After a longer-than-expected wait of a year and a half, and more than five years of consideration, third-party funding of arbitration is now permitted in Hong Kong.
On 1 February, long-awaited amendments to an arbitration ordinance that expressly permits third parties to fund the cost of arbitrations seated in Hong Kong took effect. The ordinance was first passed by the city's legislative council in June 2017, but some key provisions could not take effect until a code of practice for third-party funders was issued. The Hong Kong Department of Justice issued the code in December.
Third-party funding for arbitrations was first formally considered in Hong Kong in June 2013, when the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong formed a subcommittee to review whether reform to allow such legal financing was needed. In October 2015, the subcommittee published a consultation paper that proposed third-party funding for arbitrations should be allowed, to enhance Hong Kong's position as an international arbitration centre.
"It's a turning point for Hong Kong," said Ronald Sum, a Hong Kong-based partner and east Asia arbitration head of Locke Lord. "Just the fact that there is another way [to afford arbitration]. It's an additional service that Hong Kong can offer to the parties."
Allowing third-party funding for arbitrations brings Hong Kong in line with other major international arbitration centres like London and New York, as well as regional rival Singapore. The city-state passed a similar bill permitting third-party funding for arbitration in January 2017, and it took effect less than two months later.
Allowing third-party funding for arbitrations was important for Hong Kong, to maintain the Asian financial centre's competitiveness as a leading arbitral seat, said Kim Rooney, a Hong Kong-based international arbitrator and barrister, who chaired the third-party funding for arbitration subcommittee. "It levels the playing field. [Parties] will look at Hong Kong with other arbitration centres."
Last year, Singapore overtook Hong Kong as the most-preferred venue for international arbitration in Asia, according to a joint study by the School of International Arbitration at Queen Mary University of London and the US firm White & Case. Globally, Singapore was ranked the third most-preferred arbitration seat, after London and Paris. Hong Kong ranked fourth.
The 19‐month wait in Hong Kong, which feels especially long compared to Singapore's two-month process, is not a concern, Hong Kong-based arbitrators say.
"Obviously, I would have preferred if the wait was shorter, but I don't want to forgo a clear code of conduct," said Locke Lord's Sum, who is also on the Hong Kong government's advisory committee on the promotion of arbitration. "At the end of the day, parties come in because of a clear legislature. They don't want uncertainty. If it takes 19 or 24 months, so be it."
"We got there, but I truly believe it's not a race," added Rooney. "Of course we want to do things as quickly as we can, but you want to make sure what you put forward meets the needs of your jurisdiction. The public certainly had plenty of opportunities for the consultation."
And while Singapore permitted third-party funding for arbitrations almost two years before Hong Kong, some say the wait could be worthwhile.
Quentin Pak, a director at litigation funding firm Burford Capital, said that in Singapore, where he is based, it took a while for the market to accept the idea of third-party funding for arbitrations. But he expects it will take off faster in Hong Kong, as the conversation has been ongoing for two years.
Tom Glasgow, Asia chief investment officer at litigation funding firm IMF Bentham in Singapore, also noted the steep learning curve in the city-state.
"After the legislation came into effect in Singapore, it took about six months to educate the market and for people to be aware that this sort of financing is suitable for established corporates as well as impecunious parties," Glasgow said. "Then we saw an exponential rise."
Additional reporting by Anna Zhang in Hong Kong.
|Related Stories
Starting the Party for Third-Party Dispute Funding in Hong Kong
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDentons Australian Chair Doug Stipanicev Back At Work After Investigation
4 minute readA&O Shearman Luminary, Former US Co-Chair, to Leave Partnership
Mayer Brown’s Hong Kong Split to Take Effect in the Coming Week
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250