Can Eken

Can Eken is a member of the Istanbul Bar Association and a PhD student at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. He has worked in academia and practised law as an attorney. Currently, he is a visiting student researcher at Stanford Law School, sponsored by Professor Deborah Hensler. He holds an LLM degree from the London School of Economics and Political Science, and another LLM degree from Dokuz Eylul University, where he also obtained his LLB with high honors. He has several publications on international arbitration including one under review, which he co-authored with Professor Julien Chaisse. His research focuses on third-party funding in investment arbitration. He has served as an arbitrator in various moot court competitions.

Designation: The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Institution: The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Paper: A Detailed Comparison of Third-Party Funding Regulations in Hong Kong and Singapore
Abstract: Third-Party Funding (TPF) has been a major player in international arbitration in the last decade. Despite the uncertainties and continuing discussions on whether TPF should be regulated, Singapore and Hong Kong successively passed legislation to legalize and regulate TPF, and both jurisdictions have become pioneers to this end in the world. This can be largely attributed to their competition with each other to be Asia’s leading arbitration centre, and by regulating the practice both jurisdictions have moved closer to this goal. However, even though both jurisdictions wish to ensure the legality of TPF in international arbitration, their regulations and the consequences of non-compliance differ from each other dramatically. Moreover, although both jurisdictions are leading arbitration jurisdictions, their rules have not yet been analyzed thoroughly in the existing scholarship. Thus, this paper aims to fill this gap. The paper follows the comparative method and analyzes the rules on TPF in Hong Kong and Singapore. Apart from informing its readers about the regulations in Hong Kong and Singapore, it also aims to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of the rules adopted differently by the two jurisdictions and answer two important questions: (i) What rules could create better conditions for funders? (ii) What can be done to improve those conditions?