This article was first published in the Asia Pacific Law Review, here.
ABSTRACT
Third-party funding (TPF) has played a major role in international arbitration over the last decade. Despite uncertainties and continuing discussions on whether TPF should be regulated, Singapore and Hong Kong successively passed laws to legalize and regulate TPF, and both jurisdictions have become leading pioneers globally. This can be largely attributed to their competition with each other to be Asia’s leading arbitration centre, and by regulating the use of TPF, they have moved closer to this goal. However, even though both wish to ensure the legality of TPF in international arbitration, their laws and the consequences of non-compliance differ dramatically in each jurisdiction. Moreover, although these two jurisdictions are leading arbitration centres, their laws on TPF have not yet been analysed thoroughly in the existing scholarship. This article aims to fill the gap, following the comparative law methodology and analysing the rules on TPF in Hong Kong and Singapore. It also aims to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of the laws adopted differently by the two jurisdictions and answer two important questions: (i) What laws could create better conditions for funders? and (ii) What can be done to improve those conditions?
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Professor Julien Chaisse, Editor-in-Chief of the Asia Pacific Law Review, as well as Dr Orkun Akseli, Carrie Shu Shang, Professor Deborah Hensler, and Jamie O’Connell for comments on an earlier draft of this article. The author also wishes to thank the Journal’s anonymous peer reviewers for their helpful comments, as well as the Managing Editor of APLR, Madeleine Fitzpatrick, for editorial support leading up to the article’s publication.
This article was first published in the Asia Pacific Law Review, here.
This article was originally published in the ARIAS·U.S. Quarterly, Q3, 2021 and is republished here with permission. A. Overview The Supreme Court has extended the validity and expanded the scope...
By Edward LenciThis article first appeared on the Carlton Fields webpage, here. An employee sued her former employer and coworkers in the Eastern District of Michigan for sexual harassment, defamation, and for...
By Benjamin StearnsIn this episode of the Arbitration Conversation Amy interviews Michael Waibel, Professor of international law at the University of Vienna. His teaching and writing focus on international law, international economic...
By Michael Waibel, Amy Schmitz
With the purchase of a Featured Membership, you will be shown on the front page of Arbitrate.com to web site visitors from your city and region (“state” if you are in the USA). You may appear in more than one city/region by purchasing additional locations.
