II.

Whether Marcial Ventures Ltd and Platonial Investments are third party
funders and whether the Tribunal should order security for costs.
Rule 14
Notice of Third-Party Funding
(1) A party shall file a written notice disclosing the name and address of any non-party from
which the party, directly or indirectly, has received funds for the pursuit or defense of the
proceeding through a donation or grant, or in return for remuneration dependent on the
outcome of the proceeding ("third-partyfunding"). If the non-party providing funding is a
juridical person, the notice shall include the names of the persons and entities that own and
control that juridical person.
(2) A party shall file the notice referred to in paragraph (1) with the Secretary-General upon
registration of the Request for arbitration, or immediately upon concluding a third-party
funding arrangement after registration. The party shall immediately notify the Secretary
General of any changes to the information in the notice.
(3) The Secretary-General shall transmit the notice of third-party funding and any notification
of changes to the information in such notice to the parties and to any arbitrator proposed for
appointment or appointed in a proceeding for purposes of completing the arbitrator
declaration required by Rule 19(3)(b).
(4) The Tribunal may order disclosure of further information regarding the funding agreement
and the non-party providing funding pursuant to Rule 36(3)

RESP
[6:51 PM, 5/2/2024] +91 76785 33478(MANVI):
RESPONDENT
A more typical case was EuroGas Inc. and Belmont Resources Inc. v Slovak Republic, in
whichthe question was whether the identity of the funder should be disclosed and whether the
funder should be subject to the same confidentiality requirements as the parties. The tribunal
decided that the identity of the funder needed to be disclosed so that the arbitrators could
check whether any conflicts of interests existed and that the third-party funder would be
subject to the general obligation of confidentiality applicable (EuroGas v Slovak Republic,
Procedural Order No 3, 2015, para 23). But it did not require the disclosure of the funding
agreement or any of the funding terms. 34 In Muhammet Çap & Sehil Inşaat Endustri ve
Ticaret Ltd Sti v Turkmenistan, the tribunal went a step further and ordered the disclosure of
the existence of funding, name and details of the funder, and the terms of the funding
(Muhammet v Turkmenistan, Procedural Order No 3, 2015). It based its decision on the
tribunal’s inherent power to preserve the rights of the parties and the integrity of the process.
Importantly, the tribunal listed the reasons disclosure could be appropriate: It seems to the
Tribunal that the following factors may be relevant to justify an order for disclosure, and also
depending upon the circumstances of the case:
A. To avoid a conflict of interest for the arbitrator as a result of the third-party funder;
 B. For transparency and to identify the true party to the case.
C. For the Tribunal to fairly decide how costs should be allocated at the end of any
arbitration;
D. If there is an application for security for costs if requested; and Electronic copy
available at: [Link]
E. To ensure that confidential information which may come out during the arbitral
proceedings is not disclosed to parties with ulterior motives (Muhammet Çap v
Turkmenistan, Decision on Jurisdiction, 2015).
[Link]
article=4444&context=faculty_scholarship

 [6:53 PM, 5/2/2024] +91 76785 33478(MANVI):

5 In another example, in South American Silver v Bolivia, the claimant voluntarily

disclosed the existence of a funder. The tribunal then ordered that the funder’s identity also
be disclosed. However the tribunal rejected a request that the terms of the financing be
disclosed because that request was made in the context of a request for security of costs
and the tribunal decided that, having declined the request for security of costs, there was
no need to make a finding as to whether, under the terms of the funding agreement, the
third-party funder would assume an eventual costs award in favour of the respondent
(South American Silver v Bolivia, Procedural Order No 10, 2016).

 The Arbitral Tribunal can order Security for costs against the funded Party when it is
satisfied that the enforcement of an award on costs may prove to be difficult, with the
existence of a funder being one element to take into consideration.14 However, the use of
these exceptional measures is left at the discretion of the Tribunal, which sometimes
prefers not to muffle a meritorious claim by ordering Security for costs.
[Link]

 Respiondent- In García Armas v Venezuela, the tribunal found that the claimants’ reliance
on TPF could be a sign of lack of funds and increases the risk of inability to pay the costs;
and the fact that the funding agreement did not cover adverse costs exacerbated this risk.18
Thereby, according to the tribunal, the claimants should bear the burden to demonstrate their
capability to comply with a potential adverse award
 for the side of respindent - Azurix Corp v Argentina, ICSID Case No ARB/01/12, Decision
on Provisional Measures (6 August 2003), para 33; Biwater Gauff v Tanzania, ibid, para 86;
Occidental v Ecuador, ibid, paras 87–91. for security for cost but the requesting party must
demonstrate that there exists an imminent risk that irreparable harm might be caused to the
rights, which necessitates a provisional measure pending a final decision
 [6:09 PM, 5/7/2024] Hopeless: A recent ICSID case, RSM Production Corporation v. Saint
Lucia, dealt with the ordering of security for costs70 where a claimant is backed by a third
party funder. RSM Production Corporation, the Claimant, filed a request for arbitration with
ICSID on March 29, 2012 in accordance with the existing arbitration agreement between
the two parties, RSM Production Corporation and Saint Lucia.71 The original arbitration
agreement arose out of Saint Lucia granting an exclusive oil exploration license in an area
 off its cost to RSM production Corporation.72 Allegedly RSM’s exploration was prevented
due to border disputes between the respondent and Martinique, Barbados, and St.
Vincent.73 The Claimant insisted to its right under the Agreement that after the boundary
issues were resolved, it should be able to begin exploration.74 The Claimant asked the
tribunal to either declare the Agreement in force and valid, or to award damages based on
violation of the agreement.75 The Respondent, Santa Lucia, in turn, requested the dismissal
of claims and acknowledgment that the Respondent owed no duty to the Claimant as the
agreement expired and was no longer valid.76 The Respondent also requested that the
tribunal grant an order obligating the Claimant to provide security for costs as a provisional
measure

 [6:10 PM, 5/7/2024]Vineet: vvi The Tribunal also noted that according to precedent, security
for costs could only be ordered in exceptional cases82 requiring: “(1) necessity of the
measure to protect a certain right and (2) urgency which leaves no room for waiting for the
final award.”83 Unlike in all prior cases where the tribunal denied security for costs, here,
the Tribunal found that exceptional circumstances did exist such as the fact that RSM
currently did not posses the funds necessary to satisfy a costs award.

