Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
Hong Kong’s legal community has expressed an overwhelming desire to see the legality of Third Party Funding fully admitted and clarified, writes Yasmin Mohammad from Vannin Capital.
The Final Report of the Hong Kong Law Reform Commission Sub-Committee (the Commission) on Third Party Funding issued on
12 October 2016 has confirmed the desire of the Hong Kong legal community to compete with other major arbitral centres by explicitly authorising the use of Third Party Funding with a pragmatic, light touch approach to regulation.
97% of the participants in the consultation process including arbitrators, users, government bodies, solicitors/barristers and arbitral institutions, expressed their clear desire to see Hong Kong lift any ambiguities as to the legality of Third Party
Funding in their legal framework.
In issuing its report and making its recommendations, the Commission has had a particular focus on non-recourse third-party funding as opposed to other providers of funding such as insurers. This focus reflects the fact that the two important aspects
to regulators in Hong Kong are:
Whilst neither of these points are an issue in practice when utilising non-recourse funding by institutional and professional funders, the arbitral community has generally been focussing the debate on non-recourse funders like Vannin Capital because we
are now “personified”, so to speak.
Non-recourse funding from professional third party funders remains a relatively new financial solution in many jurisdictions and it is only right that participants in those jurisdictions raise the questions that they may have.
However, professional third party funders like Vannin Capital are known members of the arbitration community and we have been involved in the debate about the benefits of non-recourse third-party funding for some time. Even before the debate had started,
we had established ethical and professional procedures to address issues such as confidentiality, control, potential conflicts of interest etc. Thankfully, many of the irrational criticisms one used to hear about third party funding, e.g. “it
will give rise to frivolous claims” have largely been silenced now.
The highlights of the recommendations are:
This approach, which mirrors that of most other jurisdictions, is a wise decision as overregulation (especially at the outset) would definitely hinder the use of Third Party Funding in Hong Kong.
This is naturally a welcome recommendation which will ensure that only professional, reputable funders are able to provide services in the region. We expect to see the implementation of standards similar to those required by members of the Association
of Litigation Funders in England and Wales to which Vannin Capital are held.
Specifically, the Commission has recommended that the Code addresses:
and that each of these matters are also dealt with clearly in any funding agreement.
This recommendation is clearly comforting for those concerned with potential conflicts of interests despite the fact that such conflicts with a tribunal have not to date arisen in practice because funders take much care to avoid creating a situation of
conflict that would endanger their investment.
The requirement to disclose however gives rise to another danger being that such disclosure gives rise to automatic security for costs applications simply because a funder is present in a dispute thus increasing the cost of funding for a claimant when
ATE insurance then needs to be provided. Cost is the biggest criticism of arbitration, so implementing a requirement that has the effect of driving up the cost of that litigation or arbitration with systematic provisions of ATE insurance is not rendering
a public service.
Vannin Capital works mostly with clients who are well capitalised and are in a position to fund their own cases – however, they recognise that third party funding can support their business as an important part of their financial toolkit either
as part of their legal spend strategy and/or to manage their cash flow.
Ignoring cost implications therefore, as a professional third party funder, we are as a general rule, content for the fact of funding and our identity to be disclosed. Whether and when the fact of funding and our identity is disclosed normally comes down
to a strategic decision made by the claimant and their lawyers. With that decision being made in the interest of their dispute, the strategy being pursed in respect to it, and whether it advances the broader interests of their organisation.
However, if we look at it from a competition standpoint, the provision to require disclosure of the existence of a funding agreement and the identity of the funder risks putting claimants in Hong Kong at a disadvantage from claimants in other jurisdictions
where such automatic disclosure is not required. It is an interesting approach by Hong Kong given that it could give Singapore a clear competitive advantage in any race to become the most prominent arbitration centre of the region, should Singapore
not require automatic disclosure.
With these preliminary comments in mind, Vannin Capital warmly welcomes these very positive steps by Hong Kong and we are comforted in our desire to continue showing a deep commitment to the region.
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
**excludes LexisPSL Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial. See our full terms here.
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234