Abstract
The increased involvement of third-party funders in international investment arbitration has prompted academics and practitioners to consider how these actors fit within the traditional framework of investment disputes. While some argue that the availability of third-party funding will result in an increased number of frivolous claims, others view alternative forms of financing as a mechanism to facilitate access to justice. In practice, third-party funders appear to play a gatekeeping role for meritorious claims and a modest empirical analysis tends to support this conclusion. Tribunals have served a quasi-lawmaking function by addressing the existence of third-party funders in investment arbitration proceedings, resulting in guidance on the issues of security for costs, costs awards, and disclosure obligations. Instead of prohibiting the practice outright, arbitral institutions have demonstrated a tendency to integrate third-party funding into the regulation of investor-state disputes. These trends reveal an inclination among the international arbitration community to embrace, rather than prohibit, the involvement of third-party funders in investor-state proceedings.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
International Council for Commercial Arbitration (April 2018), p. 50.
- 2.
White & Case and Queen Mary University of London (2018), p. 24.
- 3.
See Massini (2015), p. 325 (arguing that “[o]ne of the most important benefits of third party funding in international arbitration is that it allows for increased access to justice”); International Council for Commercial Arbitration (April 2018), p. 6 (observing that “in investment arbitration third-party funding has enabled parties to bring meritorious claims that were otherwise financially untenable, and funding has also become available to state parties in investment arbitration”).
- 4.
White & Case and Queen Mary University of London (2018), pp. 24–25.
- 5.
Santosuosso and Scarlett (2019), p. I-8.
- 6.
See Garcia (2018), pp. 2928–2931.
- 7.
See Moseley (2019), p. 1182 (“Rather than debate whether third-party funding is permissible, scholars and practitioners have turned their attention toward how third-party funding can be regulated to ensure efficiency, fairness, and procedural integrity.”).
- 8.
U.N. Commission on International Trade Law Working Group III (Investor State Dispute Settlement Reform) (24 January 2019a), para. 34.
- 9.
- 10.
Bohmer (13 December 2019).
- 11.
See De Brabandere and Lepeltak (2012), p. 384 (the involvement of a funder may “decrease the likelihood of having (patently) frivolous claims submitted to international investment tribunals” and “[b]ecause of the link between the profit of the funder and the positive outcome of the arbitral proceeding, it seems rather unlikely that third party funders would be willing to engage their resources in manifestly unmeritorious claims”).
- 12.
See Burford Capital (2018), Annual Report 2018, https://www.burfordcapital.com/media/1526/bur-31172-annual-report-2018-web.pdf, p. 25 (noting that as of 31 December 2018, 62% of Burford’s balance sheet investments across arbitration and litigation claims were portfolio arrangements); von Goeler (2016), pp. 93–94 (acknowledging that because some funders may finance claims with “comparatively low probability of success” in the portfolio context, it does “not necessarily mean that frivolous cases will end up being funded” even if they may be considered “comparatively weak”).
- 13.
See Ioannis Kardassopoulos and Ron Fuchs v. Georgia, ICSID Case Nos. ARB/05/18, ARB/07/15, Award, 3 March 2010, paras 679 et seq.
- 14.
Slater E (18 September 2017), Demystifying the litigation finance diligence process, Burford Capital, https://www.burfordcapital.com/insights/insights-container/demystifying-the-litigation-finance-diligence-process/.
- 15.
Norton Rose Fulbright (September 2016), Third party funding in arbitration – the funders’ perspective, https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en-us/knowledge/publications/8b8db7d0/third-party-funding-in-arbitration%2D%2Dthe-funders-perspective.
- 16.
von Goeler (2016), pp. 14–15.
- 17.
Chen (2015), p. 25.
- 18.
Chen (2015), p. 25.
- 19.
Chen S, Hough K (May 2019), Researching third-party funding in investor-state dispute settlement, GlobaLex, https://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/Third-Party_Funding_Investor-State_Dispute_Settlement.html.
- 20.
