.S. energy company, was required to register as a foreign agent.
Oak Foundation and Efforts to Shape the Judiciary
Witnesses also probed the degree to which foreign-funded organizations influence how climate cases are understood by American judges.
Caitlin Sutherland of American for Public Trust testified that the Swiss-based Oak Foundation has provided funding to the Environmental Law Institute (ELI), which houses the Climate Judiciary project – an initiative designed to educate judges with heavily biased climate science and litigation trends:
“The Environmental Law Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based 501(c)(3) that houses the Climate Judiciary Project (CJP), has received $650,000 from the Oak Foundation. CJP educates judges on climate litigation, a tactic which has led opponents to accuse them of trying to manipulate the courts for favorable rulings on left-wing lawsuits.”
Opponents argue the effort risks shaping judicial perspectives ahead of active cases. Last month, as part of an ongoing investigation into ELI, the House Judiciary Committee sent a series of letters to plaintiffs’ lawyers and judicial training organizations regarding their support for ELI’s judge-training program.
Legislative Pushback on Foreign-Funded Litigation
Lawmakers from both parties signaled growing interest in addressing foreign-backed influence and funding in U.S. litigation.
Rep. Kevin Hern highlighted the expanding role of third-party litigation funding and pointed to legislation he introduced last year with Sen. Thom Tillis – the Tackling Predatory Litigation Funding Act – aimed at increasing oversight of the industry:
“Third-party litigation funding allows investors, including questionable and foreign entities, to fund U.S. lawsuits tax-free, fueling a $15 billion market that is projected to reach $30 billion in just five years. TPLF incentivizes frivolous litigation, questionable trial lawyer tactics, and a ‘tort tax’ costing consumers thousands of dollars annually.”
Bottom Line
The Ways & Means hearing underscored a growing reality: foreign-funded advocacy networks are playing an increasingly prominent role in climate litigation against American energy and industrial companies.
For lawmakers, the issue is no longer just about environmental lawsuits – it’s about tax policy, legal transparency, and whether overseas donors are using U.S. courts to drive policy outcomes that would otherwise face political resistance.
Read more at EID Climate
One had to figure some law firm would have their claws in this all when it pay off with big awards of Cash