A Singapore court has affirmed an arbitral award denying a successful litigant's attempt to recover more than $14 million in third-party funding costs, reinforcing the principle that funding expenses are generally not recoverable from the losing side. The decision offers important guidance for funded parties weighing the economics of dispute resolution in one of Asia's leading arbitration hubs.

As reported by Law360, the dispute arose from an arbitration over control of a fintech joint venture. The prevailing party sought reimbursement of the substantial fees it had paid to its litigation funder, arguing those costs should be shifted to its opponent as part of the award.

The court rejected that argument, characterizing the funding expense as "simply the product of a risk any party engaged in dispute resolution takes." By framing the cost as an inherent risk of pursuing a claim rather than a recoverable disbursement, the court declined to allow the funded party to pass its financing burden to the other side.

The ruling underscores a recurring tension in funded disputes: while third-party funding can make claims viable, the cost of that capital typically remains with the party that engaged the funder, even in victory. Counsel in the matter included Providence Law Asia, Rajah & Tann, and Duxton Hill Chambers, with the proceedings tied to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre. For funders and funded parties alike, the decision is a reminder that recovery of funding costs cannot be assumed and must be carefully assessed when structuring the economics of a case.

A new opinion piece is pressing New York lawmakers to close what the author calls a "champerty loophole," arguing that gaps in the state's centuries-old prohibition on financing others' lawsuits have allowed hedge funds and litigation funders to profit from the court system. The commentary adds to a broader policy debate over how, and whether, third-party litigation funding should be constrained.

As reported by the New York Daily News, the author contends that most New Yorkers have never heard of the champerty doctrine, yet its weakened application has helped turn the state's courts into what the piece describes as a playground for well-capitalized financial actors. Champerty, historically, refers to an arrangement in which an outside party funds litigation in exchange for a share of the proceeds, a practice long disfavored under New York law but now widely worked around.

The op-ed argues that the current framework permits hedge funds and litigation funders to bankroll claims for financial return while escaping meaningful regulation, raising concerns about the influence of outside capital over litigation strategy and outcomes. The author calls on the legislature to tighten the rules and restore limits the doctrine was originally designed to impose.

The piece lands amid intensifying scrutiny of third-party litigation funding nationwide, from federal disclosure proposals to state-level efforts to regulate consumer funding and non-lawyer ownership of law firms. As New York weighs its approach, the champerty debate underscores the enduring tension between expanding access to the courts and guarding against the commercialization of litigation.