Hong Kong’s new stablecoin regulatory regime came in force in August 2025, supervised by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA). With this latest addition, financial institutions supervised by the HKMA now extend to: (i) authorized institutions (i.e. banks (conventional banks and digital banks) and deposit-taking companies), (ii) stored value facility licensees and (iii) licensed stablecoin issuers11. All these financial institutions are required to comply with anti-money laundering and counter-financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) obligations under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance, Cap.615 Laws of Hong Kong (AMLO). This legal update provides a high level comparison of AML/CFT obligations on these three kinds of licensees – licensed stablecoin issuers (“SIs”), authorized institutions (“AIs”) and stored value facility licensees (“SVFs”). By comparison following the life cycle of a stablecoin transaction, it explains how AML/CFT compliance under the stablecoin regime measures up to obligations applicable to AIs or SVFs. Key AML/CFT obligations comparison Stage in life cycle SIs AIs and SVFs Preparatory – risk assessment Adopt a risk-based approach (RBA) Identify, assess and understand the money laundering and terrorist financing risks (ML/TF risks) associated with its stablecoin activities Design and implement AML/CFT measures, policies, procedures and controls commensurate with the ML/TF risks to manage and mitigate them effectively (collectively, “AML/CFT Systems”) ML/TF risks assessment should: consider customer risk factor; country risk factors; product, service or transaction risk factors; and delivery channel risk factors to assess ML/TF vulnerabilities follow a structured process and be properly documented, with qualitative and quantitative analysis to support the identification and assessment of the relevant risks take account of all relevant risk factors before determining the overall risk level and the appropriate type and level of mitigation have assessment results approved by senior management have a process in place for keeping the risk assessment up-to-date, including assessing and identifying ML/TF risks in the development or use of new products, new business practices, new delivery mechanisms, or technologies, before launch have appropriate mechanisms to provide the risk assessment to the HKMA when required consider risks identified in other published risk assessments (e.g. Hong Kong’s jurisdiction-wide ML/TF risk assessment) and higher risks notified by the HKMA or law enforcement agencies from time to time Equivalent obligations apply in assessing ML/TF risks and implementing effective AML/CFT Systems Customer due diligence (CDD) – when to perform? Before establishing business relationship with a customer Before carrying out an occasional transaction (e.g. issuing or redeeming stablecoin) involving an amount equal to HK$8,000 or above for a customer Whenever suspicion arises that the customer or its account is engaged in ML/TF Whenever doubts arise over the veracity or adequacy of information previously obtained for identifying or verifying the customer’s identity Equivalent obligations apply with some variations in operational details CDD – targets Stablecoin holder Where stablecoin holder is not a natural person: beneficial owner(s) (i.e. any natural person who ultimately has an ownership interest of more than 25%, or any natural person exercising control of the stablecoin holder or its management) director(s) person purporting to act on behalf of the stablecoin holder (“PPTA”) Permitted offeror(s) appointed by the SI (if any) for offering the stablecoins issued by the SI are customers of the SI, for CDD purposes Equivalent obligations apply, although “permitted offeror(s)” of stablecoins is specific to the stablecoin regime CDD – what are the measures? Identify and verify a customer’s identity using documents, data or information provided by a reliable and independent source Obtain information on the purpose and intended nature of the customer’s activities relating to stablecoin Identify and verify the identity of any PPTA and his/her authority to act on behalf of the customer Information to be obtained on a natural person include: full name date of birth nationality residential address unique identification number and identity document type Information to be obtained on a legal person other than a natural person: full name date and place of incorporation, establishment or registration unique identification number and identification document type principal place of business or registered office address Equivalent obligations apply with respect to AI or SVF customers and their activities CDD – non-face-to-face or remote channel Verify the identity of a customer based on data or information provided by a digital identification system that is a reliable and independent source recognised by the HKMA Employ appropriate technology solutions to mitigate risks (particularly, impersonation risks), which should cover: identity authentication – to ensure reliability of the data or information obtained through electronic channels identity matching – to link the natural person customer incontrovertibly to the identity data and information obtained for identity authentication Equivalent obligations apply Simplified due diligence (SDD) and enhanced due diligence (EDD) SDD applies where ML/TF risks are low EDD should be applied where ML/TF risks are high, such as on a