Arbitration funding

Muhammet Cap & Sehil Insaat v. Turkmenistan

ICSID arbitral tribunal · International (ICSID) · 2015 · Decided; disclosure ordered

Citation/Docket: ICSID Case No. ARB/12/6, Procedural Order No. 3 (12 June 2015); final award 4 May 2021

Parties & Funders

Posture: Respondent state vs. claimants, seeking disclosure of funding
Funder(s) involved: (funder identity confidential before the order; disclosure was the relief granted)

Background

Turkmenistan first sought funding disclosure in 2014 and was refused. It renewed the request, citing arbitrator conflict-of-interest screening, transparency, and the need to identify the true party to the case.

Holding & Outcome

The tribunal ordered the claimants to confirm whether their claims were third-party funded and, if so, to name the funder and describe the arrangements, including whether and to what extent the funder would share in any success. This is the first publicly available written ICSID order compelling funding disclosure, and it foreshadowed the mandatory disclosure now in the 2022 ICSID Arbitration Rules.

Practical Lesson

In investment arbitration, funder anonymity is largely over. Expect to name your funder, and choose one whose identity you are comfortable putting on the record.

Matters like this one often turn on expert testimony, on valuation, industry custom and practice, legal ethics, or damages. The Institute partners with world-class expert witness referral companies for this purpose.

Compiled from public sources (court filings, published opinions, and secondary reporting) as part of the Institute's Phase 1 Dispute Library research. This is educational material, not legal advice; case citations should be independently verified before relied upon.

← Back to the Dispute Library