Trending Now
Commercial Deals

Facilitating Cross-Border Dispute Resolution and Promoting TPF Industry Development — “International Conference on the Third-Party Funding Industry” Successfully Concluded in Beijing

By John Freund |

On the afternoon of September 25, the “International Conference on the Third-Party Funding Industry” was successfully held in Beijingi. The Conference was hosted by the Beijing International Dispute Resolution Center (BIDRC), organized by Houzhu Capital, and co-organized by Dingsong Legal Capital.

The conference received support from the Beijing Arbitration Commission/Beijing International Arbitration Center (BAC/BIAC), China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), China Maritime Arbitration Commission (CMAC), Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). Other supporting organizations included the Chinese Society of International Law, China-Asia Economic Development Association, China-Africa Business Council, Queen Mary University of London, Burford, Omni Bridgeway, Hilco IP Merchant Banking, Nivalion, Dun & Bradstreet, Caijing, and Law Plus. The Conference attracted over 300 guests in person and more than 60,000 participants online.

Huang Jin, Chairman of the Beijing International Dispute Resolution Center and President of the Chinese Society of International Law, and Yu Jianlong, Vice President of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT) and Vice President of the China Chamber of International Commerce (CCOIC), delivered opening remarks. The Conference was moderated by Jiang Lili, Commissioner and Secretary-General of BAC/BIAC.

Huang Jin first warmly welcomed and sincerely thanked all participants and supporters on behalf of BIDRC. He stated that this Conference is the first international conference hosted by BIDRC, marking a significant milestone. As the operational entity of the Beijing International Commercial Arbitration Center, BIDRC plays a crucial role in supporting the establishment of the international commercial arbitration center and leading the high-quality development of arbitration in China. He emphasized the need to understand the key trends in the development of international commercial arbitration, including humanization, modernization, internationalization, localization, integration, and digitization. He also stressed the importance of improving a robust arbitration system, cultivating world-class international arbitration institutions, and creating a top-tier business environment characterized by market orientation, rule of law, and international standards. These efforts will enhance China’s foreign-related legal system and strengthen its capacity.

Yu Jianlong highlighted in his speech that, given the profound changes in the international situation and trade patterns in recent years, enhancing corporate competitiveness and strengthening corporate compliance are crucial for promoting high-level opening-up and facilitating the high-quality international expansion of Chinese enterprises. Third-party funding is an important tool for improving companies’ ability to address overseas disputes. With the accelerated pace of Chinese companies expanding abroad and the deepening integration of the domestic legal service market with international standards, third-party funding is gradually being accepted and utilized by more Chinese enterprises and legal professionals. He expressed that this conference provides an excellent platform for the industry to explore third-party funding. He hopes participants will strengthen collaboration between academia and practice, deepen their understanding of corporate needs, and continuously learn from international best practices. He also looks forward to fostering cooperation between third-party funding institutions and enterprises.

As a leading scholar in the field of third-party funding, Professor Mulheron from Queen Mary University of London was invited to deliver a keynote speech on the state of third-party funding in England and Wales. Full speech (recording and transcript) available at Houzhu Capital’s WeChat Official Account

In her address, Professor Mulheron examined the rise and evolution of third-party funding in the region, and talked about issues surrounding self-regulation and government oversight within the industry. She provided clear explanations of typical business models in third-party funding, the fee structures for funders, potential costs borne by funders, after-the-event (ATE) insurance, and protections for funded parties. She also offered in-depth insights into cutting-edge issues and perspectives within the field. Professor Mulheron concluded with five key takeaways about third-party funding in England: First, the market is very established and sophisticated, with many funders, brokers and ATE insurers in the market now; Second, third party funding features in both English litigation and arbitration;  Third, because of the criteria which funders apply to cases under their business models, only less than 10% of all cases pitched to the funders are funded; Fourth, third-party funding must comply with industry codes of conduct, which include minimum capital requirements for funders; Finally, while England possesses considerable experience in judicial practices concerning third-party funding, there have been debates and disagreements regarding the structure of funding and the validity of funding agreements, and the legislature is taking steps to address relevant issues to further support third-party funding, as it is indeed becoming a huge global market.