 [Link] For respondent's side from para 41

CLAIMANT
 [6:55 PM, 5/2/2024] +91 76785 33478(MANVI):
CLAIMANT- (b) Effect of Third-Party funding on Security for Costs
43 Third-party funding also has implications for a tribunal’s decision regarding whether or
not to order security for costs. Furthermore, as mentioned above, a complicating factor is
the question of a tribunal’s jurisdiction to issue an order for security for costs against a
funder which is a not party to the arbitration agreement nor a party to the arbitration.

44 Respondents seeking security for costs application sometimes argue that the fact that a
claimant requires third-party funding is evidence of impecuniosity which renders such a
claimant less likely to be able to satisfy an award of costs if it loses, thus necessitating a
security for costs. Conversely, claimants and funders have advanced, largely successfully,
as in South American Silver, the counterarguments that since third-party funding is largely
non-recourse (ie a losing claimant does not need to pay funder its investment back) then
such funding does not compromise a claimant’s financial position and therefore should not
factor into a determination of whether to order security for costs. Claimants and funders
have also pointed out that in a significant number of cases, third party funding is used by a
well-resourced claimant as a means of corporate finance, not by an impecunious one in
need of funding to pursue a claim, and that therefore the fact that third-party funding has
been resorted to is not an indication of inability to pay costs if those are awarded.

45 The tribunal in South American Silver v Bolivia summarized both the standard and
preceding cases on point. With respect to the economic situation of the party requesting
the security for costs, the standard established by arbitral tribunals, both in ICSID and
UNCITRAL cases, when considering the lack of resources, varies, but is very high. Thus,
for example, in EuroGas v Slovak Republic […] the tribunal rejected the request for
 security for costs reaffirming the decision of other tribunals (including of RSM v Saint
Lucia) that it is necessary to prove the exceptional circumstances, and that it had not been
proven that the claimant had failed to make the payments in the arbitration or in other
arbitrations, and noting also that neither the financial difficulties nor the fact of having
third-party funding constitutes per se exceptional circumstances warranting security for
costs (South American Silver v Bolivia, Procedural Order No 10, 2016, para 61).

 Investment definition for claimant side

 [4:58 PM, 5/5/2024] Our line of arguing will be
[4:58 PM, 5/5/2024]: Ki yeh time of investment ka matlab nii hai
[4:59 PM, 5/5/2024] VINEET: Hm investors hai granters nii
 [Link] This is explicable by the demanding
requirement for such an order.8 According to several arbitral decisions, to order SfC, a
tribunal must be satisfied that a significant risk of the respondent’s inability to recover costs
exists, and that such an order will not impede the claimant’s right to prosecute the case. With
the aforementioned risk posed by TPF, one significant question is whether, and to what
extent, a claimant’s reliance on TPF justifies an order of SfC.
 Should an Arbitral Tribunal Order Security for Costs When an Impecunious Claimant Is
Relying upon Third-Party Funding?
[Link]
JOIA2013002
 [Link]
award-claimant-the-costs-of-third-party-funding/
 in arguendo for the side of claimant In RSM v Saint Lucia, arbitrator Gavan Griffith also
maintained that: ‘unless there are particular reasons militating to the contrary, exceptional
circumstances may be found to justify security of costs orders arising under BIT claims as
against a third-party funder, related or unrelated, which does not proffer adequate security for
adverse cost orders
 from the side of claimant regarding the SFC Victor Pey Casado and President Allende
Foundation v Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No ARB/98/2,existing cases where the
respondent requested SfC, a major reason why tribunals declined the request was the
respondent’s failure to establish the claimant’s inability or unwillingness to pay

 [Link]
[6:08 PM, 5/6/2024]: hmara claimant ke side se is issue ka ek part pura ho gya
[6:08 PM, 5/6/2024] VINEET: isse
[6:09 PM, 5/6/2024]: isme bola gya hai ki THird party funding can not be the resason jiske
karan hm Security for cost le skte
[6:09 PM, 5/6/2024]: done hai yeh

 [12:27 PM, 5/10/2024] +91 76785 33478: issue 2 - Security of costs

 [Link] claimant's stance from para 48
On the basis of the above, the Tribunal dismisses the Claimants’ Application for a Partial
Award.
b) The Respondent’s Second Request for Security for Costs
68. In its First Decision on SFC, the Tribunal determined that the factors relevant to its
determination would include:
(i) a claimant’s track record of non-payment of cost awards in prior proceedings;
(ii) a claimant’s improper behavior in the proceedings at issue, such as conduct that interferes
with the efficient and orderly conduct of the proceedings; (iii) evidence of a claimant moving
or hiding assets to avoid any potential exposure to a cost award; or (iv) other evidence of a
claimant’s bad faith or improper behavior. The Tribunal also observed that other factors, such
as third-party funding or a claimant’s serious and proven financial difficulties, may also play
a role in the assessment of whether security for costs should be ordered. However, those
factors should be assessed in the context of all other relevant circumstances and would
typically not, in and of themselves, constitute a sufficient basis for such an order.5

 [12:33 PM, 5/10/2024] +91 76785 33478: ruled in favour of claimants