A common procedural attack runs: since the claimant relies on outside capital, it cannot itself meet an adverse costs award, and so must post security.
Where tribunals generally land
Mainstream practice does not accept that the existence of a funding arrangement is by itself sufficient ground for security. What matters is whether the claimant can satisfy an award and whether the arrangement covers the other side's costs. Where the funder has put adverse-costs cover in place or expressly assumed those costs, the argument loses its foundation.
A different analysis under acquisition
In an acquisition structure the holder of the right is the acquiring institution, whose capacity to pay is typically far stronger than the original party's. The attack therefore tends to cut against the respondent — it confirms the claimant's ability to meet costs.
Preparation
We prepare evidence of capacity and the costs-cover documentation before commencing, so that such an application can be answered at the first procedural conference rather than becoming a delay device.
Further reading
Case note: veil-piercing and asset disclosure through offshore structures
Where assets sit behind layered offshore vehicles, a disclosure order is often more effective than substantive veil-piercing.
The ArbiHonor Quarterly, Q3 2026: How acquisition structures reprice enforceability
When the funder becomes the claim holder, underwriting shifts from merits to enforceability. This issue examines the consequences for the pricing model.
The PRC–Hong Kong mutual enforcement arrangements in practice: three years of data
Since the arrangements took effect, filing and enforcement data show a picture that does not entirely match the design expectation.
Does this development bear on your claim?
Submit the facts. The underwriting team will review them against this development and identify where it applies, without charge.