Since 2010, the Global Law Experts annual awards have been celebrating excellence, innovation and performance across the legal communities from around the world.
posted 3 hours ago
Litigation funding in Taiwan has moved from a theoretical curiosity to an actionable tool for foreign businesses, creditors and insolvency practitioners pursuing commercial claims in the jurisdiction. Although Taiwan has no dedicated statute that either authorises or prohibits third‑party funding, the practice is generally permitted under existing principles of freedom of contract, and 2026 practice‑guide updates from leading legal directories confirm growing market activity. This guide distils the current legal position, procedural risks, funder‑agreement drafting essentials and cross‑border enforcement tactics into a single, practitioner‑led resource.
Whether you are considering litigation finance for a high‑value breach‑of‑contract claim, evaluating a funded settlement offer from an opposing party, or advising an insolvency estate on monetising dormant claims, the analysis below provides the decision framework you need.
Third‑party funding is not expressly prohibited in Taiwan. No statute bans a non‑party from financing another party’s litigation in exchange for a share of the proceeds, and the concepts of maintenance and champerty, which historically restricted funding in common‑law jurisdictions, have no direct equivalent in the Taiwanese civil‑law system. The permissibility of the arrangement rests on general principles of contractual freedom under the Civil Code and the absence of any specific prohibition in the Code of Civil Procedure or the Arbitration Act.
Taiwan’s Code of Civil Procedure governs court litigation, while the Arbitration Act provides the framework for domestic and international arbitral proceedings. Neither statute contains provisions that expressly address third‑party funding. The Civil Code, as published in English translation on the Ministry of Justice’s laws.moj.gov.tw portal, establishes broad freedom of contract under its general obligations chapters, and a litigation funding agreement is treated as a sui generis contract subject to those general rules. The Arbitration Act similarly does not restrict the sources from which a party may obtain the resources to pursue or defend a claim, leaving the question to contractual autonomy and tribunal discretion.
In the absence of specific legislation, court and arbitral practice shapes the real‑world landscape for litigation finance in Taiwan. The Judicial Yuan’s Commercial Court, established to handle high‑value commercial disputes more efficiently, has not issued a formal ruling declaring third‑party funding impermissible. Practice guides published by ICLG and Chambers & Partners in their 2026 editions both note that Taiwan does not prohibit third‑party funding, while also cautioning that the regulatory environment remains largely uncodified. Industry observers expect that as funded claims increase, procedural guidance on disclosure and costs allocation will follow, potentially through Judicial Yuan administrative directions rather than formal legislative amendment.
In arbitration, tribunal practice has been influenced by international norms. Arbitrators seated in Taiwan who apply institutional rules, such as the ICC or CAM‑CCBC rules, may draw on those institutions’ guidance regarding funder disclosure. The Delos Guide to Arbitration Places (GAP) for Taiwan notes that ethical obligations on counsel and tribunal independence may require voluntary disclosure in certain circumstances, even absent an explicit rule.
The 2026 practice landscape reflects incremental developments rather than sweeping reform. Updated practice guides from Chambers and ICLG confirm that the market is maturing, with an increasing number of funded claims in commercial breach, intellectual‑property and shareholder disputes. Industry observers note that legislative proposals to regulate third‑party funding have been discussed at the Ministry of Justice level, though no draft bill has been formally introduced. An important ethical consideration remains: Taiwanese attorneys are restricted from taking a share of the object of the lawsuit as their fee, which distinguishes funding arrangements from contingency‑fee structures and shapes how funder‑lawyer interactions are structured in practice.
Practical takeaway: Litigation funding is available in Taiwan, but the absence of a bespoke regulatory framework means that contractual protections and clear disclosure strategies are essential for foreign claimants entering funded arrangements.
Funders are selective. Understanding which case profiles attract capital, and at which stages, helps foreign businesses evaluate whether their Taiwan dispute is a realistic candidate for litigation finance.
Institutional funders typically look for claims with a minimum value threshold, strong merits and a respondent with identifiable, enforceable assets. In the Taiwan market, the dispute types that most commonly attract funder interest include:
Funders may provide capital at virtually any stage, but their appetite varies. Pre‑suit investigation and case assessment often attract funding where the funder can influence the litigation strategy from inception. Post‑filing, funders evaluate claims during the early‑merits phase, before significant costs have been incurred. Appellate funding is rarer because it introduces a second layer of outcome uncertainty, although it may be available for high‑value claims with favourable first‑instance judgments. Enforcement‑stage funding, where a creditor has a judgment but lacks resources to execute, is an emerging segment of the funded litigation cross‑border market.