The list does not include three claims funded by third parties as large-scale “class” claims. Abaclat and others v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5; Ambiente Ufficio SpA and others v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/9; Giovanni Alemanni and others v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/8; see also International Council for Commercial Arbitration (April 2018), pp. 217–218. In Ambiente and Alemanni, a class of Italian bondholders was funded by a Luxembourg entity called NASAM. Ambiente Ufficio SpA and others v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB 08/9; Giovanni Alemanni and others v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/8. See International Council for Commercial Arbitration (April 2018), p. 218. The third, Abaclat, involved an entity created and funded by Italian banks that controlled the entire ICSID arbitration on behalf of a class of claimants. Abaclat and others v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/5; International Council for Commercial Arbitration (April 2018), p. 217. We also added Michael Ballantine and Lisa Ballantine v. Dominican Republic, PCA Case No. 2016-17, which concluded in a final award declining jurisdiction in September 2019.
- 21.
At the time of writing, the following cases were categorised as pending a final decision and are therefore not included in our dataset: Muhammet Çap Sehil Inşaat Endustri ve Ticaret Ltd. v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/6; Infinito Gold Ltd. v. Costa Rica, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/5; Gabriel Resources Ltd. and Gabriel Resources (Jersey) v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/31; Eco Oro Minerals Corp. v. Colombia, ICSID Case No. ARB/16/41; Eskosol S.P.A. in Liquidazione v. Italy, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/50; Luis García Armas v. Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/16/1; Manuel García Armas et al. v. Venezuela, PCA Case No. 2016-08. The case outcomes in the dataset were updated as of 5 December 2019 by referring to the following sources: Italaw, https://www.italaw.com/; Investment Arbitration Reporter, https://www.iareporter.com/; U.N. Conference on Trade and Development, Investment Policy Hub, https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/.
- 22.
Ioannis Kardassopoulos and Ron Fuchs v. Georgia, ICSID Case Nos. ARB/05/18, ARB/07/15 and Churchill Mining PLC and Planet Mining Pty Ltd. v. Indonesia, ICSID Case Nos. ARB/12/14, ARB/12/40 were each split into two separate claims.
- 23.
The following cases included a funded respondent: ATA Construction, Industrial and Trading Company v. Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/2; Philip Morris Brand SÀRL, Philip Morris Products S.A. and Abal Hermanos S.A. v. Uruguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7; RSM Production Corporation v. Grenada (I), ICSID Case No. ARB/05/14.
- 24.
For example, one funded case, S&T Oil Equipment and Machinery Ltd. v. Romania, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/13, was discontinued pursuant to Regulation 14(3) of the ICSID Administrative and Financial Regulations due to the failure of the claimant to pay required advances.
- 25.
For example, the tribunal in Stans Energy Corp. and Kutisay Mining LLC v. Kyrgyzstan (II), PCA Case No 2015-32, awarded the claimant $24 million (inclusive of interest and costs) after initially requesting $118 million (exclusive of interest). See Charlotin (22 August 2019). In Oxus Gold PLC v. Uzbekistan, UNCITRAL, the claimant received just over $10 million after submitting a claim ranging from $500 million to $1 billion, depending on the quantification method used. Peterson (3 January 2016).
- 26.
See ICSID, ICSID Caseload—Statistics, Issue 2019-2 (2019), p. 14.
- 27.
IAReporter Staff (27 July 2016). The respondent had initially submitted a request for suspension or discontinuation of proceedings, and the tribunal found that it had the authority under Article 44 of the ICSID Convention to determine the appropriate sanction for the claimant’s failure to post the ordered security. The tribunal vacated the proceedings and permitted the respondent to apply for a final award for dismissal after a period of 6 months if the claimant failed to post security during this time. See RSM Production Corporation v. Saint Lucia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/10, Decision on Saint Lucia’s Request for Suspension or Discontinuation of Proceedings, 8 April 2015, paras 52–66. An ad hoc committee partially annulled the award, observing that “there is no reason why a claimant that has had proceedings dismissed for failing to provide security for costs should not, after paying the costs associated with those proceedings and properly providing security for costs in new proceedings, have its claims on the merits considered by another tribunal.” RSM Production Corporation v. Saint Lucia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/10 (Annulment Proceeding), Decision on Annulment, 29 April 2019, para. 199.
- 28.
Churchill Mining PLC and Planet Mining Pty Ltd v. Indonesia, ICSID Case Nos. ARB/12/14 and 12/40, Award, 6 December 2016, para. 528. We have classified this case as “award dismissing all claims” because the tribunal had earlier determined that it had jurisdiction over the claims, but ruled in this subsequent preliminary phase that the claims were inadmissible.
- 29.
