There is no Bangladeshi statute that expressly permits or prohibits third-party funding of arbitration, and the issue has not been widely tested in the local courts. Bangladesh inherited common law principles, and questions of public policy under contract law could in theory be raised. In practice, the lawfulness of the arrangement is assessed mainly under the law governing the funding agreement and the law of the seat. Many funded arbitrations involving Bangladeshi parties are seated in jurisdictions with clear rules, such as Singapore or England. We assess the structure against each relevant law before any agreement is signed.

Funders generally look for claims with strong merits, substantial value relative to the expected costs, and a credible route to recovery against a respondent with reachable assets. Construction and EPC claims, investment treaty claims, energy disputes, shareholder disputes and large commercial contract claims are typical examples. A funder will also consider the quality of the legal team, the budget, the timetable and the risks of enforcement. Claims against respondents whose assets are hard to reach may be less attractive. We help clients present their claim in a way that answers these questions clearly and honestly.

It depends on the rules and the tribunal's directions. Several institutional rules now require disclosure of the existence of funding and the funder's identity, mainly so that arbitrators can check for conflicts of interest. Investment treaty rules, including the ICSID rules, contain similar requirements. Disclosure of the funding agreement's terms is a separate question and is usually ordered only where relevant to a specific issue, such as security for costs. We advise on the applicable rules at the outset and plan disclosure so that it is accurate, timely and no wider than required.

Not automatically. Tribunals consider all the circumstances, including the claimant's financial position, whether the funder has agreed to cover adverse costs, the stage of the case and the risk that an order would stifle a genuine claim. The existence of third-party funding can be a relevant factor, particularly if the funder is not liable for adverse costs, but it is not decisive. We prepare evidence on these points, whether we act for the applicant or the respondent, and we advise on practical forms of security if an order is made by the tribunal.

That depends on the agreement. Reputable funders usually accept that the client and its lawyers control the conduct of the case, but they often require regular reporting, approval of budget changes and a say in settlement decisions, sometimes through a dispute mechanism if client and funder disagree. Termination rights may allow the funder to stop funding in defined situations. We negotiate these terms carefully, because unclear control or settlement provisions can create conflict at the most important moments of a case, including when a settlement offer arrives.

Most institutional rules give the tribunal discretion to allocate costs, and many tribunals apply a general approach under which the unsuccessful party bears a significant share of the successful party's reasonable costs. Tribunals also consider each party's conduct, including whether it acted efficiently or caused unnecessary delay. Whether a funded party can recover the funder's return as costs is a separate and contested question that depends on the rules, the seat and the tribunal. We prepare costs submissions that are well documented and persuasive, supported by records kept throughout the case.

Yes. State-owned enterprises and government bodies in Bangladesh that enter commercial contracts with foreign parties may face funded claims in commercial or investment treaty arbitration. Funders are often interested in claims against state-linked respondents because of their perceived ability to pay. For such respondents, we advise on disclosure applications, security for costs, sovereign immunity issues and costs strategy, and on how funding may affect settlement negotiations and approval processes within government. Early engagement with the relevant ministries and authorities helps avoid delay in decisions that require formal approval.

Yes. Options include after-the-event insurance against adverse costs, staged or capped fee arrangements with counsel, portfolio funding across several claims, monetising an award after it is made, and reducing cost through expedited procedures, early mediation or a narrower case. Some institutional rules provide expedited procedures for lower-value claims. The right combination depends on the client's cash position, risk appetite and commercial goals. We set out the alternatives side by side so the client can choose the approach that delivers the best net outcome over the life of the dispute.