The Taiwan litigation funding market includes several funder categories:
Practical takeaway: If your claim is valued below the funder’s minimum threshold, consider portfolio funding, bundling multiple claims to reach the capital commitment level funders require.
The funder agreement is the most consequential document in any funded claim. In Taiwan, where no statutory template exists, contractual precision is the funded party’s primary protection. Below is a clause‑by‑clause guide for foreign claimants entering a litigation funder agreement.
Every agreement should address six core areas. The funding amount and scope clause must define exactly which stages of the dispute the funder is financing, filing fees, counsel fees, expert costs, enforcement, and cap the funder’s total commitment. The recovery‑share clause specifies the funder’s return, typically expressed as a multiple of deployed capital or a percentage of the gross or net recovery. Foreign claimants should insist on a “net recovery” definition that deducts enforcement costs before the funder’s share is calculated.
Decision‑rights and control clauses deserve particular scrutiny. International best‑practice principles, such as those published by the European Law Institute (ELI), recommend that the funded party retain final decision‑making authority over key litigation steps, including the decision to settle. A settlement‑consent clause should require the funder to obtain the funded party’s written consent before accepting or rejecting any settlement offer, and, critically, the reverse obligation should also apply. The clause should specify the consequences of unreasonably withholding consent, including termination rights and cost‑allocation fallback provisions.
Funders often require security over the proceeds of the claim. In Taiwan, this can take the form of a contractual assignment of the right to receive proceeds (subject to Civil Code assignment rules) or a charge over a designated account. Foreign claimants should ensure that any security interest is structured so it does not inadvertently transfer standing to the funder, which could raise procedural issues before Taiwanese courts. Priority provisions should also be addressed: if multiple creditors have claims against the recovery, the agreement must define the waterfall (expenses first, then funder return, then funded party’s share).
Robust governance clauses protect both sides. The funded party should be obligated to provide periodic case updates, while the funder should commit to maintaining adequate capital reserves. Adverse‑costs indemnities, where the funder agrees to cover any costs orders made against the funded party, are standard in common‑law jurisdictions and should be negotiated into Taiwan agreements even though the adverse‑costs risk is lower in the civil‑law system. Termination triggers must be clearly defined: material adverse change in case merits, funded‑party breach, and funder insolvency should all be enumerated, along with the financial consequences of each.
Foreign claimants evaluating litigation funding for foreign claimants in Taiwan should watch for several red flags: unilateral funder settlement authority, portfolio‑recall clauses that allow the funder to terminate funding based on the performance of unrelated cases, vague expense definitions and the absence of an adverse‑costs indemnity. Negotiation leverage is strongest before signing; once litigation is underway, switching funders is costly and disruptive.
| Clause | Recommended Approach | Risk if Missing |
|---|---|---|
| Funding amount and scope | Fixed commitment covering defined stages (filing through enforcement); cap on total outlay | Funder may refuse to cover enforcement costs or appeal, leaving funded party exposed mid‑case |
| Recovery share | Percentage of net recovery after deduction of enforcement and legal costs | Gross‑recovery basis inflates the funder’s share and reduces the claimant’s actual return |
| Settlement consent | Mutual written consent required; reasonableness standard; fallback dispute mechanism | Funder dictates settlement terms, potentially accepting a low offer to secure quick return |
| Control / decision rights | Funded party retains final authority over all key litigation decisions | Funder effectively becomes shadow litigant, raising ethical and procedural risks |
| Adverse‑costs indemnity | Funder indemnifies funded party for any adverse costs order by court or tribunal | Funded party bears unexpected costs liability if the claim fails |
| Termination triggers | Enumerated grounds (merits deterioration, breach, insolvency) with defined financial consequences | Funder withdraws funding at a critical stage with no obligation to cover incurred costs |
| Portfolio recall | Exclude or limit; any recall right should not apply before a defined milestone (e.g., close of evidence) | Funder pulls capital because unrelated portfolio cases underperform, funded party left stranded |
Practical takeaway: Treat the funder agreement as you would a shareholders’ agreement, negotiate hard on governance, consent and exit provisions before you commit.