See Adem Dogan v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/9, Decision on Annulment, 15 January 2016, para. 282 (annulment request filed by respondent denied); Teinver SA, Transportes de Cercanías SA and Autobuses Urbanos del Sur SA v. Argentina, ICSID Case No ARB/09/1, Decision on Argentina’s Application for Annulment, 29 May 2019, para. 258 (annulment filed by respondent denied); Ioannis Kardassopoulos and Ron Fuchs v. Georgia, ICSID Case Nos. ARB/05/18 and ARB/07/15, Decision of the Ad Hoc Committee to Suspend the Annulment Proceeding, 21 March 2011 (suspension of annulment proceedings following settlement reached by the parties); Waguih Elie George Siag and Clorinda Vecchi v. Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/15 (after respondent moved to annul the award, the claimant entered into a settlement agreement, Peterson (7 May 2010)).
- 30.
See Quasar de Valores SICAV S.A. et al. v. Russia, SCC Arbitration No. 24/2007 (award set aside by national courts); Crystallex International Corporation v. Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/11/2 (set-aside application filed by respondent in national courts denied); Rusoro Mining Limited v. Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/5 (quantum part of award overturned by national court); Stans Energy Corp. and Kutisay Mining LLC v. Kyrgyzstan (II), PCA Case No 2015-32 (jurisdictional award upheld by national court).
- 31.
See in this volume, chapter by José Ángel Rueda-García, Third-party funding and access to justice in investment arbitration: security for costs as a provisional measure or a standalone procedural category in the newest developments in international investment law.
- 32.
- 33.
See von Goeler (2016), p. 102.
- 34.
Guaracachi America Inc. and Rurelec PLC v. Bolivia, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2011-17, Procedural Order No. 14, 11 March 2013, para. 6.
- 35.
Guaracachi America Inc. and Rurelec PLC v. Bolivia, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2011-17, Procedural Order No. 14, 11 March 2013, para. 7 (“[T]he Respondent has not shown a sufficient causal link such that the Tribunal can infer from the mere existence of third party funding that the Claimants will not be able to pay an eventual award of costs rendered against them, regardless of whether the funder is liable for costs or not.”).
- 36.
EuroGas Inc. and Belomont Resources Inc. v. Slovakia, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/14, Procedural Order No. 3, 25 June 2015, paras 122–123 (“[N]o such exceptional circumstances have been evidenced in the instant case. The Claimants have not defaulted on their payment obligations in the present proceedings or in other arbitration proceedings.”).
- 37.
South American Silver v. Bolivia, PCA Case No. 2013-15, Procedural Order No. 10, paras 68, 76 (“The existence of the third-party funder alone does not evidence the impossibility of payment or insolvency. It is possible to obtain financing for other reasons. The fact of having financing alone does not imply risk of non-payment.”).
- 38.
South American Silver v. Bolivia, PCA Case No. 2013-15, Procedural Order No. 10, para. 77.
- 39.
South American Silver v. Bolivia, PCA Case No. 2013-15, Procedural Order No. 10, para. 78.
- 40.
See Ioannis Kardassopoulos and Ron Fuchs v. Georgia, ICSID Case Nos. ARB/05/18, ARB/07/15, Award, 3 March 2010, paras 679 et seq.
- 41.
Ioannis Kardassopoulos and Ron Fuchs v. Georgia, ICSID Case Nos. ARB/05/18, ARB/07/15, Award, 3 March 2010, para. 686.
- 42.
Ioannis Kardassopoulos and Ron Fuchs v. Georgia, ICSID Case Nos. ARB/05/18, ARB/07/15, Award, 3 March 2010, para. 691.
- 43.
RSM Production Corporation v. Saint Lucia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/10, Decision on Saint Lucia’s Request for Security for Costs, 13 August 2014, para. 48.
- 44.
RSM Production Corporation v. Saint Lucia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/10, Decision on Saint Lucia’s Request for Security for Costs, 13 August 2014, para. 81.
- 45.
RSM Production Corporation v. Saint Lucia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/10, Decision on Saint Lucia’s Request for Security for Costs, 13 August 2014, para. 83.
- 46.
See Manuel García Armas et al. v. Venezuela, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2016-08, Procedural Order No. 9, 20 June 2018, para. 250; see also Bohmer (11 July 2018).
- 47.