During Panel I, Professor Fu Yulin from Peking University Law School served as the moderator. The panelists included Zhang Haoliang, Head of the Business Development Division (International Cases Division) of the BAC/BIAC; Wei Ziping, Director of the Oversight and Coordination Office of CIETAC; Chen Bo, Deputy Secretary-General of CMAC; Yu Zijin, Consultant of HKIAC; Zhang Cunyuan, Director of the China Region of SIAC and Chief Representative of the Shanghai Representative Office; and Huang Zhijin, Director for North Asia and Shanghai Representative Office of ICC. The discussion centered on third-party funding and arbitration rules, drawing on the practices and experiences of the respective institutions. The panelists exchanged insights on recent updates to arbitration rules concerning third-party funding, disclosure requirements, measures to prevent conflicts of interest, and relevant cases processed by their organizations. The panelists concurred that third-party funding is evolving rapidly in practice, and arbitration institutions generally adopt a relatively open stance towards its use in arbitration. They also recognize the necessity for ongoing practice to fully understand the impact of third-party funding on arbitration procedures and rules, with the aim of maintaining the independence and justice of arbitration while better serving the parties.

During Panel II, the discussion was moderated by Fei Ning, Senior Consultant of Houzhu Capital. The panelists included Quentin Pak, Director at Burford; Fu Tong, Co-founder and CEO of Houzhu Capital; Michael D. Friedman, CEO of Hilco IP Merchant Banking; Lau chee chong, Senior legal counsel of Omni Bridgeway in Singapore; Falco Kreis, Senior Investment Manager and Head of the Munich Office at Nivalion; Zhang Zhi, Founder of Dingsong Legal Capital; and Zhu Zhen, Product Sales & Solutions Director of Dun Bradstreet. The panelists discussed third-party funding practices both domestically and internationally, sharing their institutions’ experiences across various jurisdictions. They explored a range of topics, including case selection processes and criteria, monetization and funding in the field of intellectual property, the interaction between arbitration rules and funding practices, and risk management for enterprises expanding into foreign markets. They noted that the client base and demand for litigation funding are becoming increasingly diversified, prompting third-party funding institutions to expand their product and service offerings. The panelists expressed optimism regarding the development of third-party funding in China while highlighting unique challenges that the Chinese market faces compared to the international landscape.

During Panel III, the discussion was moderated by Wang Jialu, Co-founder of Houzhu Capital. The panel featured Zachary Sharpe, Head of the Global Disputes Team at Jones Day’s Singapore office; Liu Xiao, Partner of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP; Zhong Li, Partner of Hui Zhong Law Firm; Wang Zheng, Partner of Hongqiao Zhenghan Law Firm; Li Zhiyong, General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer of CSCEC International; and Li Lu, Chief Compliance Officer of Essence Securities Asset Management Co., Ltd. The panelists discussed the application of third-party funding, sharing common challenges and solutions they encountered in their past practices, each informed by their specific business contexts. They addressed various issues, including how to set and manage reasonable expectations regarding case progress and outcomes, effectively handle confidentiality and privilege concerns, and navigate disclosures along with related conflicts of interest. In conclusion, the panelists agreed that third-party funding plays a unique role in promoting dispute resolution and accessing justice, especially in bridging the gap between law firms and enterprises in complex cross-border litigation and arbitration.

The successful convening of this conference has established a valuable channel for ongoing communication between domestic and international practitioners and scholars in the field of third-party funding. It has enhanced understanding and awareness of third-party funding within the domestic market and facilitated positive interactions and cooperation among third-party funding institutions, dispute resolution agencies, and relevant users. This will significantly advance the further development of third-party funding in China and make an indispensable contribution to helping Chinese enterprises effectively address cross-border disputes and achieve high-quality development.

About the author

John Freund

John Freund

Commercial

View All
Commercial Regulatory Issues

Burford Capital CEO: Government Inaction on PACCAR is Harming London Market

By Harry Moran |

As we approach the beginning of summer, the litigation funding industry is growing impatient in waiting for the outcome of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review of litigation funding, with funders anxious to see the government provide a solution to the uncertainty created by the Supreme Court’s ruling in PACCAR.

An article in The Law Society Gazette provides an overview of an interview with Christopher Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital; who spoke at length about the ongoing impact of the UK government’s failure to introduce legislation to solve issues created by the PACCAR ruling. Bogart highlighted the key correlation between funders’ reluctance to allocate more capital to the London legal market and “the government non-response” to find a quick and effective solution to PACCAR.

