Third Party Funding for Dispute Resolution

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beibei Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Party Funding

Delays Expected but Duration of Delays Unpredictable: Causes, Types, and Symptoms of Procedural Applications in Investment Arbitration

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julien Chaisse
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Empirical Analysis ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Common Phenomenon ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
Party Funding

Abstract Delays are becoming a common phenomenon in international investment arbitration and challenging the conventional belief that it is a time-effective mode of dispute resolution. These delays, majorly stemming from interim procedural applications, are known to arise due to the different interests and types of stakeholders involved in the process. This article provides an empirical analysis of such arbitration proceedings to cull out the types, nature, and effects of delay tactics in such proceedings. This article identifies three types of applications that play an increasing role in investment arbitration, namely, applications for ‘security for costs’, applications for disclosure of third-party funding, and the objections of manifest lack of legal merit of claims. Such delays can particularly become a cause of concern for investment arbitration as they have impacts beyond those which are on the parties involved.

Arbitration from a Law & Economics Perspective

2020 ◽  
pp. 873-894
Author(s):  
Anne van Aaken ◽  
Tomer Broude
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Cognitive Abilities ◽  
Supply And Demand ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
General Welfare ◽  
Welfare Consequences ◽  
Party Funding

This chapter offers a Law & Economics (L&E) perspective on international arbitration. L&E scholars tend to view dispute resolution as a market. They thus look at the supply and demand of such third-party adjudication, usually comparing litigation to arbitration. Predominantly, in the literature, there are two interrelated L&E perspectives on this: one is focused on the general welfare consequences of arbitration; the other is focused on why disputants choose one kind of third-party settlement over another. There are many ways of resolving disputes between contractual parties: arbitration is also in competition with mediation, conciliation, litigation, and other forms of resolving disputes, including so-called ‘extra-legal’, socially normative ones. Most literature has focused either on the choice between litigation and arbitration or on the influence of arbitration on negotiation and settlement between the parties. The chapter then addresses other disputant choices relating to third-party funding and arbitrator appointment. It also looks at the incentives and behaviour of arbitrators, including their cognitive abilities.

scholarly journals Global Laboratories of Third-Party Funding Regulation

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 115 ◽  
pp. 34-39
Author(s):  
Victoria Shannon Sahani
Keyword(s):  
Private Sector ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Legal Representation ◽  
New Developments ◽  
Regulatory Issues ◽  
The Public ◽  
True Prevalence ◽  
Party Funding ◽  
To Receive

Third-party funding, also known as “dispute finance,” is a controversial, dynamic, and evolving arrangement whereby an outside entity (“the funder”) finances the legal representation of a party involved in litigation or arbitration, whether domestically or internationally, on a non-recourse basis, meaning that the funder is not entitled to receive any money from the funded party if the case is unsuccessful. It has been documented in more than sixty countries on six continents worldwide—including in many of the jurisdictions highlighted in this symposium that are experimenting with other aspects of international commercial dispute resolution. Indeed, funding greases the wheels of this experimentation. The true prevalence of third-party funding is likely far greater than we know since disclosure is not presently mandated everywhere. This essay argues that the three biggest global regulatory issues with respect to dispute finance are disclosure, definition, and delegation of oversight and that the global laboratories of dispute finance remain firmly within the control of the private sector with the public regulators continuously struggling to understand and address new developments in the industry. An apt analogy would be that the dispute financiers are driving cars and building spaceships with respect to their innovative financing arrangements, while many of the regulators are aiming their sights at the classic “horse-and-buggy” third-party funding arrangements that are rapidly falling out of use.

scholarly journals Critical Appraisal of Third Party Funding in India

2021 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 3462-3467
Author(s):  
Ms. Seemasmiti Pattjoshi, Dr. Puranjoy Ghosh
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
Present Discussion ◽  
International Commercial Arbitration ◽  
The World ◽  
Substantive Justice ◽  
Party Funding

Third-party funding in International Commercial Arbitration is one of the most contemporaneous and controversial issue in the normative framework in India. The last several years have witnessed increasing involvement of Third Party Funders in International Commercial Arbitration proceedings. Third-party funding has been considered as one of the means of access to justice for those who have a credible claim but no financial means to pursue it.  Dispute resolution in India tends to be a cost-heavy proposition for the parties involved. The present discussion highlights critical appraisal regarding TPF (Third Party Funding) from the delivery of procedural and substantive justice as well as suggesting legal and jurisprudential grounds in third party funding governance all across the world.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document