SILC is an organization created to file claims against Airbus. The District Court of The Hague ruled it inadmissible in September 2023. On 23 December 2025, the Court of Appeal of The Hague agreed with the District Court, stating that the interests of the investors represented by SILC are not sufficiently protected.
SILC was established by the law firm DRRT. It delegated most tasks related to this collective action—particularly bookbuilding—to DRRT and Rightshare BV, whose payments depend on the collective action’s success. Initially, all proceeds go to the litigation funder, Therium, which then disburses the “deferred fees” to DRRT and Rightshare in accordance with the “waterfall” schedule.
Under Principle II of the Claim Code, SILC must act in the best interest of the investors it represents, without seeking profit or being directly or indirectly linked to profit-making legal entities. The Court of Appeal sees DRRT and Rightshare, both profit entities, as being “directly or indirectly” connected to SILC.
Because SILC has agreed with DRRT and Rightshare in the LFA that the costs they incur will be paid from the proceeds if the claim is successful, this constitutes “pre-financing” of costs, which can be regarded as “external funding.” Essentially, the Court views the three parties as co-funders. This alone is enough for the Court to conclude that DRRT and Rightshare are profit-oriented legal entities linked to SILC, creating a structure that conflicts with Principle II of the Claim Code. DRRT and Rightshare—along with Therium—are the primary drivers behind SILC. As “third-party funders” and those bearing the financial risk, they are not sufficiently separate from SILC.
The Court of Appeal is simply wrong; its decision is flawed and poorly reasoned. It effectively bans co- and seed funding, which doesn’t make sense. Articles 8.2 to 8.5 of the LFA only give DRRT and Therium the right to information and consultation. These provisions require that they be kept informed and that SILC consults them on any strategic or legal decisions related to the case. This information and consultation clause has now become standard in WAMCA cases; several courts have accepted it. Ignoring this fact is clearly unreasonable.
The District Court harshly criticized SILC in its September 2023 judgment. Although SILC has since reformed its governance by establishing a fully independent board and a supervisory board consisting of experts, the Court of Appeal no longer trusted the organization. It decided what the outcome of the case should be and selected arguments to justify that decision. This is a clear example of “reasoning towards a desirable result.”