Comparing the similarities in effect of the government inaction over funding legislation to the Trump administration’s tariff policy, Bogart said simply, “markets and businesses don’t like such uncertainty.” He went on to describe the London market as “not as healthy as you would like it to be”, pointing to statistics showing a decrease in capital allocation and the examples of major funders like Therium making job cuts.

One particular pain point that Bogart pointed to was Burford’s newfound hesitancy to name London as an arbitral seat and choose English law for international contracts, saying that the company has moved those contracts to jurisdictions including Singapore, Paris or New York. Bogart said that it was “unfortunate because this is one of the major global centres for litigation and arbitration”, but argued that the strategic jurisdictional shift was a result of having “a less predictable dynamic here in this market”.

As for what Bogart would like to see from the upcoming CJC’s review of litigation funding, the Burford CEO emphasised the longstanding view of the funding industry that there is “no need for a big regulatory apparatus here.” Instead, Bogart suggested that an ideal outcome would be for the CJC to encourage Westminster “to restore a degree of predictability and stability into the market.”

Commercial Deals

Insurance CEO Ceases Trading with Firms Linked to Litigation Finance

By Harry Moran |

The tensions between the insurance industry and litigation finance are well established, with insurance industry groups often at the forefront of lobbying efforts calling for tighter regulations of third-party funding. In one of the most significant examples of this tension, the CEO of a speciality insurance company has declared that his company will cease doing business with any firm that is linked to litigation funding activity.

An article in Insurance Business highlights recent comments made by Andrew Robinson, chairman and CEO of Skyward Specialty Insurance Group, where he said that the company would no longer do business with companies who have any ties to litigation finance. Citing the uptick in the use of third-party funding as one of the primary contributors to social inflation, increasing product costs and reduced availability; Robinson declared that Skyward are “not going to trade with anybody who's involved in this”.

According to the article, Robinson’s decision was triggered by the company’s discovery that an asset manager it worked with was involved in litigation funding. Skyward then “shut off” its business relationship with the asset manager and is in the process of redeeming any remaining assets with the firm. Robinson said that the idea of Skyward having ties to firms involved with litigation finance “is wrong at all levels”, saying that he told his executive leadership team that “we can’t have that anywhere near us”.

Aside from the asset manager, Skyward was trading with a company involved in contingent insurance whose work included litigation finance, but Robinson stated that the unnamed company is reducing its already minor presence in the funding space.

Despite targeting his ire primarily at litigation funding, Robinson suggested that the wider issue stems from a “broken” tort system and that “you have to get to the root cause and toward reform”.  

Commercial Regulatory Issues

Bell Gully Report: New Zealand Courts are “Enablers of Litigation Funding”

By Harry Moran |

Following a 2022 report from New Zealand’s Law Commission, there has been a distinct lack of action by successive governments to introduce a Class Actions Act or any forms of oversight for the use of third-party funding in large group claims.

A new report released by Bell Gully looks at the current state of class actions in New Zealand, examining the rise of large group claims  and the role of litigation funding as a key driver. In ‘The Big Picture: Class Actions’, Bell Gully says that “in the past five years class actions have moved from being a threat on the horizon to a regular feature in New Zealand’s courts”. 

The introduction to the report appears to paint litigation funders as the prime moving force behind this trend, saying that the swell in class actions is “being driven by the availability of third-party litigation funding rather than a groundswell of consumer action.” Identifying the most prominent funders at work in New Zealand, Bell Gully points to LPF Group as the dominant local funder, Omni Bridgeway for its strong market reach from Australia, and Harbour for its global strength across litigation and arbitration funding. 

Without any legislative measures regulating funding and with no established industry association like Australia’s AALF, Bell Gully highlights the courts as the main mechanism of control over funding activity. The report goes further and suggests that “funder-friendly court decisions have contributed to the growing influence of litigation funders in New Zealand”, noting the admission of opt-out class actions and courts’ willingness to make common fund orders.

In its review of the need for a Class Actions Act in New Zealand, Bell Gully argues that the current lack of oversight on funding has led to a situation where the courts are acting as “enablers of litigation funding” rather than regulators of the practice.

The full report can be accessed here.