Manuel García Armas et al. v. Venezuela, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2016-08, Procedural Order No. 9, 20 June 2018, para. 231.
- 48.
Eskosol S.p.A. in Liquidazione v. Italy, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/50, Procedural Order No. 3, 12 April 2017, paras 37, 39. Notably, the tribunal in the García Armas proceedings rejected the claimants’ offer to comply with the security for costs order by amending their financing agreement with the funder to include reimbursement of up to $1.5 million in adverse costs. The tribunal affirmed that the security must be in the form of a bank guarantee or surety insurance. Bohmer and Peterson (24 October 2018).
- 49.
Bohmer (13 December 2019) (noting that the tribunal rejected Panama’s request for security for costs because the relief sought was “disproportionate”).
- 50.
See International Council for Commercial Arbitration (April 2018), pp. 82–83. A tribunal recently considered whether an arbitrator’s position on the investment committee of a third-party funder could give rise to issue conflicts. Although reporting suggests that the funder had no role in funding the arbitration, the co-arbitrators ruling on the arbitrator challenge held that disqualification may have been necessary had there been a “specific connection” between the arbitrator’s role as an advisor to the funder and his role as an arbitrator. Canepa Green Energy Opportunities I, S.a.r.l. and Canepa Green Energy Opportunities II, S.a.r.l. v. Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/19/4, Decision on the Proposal to Disqualify Mr Peter Rees QC, 19 November 2019, para. 76.
- 51.
International Council for Commercial Arbitration (April 2018), p. 83.
- 52.
Muhammet Çap Sehil Inşaat Endustri v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/6, Procedural Order No. 3, 12 June 2015, paras 9–10.
- 53.
Corona Materials v. Dominican Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/14/3, Award on Respondent’s Expedited Preliminary Objections, 31 May 2016, para. 22.
- 54.
Interocean Oil Development Company and Interocean Oil Exploration Company v. Nigeria, ICSID Case No. ARB/13/20, Procedural Order No. 5, 15 October 2016, paras 87–89.
- 55.
South American Silver Ltd. v. Bolivia, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2013-15, Procedural Order No. 10, 11 January 2016, para. 79.
- 56.
Michael Ballantine and Lisa Ballantine v. Dominican Republic, PCA Case No. 2016-17, Award, 3 September 2019, paras 49–50.
- 57.
EuroGas Inc. and Belmont Resources Inc. v. Slovakia, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/14, Transcript of the First Session and Hearing on Provisional Measures, 17 March 2015, p. 145.
- 58.
Muhammet Çap Sehil Inşaat Endustrive v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/6, Procedural Order No. 3, 12 June 2015, para. 8.
- 59.
See Manuel García Armas et al. v. Venezuela, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2016-08, Procedural Order No. 9, 20 June 2018, para. 2.
- 60.
See South American Silver Ltd. v. Bolivia, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2013-15, Procedural Order No. 10, 11 January 2016, paras 79–81.
- 61.
RSM Production Corporation v. Saint Lucia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/10, Decision on Saint Lucia’s Request for Suspension or Discontinuation of Proceedings, 8 April 2015, para. 67.
- 62.
See Sahani (2016), p. 400 (explaining that “[m]ost funders think of themselves as investors, and an investor in litigation or arbitration is a new species of participant–one uncontemplated in the existing rules of procedure”).
- 63.
See Rivas J (23 July 2019), Third-party funding’s evolving role in investment arbitration, Law360, https://www.law360.com/articles/1180852/third-party-funding-s-evolving-role-in-investment-arbitration (“there is a growing trend based on case law, proposed arbitration rules and recent treaties that have permitted the development of third-party funding to facilitate access to justice for disputing parties in international arbitration. The investment treaty regime is evolving with the addition of a few limited rules on disclosure (such as the obligation to disclose that there is third-party funding and the funder’s identity) and by expressly recognizing that third-party funding is an international lawful reality.”); but see Santosuosso and Scarlett (2019), pp. I–14. (“Making matters worse, there is a complete lack of regulation”).
- 64.
ICSID Secretariat (3 August 2018b).
- 65.
- 66.
See generally ICSID Secretariat (August 2019b). The working paper also proposed TPF rules for Conciliation under the ICSID Convention Proceedings and ICSID (Additional Facility) Conciliation Rules.
- 67.
