SIAC: Caseload trends and the early engagement of third-party capital

As legal finance grows across Asia, the way disputes are approached is changing. The question is no longer just whether there is a claim, but how it will be run and whether it is capable of producing a recovery.

Increasingly, that assessment is happening at a much earlier stage. In some matters, it takes place even before counsel is appointed. Third-party capital providers are brought in early, not simply to fund disputes, but to assess them, looking at merits, likely enforcement routes and where assets sit.

This shift is playing out against a backdrop of rising arbitration activity. SIAC’s 2025 statistics provide a useful reference point, with 886 new cases, with total sums in dispute reaching US$14.5 billion.

Top foreign users (2025)

Early signals in enforcement strategy

At the outset, the focus is not simply on the strength of the claim, but on how any eventual recovery is likely to be achieved. Increasingly, that assessment is made early, alongside decisions on seat, governing law and counsel, rather than at the end of the process.

The identity of the counterparty is usually the starting point. A Mainland Chinese counterparty leads to a focus on assets held outside the PRC. Indian borrowers or sponsors often point towards offshore enforcement routes, while in Southeast Asian disputes, the focus is often on how the investment is structured and whether value sits beyond the local operating company.

These factors do not determine the outcome. They do, however, give an early sense of how enforcement is likely to be approached and whether a claim is capable of being turned into a recovery. That analysis quickly extends to how assets are held, whether they can be moved, and how robust those structures are if enforcement is contested.

In practice, this requires more than a legal assessment of the merits. It calls for a detailed understanding of asset location, cross-border enforcement regimes and the practical challenges of execution.  As a result, enforcement considerations increasingly shape how disputes are run, from which parties are pursued to how claims are framed and proceedings structured.

What the disputes are about

Trade and commodities disputes account for the largest share of the caseload. While typically grounded in contract issues, such as delivery failures, quality disputes and non-payment, they are rarely confined to a single jurisdiction. Supply chains and payment structures often sit across several countries, adding complexity to both the dispute and any eventual recovery.

Construction, corporate and financing disputes follow similar patterns, particularly where transactions are structured across jurisdictions. As a result, even disputes that appear domestic on their face frequently require a coordinated, multi-jurisdictional approach to resolution and enforcement.

What the data reflects in practice

The SIAC data broadly reflects what is being seen in funded matters.

Indian-linked disputes appear regularly in private credit and structured finance arrangements, often with enforcement expected to run outside India. Meanwhile, China and Southeast Asia feature prominently in trade disputes involving layered supply chains and multiple counterparties.

Another category sits in disputes structured through Singapore. Shareholding structures are commonly established there, with SIAC clauses included at the contracting stage. Disputes then emerge later as post-M&A claims, valuation disputes, warranty issues and shareholder fallouts.

UAE-linked parties also appear with some frequency, usually in construction, energy and cross-border investment disputes involving Asian counterparties. Taken together, these patterns point to a consistently cross-border profile, where both the disputes themselves and the path to enforcement extend well beyond a single jurisdiction.

The role of funding

In some matters, funders are brought in before proceedings are underway. The role is not just to provide capital, but to assess the claim, looking at merits, likely enforcement routes and where assets sit.

That early-stage assessment feeds into how the dispute is approached. It can influence which parties are pursued, how claims are framed and whether the structure of the case supports a realistic path to recovery.

More broadly, funding is used to manage risk. Where enforcement is likely to run across jurisdictions, or where timelines are long and recovery uncertain, capital is used to balance that exposure.

In many SIAC disputes, key elements, such as the arbitration clause, transaction structure and anticipated enforcement pathway, are already aligned before a dispute arises. In that context, funding is not an afterthought, but sits alongside the dispute from an early stage as part of a coordinated strategy.

Conclusion

The decision is not just whether a party can win an arbitration. It is how, and where, any outcome can be turned into a recovery.

That analysis often begins with the counterparty. The location of assets, how they are held and whether they can be reached across jurisdictions are central considerations from the outset, shaping how a claim is assessed and pursued.

As disputes become more cross-border, enforcement is no longer confined to familiar or predictable jurisdictions. Parties are dealing with new venues, different regimes and, in some cases, more uncertain outcomes. This places greater emphasis on practical experience in enforcing awards across jurisdictions, rather than solely on obtaining them.

SIAC’s caseload reflects this reality. The mix of parties and disputes points to claims that are international from the outset and where enforcement will not sit in a single forum. Against that backdrop, enforcement is being considered earlier and more deliberately, informing strategic decisions from the outset and shaping how disputes are ultimately run.