In the seminal case of Korea Asset Management v Daewoo Singapore Pte Ltd (in liquidation)  1 SLR(R) 671 (“Korea Asset Management”), the Honourable Judicial Commissioner V K Rajah (as he then was) (“JC Rajah”) laid down a non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered in an application under Sections 299(2) or 262(3) of the Companies Act (Cap. 50 1994 Rev Ed) (“CA”) (pari materia to Sections 170(2) and 133(1) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (No. 40 of 2018) (“IRDA”)) for leave to commence or continue an action or proceedings against a company in liquidation. In such applications, decisions at various levels of the Singapore courts have cited and employed the factors in Korea Asset Management with a seemingly common reluctance to broaden or revise the factors. Following the recent developments in Australia, has the time come for our Singapore courts to revisit this position?
Why Third-Party Funding Should Be Given a Second Glance in Arbitrations: A Post-Pandemic Option for Arbitration Financing in Singapore [Brought to you by RBN Chambers]
Third Party Funding (“TPF”) is not an unfamiliar practice in international commercial arbitration. It is a mode available to parties to an arbitration to seek financial support from parties who are not (the “Third Party Funders or TP Funders”) to commence and continue an arbitration to its conclusion. In providing financial support, the TP Funders assume the risks of their ‘investment’; if the arbitration claim is successful, the TP Funders would receive an agreed pay out, usually a percentage of the arbitration award, otherwise, the TP Funders assumes the risk of nil returns if the claim fails.
COVID-19 has changed our lives, and undoubtedly, the way we work. Fortunately for those familiar with the practice of international arbitration, the pandemic has merely accelerated certain trends that had already begun before it hit.