ICSID Secretariat (2 August 2018a), para. 242 (“[T]he ICSID Rules create many effective mechanisms to address concern that a claim may be frivolous, including screening for manifest lack of jurisdiction before registration of a request, a motion to dismiss for manifest lack of legal merit, bifurcated preliminary motions, and costs awards.”).
- 68.
- 69.
See ICSID Secretariat (August 2019b), Proposed Rule 14, p. 37; see also ibid., Additional Facility Arbitration Rules Proposed Rule 23, pp. 127–128.
- 70.
- 71.
Proposed Rule 52(3): In determining whether to order a party to provide security for costs, the Tribunal shall consider all relevant circumstances, including: (a) that party’s ability to comply with an adverse decision on costs; (b) that party’s willingness to comply with an adverse decision on costs; (c) the effect that providing security for costs may have on that party’s ability to pursue its claim or counterclaim; and (d) the conduct of the parties. ICSID Secretariat (August 2019b), p. 58.
- 72.
ICSID Secretariat (August 2019b), p. 58; see also ibid., pp. 148–149.
- 73.
U.N. Commission on International Trade Law Working Group III (Investor State Dispute Settlement Reform) (24 January 2019a), paras 16, 35.
- 74.
U.N. Commission on International Trade Law Working Group III (Investor State Dispute Settlement Reform) (2 August 2019b), paras 15–16, 21–25.
- 75.
U.N. Commission on International Trade Law Working Group III (Investor State Dispute Settlement Reform) (2 August 2019b), para. 42.
- 76.
U.N. Commission on International Trade Law Working Group III (Investor State Dispute Settlement Reform) (2 August 2019b), paras 39–41.
- 77.
U.N. Commission on International Trade Law (23 October 2019c), para. 81.
- 78.
U.N. Commission on International Trade Law (23 October 2019c), paras 97–98.
- 79.
While beyond the scope of this chapter, other regional arbitral institutions have adopted rules and guidelines related to TPF that are not specific to investment arbitrations, including the Center for Arbitration and Mediation of the Chamber of Commerce of Brazil-Canada (CAM-CCBC), the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC), the Singapore Institute of Arbitrators (SIArb), and the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC).
- 80.
Article 24 (l) of the SIAC Investment Rules.
- 81.
Article 27(1)-(2) of the CIETAC International Investment Arbitration Rules.
- 82.
Article 27(3) of the CIETAC International Investment Arbitration Rules.
- 83.
These laws include Hong Kong’s Arbitration and Mediation Legislation (Third Party Funding) (Amendment) Ordinance of 2017 and Singapore’s Civil Law (Third-Party Funding) Regulations 2017.
- 84.
Article 8.26 of the Comprehensive and Economic Trade Agreement (provisionally in force 21 September 2017); see also Article 3.8 of the EU-Singapore Investment Protection Agreement (signed 19 October 2018) (providing that “[a]ny disputing party benefiting from third party funding shall notify the other disputing party and the Tribunal of the name and address of the third party funder” when the claim is submitted or “without delay” once the funding is “agreed, donated or granted”); Annex I Article G-23 bis of the Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement (in force 5 February 2019) (requiring disclosure of the name and address of a third-party funder when the claim is submitted or without delay if the funding agreement, donation, or grant is made after the submission of the claim).
- 85.
Article 3.37 of the EU-Vietnam Investment Protection Agreement (signed 30 June 2019).
- 86.
Article 14.32 of the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (signed 4 March 2019).
- 87.
Article 24 of the Agreement for the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments between the Argentine Republic and the United Arab Emirates (signed 16 April 2018) (“Third party funding is not permitted”).
- 88.
See Moseley (2019), p. 1182.