Disclosure of a funding arrangement, and the funder’s influence on settlement, are two of the most sensitive practical questions in any funded case. Taiwan’s litigation funding rules remain largely uncodified in this area, which makes strategic planning essential.
Taiwanese courts do not currently impose a mandatory disclosure obligation on parties who have obtained third‑party funding. Neither the Code of Civil Procedure nor any Judicial Yuan directive expressly requires a party to disclose the existence, identity or terms of a funder. In practice, opposing parties may request disclosure through procedural motions, for example, by arguing that the funder’s involvement is relevant to a security‑for‑costs application or to the court’s assessment of the parties’ conduct. Early indications suggest that courts will handle such requests on a case‑by‑case basis, applying general procedural fairness principles rather than a bright‑line rule.
Foreign claimants should prepare a disclosure strategy before filing: decide in advance what information you are willing to disclose voluntarily (the existence and identity of the funder) and what you will resist disclosing (the financial terms and recovery share).
Arbitration practice is further along. Many institutional arbitration rules, including the ICC’s 2021 revisions and SIAC and HKIAC practice notes, require or encourage disclosure of third‑party funding to the tribunal and, in some cases, to the opposing party. Where an arbitration is seated in Taiwan and administered under such rules, the duty to disclose typically arises at the outset of proceedings. The Delos GAP for Taiwan flags the interaction between funder disclosure and arbitrator independence: if a funder has a financial interest in the outcome, tribunals may need that information to assess potential conflicts of interest.
Foreign claimants seated in Taiwan arbitration should treat disclosure as a practical default and focus negotiation energy on limiting the scope of what is disclosed, identity, not terms.
When a funded case settles, the settlement agreement must account for the funder’s contractual rights. Best practice, consistent with the ELI Principles on third‑party funding, is to include a “funder release” clause in the settlement agreement: the settling defendant confirms that the settlement amount will be paid into a designated account from which the funder’s share is distributed according to the funder agreement’s waterfall. This avoids post‑settlement disputes between the funded party and the funder over the timing and quantum of the funder’s return. Draft the settlement consent mechanism in the funder agreement at the outset, not at the point of settlement.
Practical takeaway: Proactive disclosure and a pre‑agreed settlement‑consent mechanism reduce procedural surprises and protect the funded party’s credibility with the court or tribunal.
For foreign businesses and creditors, the ultimate value of a funded claim depends on whether the resulting judgment or award can be enforced, in Taiwan and, if necessary, in other jurisdictions where the defendant holds assets.
Domestic enforcement of a final Taiwan court judgment follows the procedures set out in the Compulsory Enforcement Act, administered through the district courts. The winning party applies for an enforcement order, identifies the debtor’s assets and the court directs seizure, attachment or auction. Arbitral awards rendered under the Arbitration Act are enforced by filing an application with the court, which examines limited grounds for refusal (procedural irregularity, public policy, lack of a valid arbitration agreement). The Judicial Yuan’s official procedural guidance confirms that awards that meet the statutory requirements are generally enforced without re‑examination of the merits.
A foreign creditor who obtains a Taiwan judgment and needs to enforce it abroad faces a jurisdiction‑by‑jurisdiction analysis. Taiwan is not a party to any multilateral treaty on the recognition of court judgments, so enforcement depends on bilateral reciprocity arrangements or the domestic law of the enforcing state. Arbitral awards are better positioned: Taiwan’s Arbitration Act largely mirrors the New York Convention framework, and awards rendered in Taiwan can generally be enforced in New York Convention contracting states, subject to local procedural requirements. This distinction, stronger cross‑border enforceability for awards than for judgments, is a critical factor when structuring funded litigation cross‑border.
Foreign claimants should build enforcement‑readiness into the funder agreement and the underlying dispute resolution clause from the start. Key drafting steps include:
| Obligation | Courts (Taiwan) | Arbitration (Taiwan‑seated) | Cross‑Border Enforcement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disclosure of funder identity | No mandatory rule; case‑by‑case judicial discretion | Often required under institutional rules (ICC, SIAC, HKIAC) | May be required by enforcing jurisdiction’s rules |
| Disclosure of funder terms | Not typically required; may be ordered on application | Usually limited to identity; terms rarely compelled | Varies by jurisdiction; privilege arguments available |
| Security for costs | Available under CPC; funder identity may be relevant | Tribunal discretion; funder’s presence may reduce risk of order | Enforcing court may require security before recognition proceedings |
| Practical mitigation | Prepare voluntary disclosure brief; limit scope | Disclose identity proactively; protect terms via confidentiality | Structure award for New York Convention enforcement; pre‑identify assets |
Practical takeaway: Arbitration offers the most robust enforcement pathway for funded claims with a Taiwan connection, structure your dispute resolution clause accordingly.
