¿No hay nada oculto bajo el sol? El financiamiento de terceros en arbitraje y las obligaciones de revelación bajo el ordenamiento jurídico del Ecuador

2021 ◽  
pp. 13-27
Author(s):  
Andrés Larrea Savinovich ◽  
Juan Martín Alarcón Peralta
Keyword(s):  
Third Party ◽  
America Latina ◽  
Party Funding

El financiamiento de terceros (FPT) o también conocido como Third Party Funding es una figura que ha ganado un espacio importante en el arbitraje internacional en la última década. Esencialmente, el FPT implica que un tercero, ajeno al proceso, decide financiar a una de las partes, en todo o en parte, los costos y gastos relacionados con el arbitraje a cambio de un beneficio económico. Si bien el FPT no es un mecanismo nuevo en Estados Unidos o Europa para garantizar el acceso a la justicia, en América Latina ha aumentado su popularidad en los últimos años y, cada vez más, resulta común encontrarse con arbitrajes en los que participa un financista. En el Ecuador, esta figura aún resulta extraña y novedosa para muchos. Además, la Ley de Arbitraje y Mediación no hace referencia a los financistas en arbitraje ni a las obligaciones de las partes que reciben financiamiento de terceros. Sin embargo, con el incremento de arbitrajes en los que una de las partes cuenta con el respaldo de un financista vale preguntarse: ¿Tienen las partes la obligación de revelar su situación frente a los árbitros? ¿Existe alguna obligación legal de revelación bajo el ordenamiento jurídico ecuatoriano? Este artículo explora la figura del financiamiento de terceros en arbitraje y las obligaciones de revelación bajo las leyes domésticas.

scholarly journals A Law and Economics Perspective on the EU Directive on Representative Actions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Visscher ◽  
M. Faure
Keyword(s):  
Law And Economics ◽  
Class Action ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Collective Actions ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
Contingency Fees ◽  
Party Funding ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis article provides an analysis of the Directive on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers of 25 November 2020. The Directive enables qualified entities to bring representative actions on behalf of the consumer. The article uses a Law and Economics approach to stress the advantages of collective actions as a tool to remedy rational apathy and free-rider behaviour. The article therefore in principle welcomes the fact that this Directive will lead to all Member States having some form of collective redress. However, it is rather difficult to fit this Directive into the economic criteria for centralization as there is no obvious danger of cross-border externalities or a race-to-the-bottom. The article is critical of the fact that the Directive only provides for a representative action and does not mention the alternative of a group action (sometimes referred to as a class action). This is especially problematic if there are very few qualified entities that could bring the representative action. Furthermore, the fact that Member States may choose an opt-in procedure instead of an opt-out procedure is critically evaluated. The most problematic aspect of the Directive is the funding of the representative action. Punitive damages and contingency fees are rejected, and the possibility of third-party funding is restricted. It is therefore to be feared that this Directive, notwithstanding the good intentions, may not lead to much application in practice, since the question of how the representative action is to be financed is not resolved in any satisfactory manner.

Third-party funding na arbitragem contra Estados: a relativização da imunidade executória na execução da sentença arbitral contra Estados

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 203-234
Author(s):  
Ana Monteiro ◽  
Daniel Ferreira
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Asset Pricing ◽  
The United States ◽  
Third Party ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Domestic Legislation ◽  
Current Context ◽  
Party Funding

The purpose of this article is to assess the risk for preventing the execution of arbitral awards made against Sovereign States due to the State’s immunity shield. Given the importance of an accurate asset pricing in the business of third-party funding (TPF), the topic entails a particular relevance to the current context of globalized litigation in light of its contribution to the promotion of TPF at the international arbitration community. After reviewing the literature on TPF, on the peculiarities of investment and commercial arbitrations against States and on the evolution of State immunity (also in terms of domestic legislation, considering the local laws passed by the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia), the article aims explore how the funder should incorporate into its risk assessment the risk of not executing awards rendered against Sovereign States.

scholarly journals Third party funding and access to justice

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-148
Author(s):  
Milan Lazić ◽  
Milica Savić
Keyword(s):  
Third Party ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Conflict Of Interests ◽  
Party Funding

The purpose of this paper to analyze whether and to what extent are third-party funding and access to justice intertwined and compatible. The analysis started from recognizing most common challenges with third-party funding and whether these challenges may be overcome with existing regulation and guidelines. Global lack of regulation of this subject is noticeable. This increases the risks of having undisclosed conflict of interests between various participants and affects the confidentiality, efficiency and fairness of the proceedings and ultimately the access to justice considerations. Although third party funding undoubtedly contributes to larger access to justice, an unregulated market of this kind may also draw adverse inference to the access to justice. In conclusion, authors of this paper call for wider regulation of this matter, including both through local legislation and arbitration rules.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document