References
Bohmer L (11 July 2018) Arbitrators rule that investors backed by a prominent litigation funder must post $1.5 million security in order to prosecute investment treaty arbitration, IAReporter, https://www.iareporter.com/articles/arbitrators-rule-that-investors-backed-by-a-prominent-litigation-funder-must-post-1-5-million-security-in-order-to-prosecute-investment-treaty-arbitration/
Bohmer L (13 December 2019) In a new security for costs ruling, arbitrators reject state’s request and stress that claimant’s third party funding agreement provides for “At Least Some Non-Trivial Cost Coverage,” IAReporter, https://www.iareporter.com/articles/in-a-new-security-for-costs-ruling-arbitrators-reject-states-request-and-stress-that-claimants-third-party-funding-agreement-provides-for-at-least-some-non-trivial-cost-coverage/
Bohmer L, Peterson L (24 October 2018) In new ruling, BIT tribunal does not consider amendment of third party funding contract to be sufficient guarantee that a state could collect on possible future costs order, IAReporter, https://www.iareporter.com/articles/in-new-ruling-bit-tribunal-does-not-consider-amendment-of-third-party-funding-contract-to-be-sufficient-guarantee-that-a-state-could-collect-on-possible-future-costs-order/
Charlotin D (22 August 2019) Canadian investor Stans Energy wins $24 million in (second) arbitration with Kyrgyzstan, IAReporter, https://www.iareporter.com/articles/canadian-investor-stans-energy-wins-24-million-in-second-arbitration-with-kyrgyzstan/
Chen D (2015) Can markets stimulate rights? On the alienability of legal claims. RAND J Econ 46(1):25
De Brabandere E, Lepeltak J (2012) Third-Party funding in international investment arbitration. ICSID Rev 27(2):379, 384
Garcia F (2018) Third-party funding as exploitation of the investment treaty system. Boston College Law Rev 59(8):2928–2931
IAReporter Staff (27 July 2016) Investor’s failure to post security bond leads to “With Prejudice” termination of arbitration with St. Lucia, IAReporter, https://www.iareporter.com/articles/investors-failure-to-post-security-bond-leads-to-with-prejudice-termination-of-arbitration-with-st-lucia/
ICSID Secretariat (2 August 2018a) Proposals for amendment of the ICSID rules – working paper, https://icsid.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/publications/WP1_Amendments_Vol_3_WP-updated-9.17.18.pdf
ICSID Secretariat (3 August 2018b) Backgrounder on proposals for amendment of the ICSID rules, https://icsid-archive.worldbank.org/en/Documents/Amendment_Backgrounder.pdf
ICSID Secretariat (March 2019a) Proposals for amendment of the ICSID rules – working paper, https://icsid.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/amendments/Vol_1.pdf
ICSID Secretariat (August 2019b) Proposals for amendment of the ICSID rules – working paper, https://icsid.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/amendments/WP_3_VOLUME_1_ENGLISH.pdf
International Council for Commercial Arbitration (April 2018) Report of the ICCA-Queen Mary Task Force on Third-Party Funding in International Arbitration, ICCA Reports No. 4
Massini K (2015) Risk versus reward: The increasing use of third funders in international arbitration and the awarding security for costs. Yearb Arbitr Mediation 7(25):325
Moseley S (2019) Disclosing third-party funding in international investment arbitration. Tex Law Rev 97(6):1182, 1191
Peterson L (7 May 2010) Investor and lawyers fall out over contingency-fee arrangement in aftermath of ICSID arbitration, IAReporter, https://www.iareporter.com/articles/investor-and-lawyers-fall-out-over-contingency-fee-arrangement-in-aftermath-of-icsid-arbitration/
Peterson L (3 January 2016) Oxus Gold comes up short in bet-the-company arbitration against Uzbekistan, IAReporter, https://www.iareporter.com/articles/oxus-gold-comes-up-short-in-bet-the-company-arbitration-against-uzbekistan/
Sahani V (2016) Judging third-party funding. UCLA Law Rev 63:400
Santosuosso T, Scarlett R (2019) Third-party funding in investment arbitration: misappropriation of access to justice rhetoric by global speculative finance. Boston College Law Rev E Supp 60(5):I.-8, I-14
U.N. Commission on International Trade Law Working Group III (Investor State Dispute Settlement Reform) (24 January 2019a) Possible reform of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS): third-party funding, U.N. Doc. A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.157
U.N. Commission on International Trade Law Working Group III (Investor State Dispute Settlement Reform) (2 August 2019b) Possible reform of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS): third-party funding – possible solutions, U.N. Doc. A/CN.9/WG.III/WP.172
U.N. Commission on International Trade Law (23 October 2019c) Report of working group III (investor-state dispute settlement reform) on the work of its thirty-eighth session (Vienna, 14-18 October 2019), U.N. Doc. A/CN.9/1004 (advanced copy)
von Goeler J (2016) Third-party funding in international arbitration and its impact on procedure, pp. 14–15, 92–94, 102
White & Case and Queen Mary University of London (2018) 2018 International arbitration survey: the evolution of international arbitration, http://www.arbitration.qmul.ac.uk/research/2018/