Before accepting litigation funding in Taiwan, in‑house counsel should systematically work through the following decision framework and timeline.
| Phase | Indicative Timeframe | Key Activity |
|---|---|---|
| Pre‑suit assessment | Months 0–3 | Merits analysis, funder approach, term‑sheet negotiation |
| Funder agreement execution | Months 3–5 | Finalise funder agreement; engage Taiwan counsel; prepare filings |
| Filing and early procedure | Months 5–8 | File claim or request for arbitration; opponent’s response; disclosure |
| Evidence and merits hearing | Months 8–18 | Document production, witness statements, oral hearing |
| Judgment or award | Months 18–22 | Decision issued; assess appeal or enforcement options |
| Enforcement | Months 22–24+ | Domestic enforcement or cross‑border recognition; funder recovery distribution |
Practical takeaway: Allow at least five months for funder due diligence and agreement negotiation, rushing this phase creates contractual risk that compounds throughout the life of the case.
Litigation funding in Taiwan interacts with several cost‑related rules that foreign claimants must navigate carefully. First, Taiwanese attorneys are restricted from entering into pactum de quota litis arrangements, that is, taking a share of the subject matter of the lawsuit as their fee. This means that while a funder may receive a share of the recovery, the lawyer cannot. Fee structures must be carefully ring‑fenced to ensure compliance with Taiwan Bar Association ethical guidance.
Court costs in Taiwan are generally proportional to the amount in dispute, paid upfront by the plaintiff. The funder agreement should specify who bears these costs and whether they are recoverable from the defendant under a costs order. Security‑for‑costs applications are available under the Code of Civil Procedure and may be directed at foreign claimants; the existence of a well‑capitalised funder can mitigate the risk of such an order, but courts retain discretion.
On taxation, recoveries paid to foreign entities may be subject to Taiwan withholding tax depending on the characterisation of the payment. Funder fees structured as a share of litigation proceeds could be treated as Taiwan‑source income if the underlying claim arose from Taiwan‑based commercial activity. Foreign claimants should obtain specific tax advice before finalising the funder agreement’s payment waterfall, including consideration of any applicable double‑taxation agreements. For broader context on international commercial disputes, consult specialist counsel in both jurisdictions.
Practical takeaway: Ensure the fee structure separates lawyer fees from funder returns and obtain tax advice on the withholding‑tax implications of cross‑border recovery distributions.
Litigation funding in Taiwan is legally available, commercially viable and increasingly relevant for foreign businesses and creditors with high‑value claims. The absence of a bespoke regulatory framework means that the funder agreement, its consent provisions, disclosure strategy, enforcement mechanics and governing law, carries disproportionate importance. Foreign claimants should approach third‑party funding Taiwan engagements with the same contractual rigour they would apply to a joint‑venture agreement: negotiate hard on control, settlement consent and termination; prepare a disclosure strategy calibrated to your chosen forum; and structure the claim for arbitration wherever possible to maximise cross‑border enforceability. The practical checklists and clause guidance in this article provide a starting framework, but every funded claim requires jurisdiction‑specific legal advice.
To connect with experienced Taiwan commercial litigation counsel, visit the Global Law Experts lawyer directory and filter by Taiwan and Commercial Litigation.
This article was produced by Global Law Experts. For specialist advice on this topic, contact Wei Yang-Hung at Apollo Attorneys at Law, a member of the Global Law Experts network.
Find the right Legal Expert for your business
Sign up for the latest advisor briefings and news within Global Advisory Experts’ community, as well as a whole host of features, editorial and conference updates direct to your email inbox.
Naturally you can unsubscribe at any time.
Global Advisory Experts is dedicated to providing exceptional advisory services to clients around the world. With a vast network of highly skilled and experienced advisors, we are committed to delivering innovative and tailored solutions to meet the diverse needs of our clients in various jurisdictions.
