"Taming the Goliath"...game changer in the Third Party Funding discourse!

Until now, the metaphor of "David v. Goliath" has been the dominant metaphor in analyzing the relationship between an impecunious Claim holder (represented by a diminutive figure) and a financially buoyant Respondent (represented by a giant); I challenge the metaphor's adequacy in discussing the relationships in third party funding (TPF) as trends are evolving to show funded claims between a "Goliath v. Goliath" - as financially buoyant claim holders now seek funding for various reasons.

I propose a new metaphor of "taming the Goliath" - the Goliath being a third party who only has economic interest in a case and wields enormous influence over the proceedings. I also challenge the current theoretical underpinnings of TPF in international arbitration and propose a combo of safety nets, taking into account the multi-directional obligations between the key players in TPF. The proposed safety nets will no doubt change the current discourse around TPF in international arbitration.

Watch out for my comments on the proposed amendments to the 2013 Hong kong International arbitration Centre Administered Rules [relating to TPF] and the recent Draft Report by the ICCA-QMUL Task Force on TPF in International Arbitration.