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Annex A
Annex A
1.1 Third-Party Funding Cases
Case | Funded party | Case outcome | Follow-on proceedings | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | RSM Production Corporation v. Saint Lucia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/10 | Claimant and, allegedly, Respondent | Award dismissing all claims | Partial annulment in favour of claimant |
2 | Churchill Mining PLC v. Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/14 *Note: decision combined with Planet Mining, below | Claimant | Award dismissing all claims | Annulment filed by claimant Annulment request denied |
3 | Planet Mining Pty Ltd v. Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/40 *Note: decision combined with Churchill Mining, above | Claimant | Award dismissing all claims | Annulment filed by claimant Annulment request denied |
4 | Ioannis Kardassopoulos v. Georgia, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/18 *Note: decision combined with Ron Fuchs, below | Claimant | Award upholding claims in part or in full | Annulment filed by respondent Annulment proceedings discontinued following settlement reached by parties |
5 | Ron Fuchs v. Georgia, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/15 *Note: decision combined with Ioannis Kardassopoulos, above | Claimant | Award upholding claims in part or in full | Annulment filed by respondent Annulment proceedings discontinued following settlement reached by parties |
6 | Guaracachi America, Inc. and Rurelec PLC v. Bolivia, PCA Case No. 2011-17 | Claimant | Award upholding claims in part or in full | No annulment filed |
7 | Oxus Gold PLC v. Uzbekistan, UNCITRAL | Claimant | Award upholding claims in part or in full | Set aside application filed by claimant in national court rejected |
8 | Teinver SA, Transportes de Cercanías SA and Autobuses Urbanos del Sur SA v. Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/1 | Claimant | Award upholding claims in part or in full | Annulment filed by respondent Annulment request denied |
9 | Crystallex International Corporation v. Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/11/2 | Claimant | Award upholding claims in part or in full | Set aside application filed by respondent in national court denied |
10 | Rusoro Mining Limited v. Venezuela, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/12/5 | Claimant | Award upholding claims in part or in full | Partial set aside of award in national court |
11 | Adem Dogan v. Turkmenistan, ICSID Case No. ARB/09/9 | Claimant | Award upholding claims in part or in full | Annulment filed by respondent Annulment request denied |
12 | South American Silver v. Bolivia, PCA Case No. 2013-15 | Claimant | Award upholding claims in part or in full | No annulment filed |
13 | Quasar de Valores SICAV S.A. et al. v. Russia, SCC Arbitration No. 24/2007 | Claimant | Award upholding claims in part or in full | Award set aside by national court |
14 | Waguih Elie George Siag and Clorinda Vecchi v. Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/05/15 | Claimant | Award upholding claims in part or in full | Annulment filed by respondent Annulment proceedings discontinued following settlement reached by parties |
15 | Stans Energy Corp. and Kutisay Mining LLC v. Kyrgyzstan (II), PCA Case No. 2015-32 | Claimant | Award upholding claims in part or in full | Award on jurisdiction upheld by national court |
16 | Alapli Elektrik v. Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/13 | Claimant | Award declining jurisdiction | Annulment filed by claimant Annulment request denied |
17 | EuroGas Inc. and Belmont Resources Inc. v. Slovakia, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/14 | Claimant | Award declining jurisdiction | Annulment filed by claimant Annulment proceedings discontinued by tribunal due to claimant’s non-payment of advances |
18 | Corona Materials, LLC v. Dominican Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/14/3 | Claimant | Award declining jurisdiction | No annulment filed |
19 | Cortec Mining Kenya Limited, Cortec (Pty) Limited and Stirling Capital Limited v. Kenya, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/29 | Claimant | Award declining jurisdiction | Annulment filed by claimant pending |
20 | Michael Ballantine and Lisa Ballantine v. Dominican Republic, PCA Case No. 2016-17 | Claimant | Award declining jurisdiction | Petition to vacate filed by claimants pending |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Popova, I.C., Seifert, K.R. (2021). Gatekeeping, Lawmaking, and Rulemaking: Lessons from Third-Party Funding in Investment Arbitration. In: Fach Gómez, K. (eds) Private Actors in International Investment Law. European Yearbook of International Economic Law(). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48393-7_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48393-7_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-48392-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-48393-7
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)