customer defined as a politically exposed person (PEP) Senior management approval should be obtained to establish or continue a business relationship that presents a high MF/TF risk Equivalent arrangements and obligations apply CDD – reliance on performance by intermediaries CDD performance may be outsourced to certain intermediaries such as a qualified accountant or lawyer; licensed or authorized entity supervised by the HKMA, Securities and Futures Commission or the Insurance Authority; or permitted overseas intermediary SI remains ultimately responsible for CDD compliance SI must satisfy conditions and requirements applicable to outsourcing of CDD Equivalent arrangements and obligations apply CDD – customer’s wallet If SI does not provide custodial services, the stablecoin holder has to use a wallet provided by a licensed or regulated custodian, or an unhosted wallet (sometimes also referred to as self-hosted wallet) to receive stablecoins from the SI or return stablecoins to the SI at redemption SI should manage ML/TF risks associated with wallets used by customers SI should follow additional HKMA guidance to manage ML/TF risks associated with the decentralised nature and lack of regulatory oversight of unhosted wallets Stablecoin wallet and related obligations are specific to the stablecoin regime Ongoing monitoring of business relationship, transactions and stablecoins in circulation SI should continuously monitor its business relationship with a customer in two aspects: ongoing CDD transaction monitoring SI should examine and keep records of the background and purpose of a customer’s transactions to recognise and identify grounds for suspicion such as: transactions that are complex, unusually large in amount or of an unusual pattern, or have no apparent economic or lawful purpose transactions that are inconsistent with the SI’s knowledge of the customer or the customer’s business, risk profile or source of funds transactions involving wallet addresses that are directly or indirectly associated with illicit or suspicious activities/sources, or designated parties The blockchain technology enables instantaneous and automatic recording of on-chain stablecoin transactions. SI may apply various measures to guard against the risks of stablecoins being used for illicit activities, including: using technological solutions, such as blockchain analytic tools, to screen stablecoin transactions and associated wallet addresses beyond the primary distribution venue on an ongoing basis blacklisting sanctioned wallet addresses or those associated with illicit activities freezing stablecoins promptly upon request from regulators or law enforcement agencies, or court orders Effectiveness of the ML/TF risk mitigating measures for stablecoin activities is yet to be proven. The HKMA therefore expects SIs to adopt a cautious approach in assessing the adequacy of their AML/CFT Systems, in particular, concerning peer-to-peer transfers between unhosted wallets. Unless an SI can demonstrate to the HKMA’s satisfaction that these risk mitigating measures are effective, the identity of each individual stablecoin holder should be verified (i) by the SI even if the holder has no customer relationship with the SI, (ii) by an appropriately supervised financial institution or virtual asset service provider or (iii) by a reliable third party Equivalent obligations apply, although arrangements relating to stablecoins, blockchain and stablecoin wallets are specific to the stablecoin regime Stablecoin transfers Travel rule All reasonable measures should be taken to ensure proper safeguards are in place to mitigate ML/TF risks associated with stablecoin transfers, to enable the SI to effectively carry out sanctions screening and transaction monitoring procedures on all relevant parties involved in a stablecoin transfer A stablecoin transfer typically involves the originator, the ordering institution acting on behalf of the originator, the recipient, the beneficiary institution at which the recipient receives the stablecoin and other intermediary institutions Depending on its business model, an SI may act as the ordering institution, beneficiary institution or other intermediary institution in a stablecoin transfer, and the SI should follow requirements applicable to the respective roles Major requirements on the ordering institution include: obtaining and recording the following information: originator’s name number of the originator’s account maintained with the ordering institution and from which the stablecoins are transferred (or a unique reference number assigned to the stablecoin transfer by the ordering institution) for transfers involving an amount not less than HK$8,000, the originator’s address, customer identification number, and (for an individual originator) date and place of birth the recipient’s name, number of the recipient’s account maintained with the beneficiary institution and to which the stablecoins are transferred (or a unique reference number assigned to the stablecoin transfer by the beneficiary institution) submitting the information obtained to the beneficiary institution securely and immediately Major requirements on the beneficiary institution include: obtaining and recording the required information submitted to it by the ordering institution for a transfer involving an amount not less than HK$8,000, verifying the identity of the recipient if not previously verified as part of its CDD process Complying with additional requirements for stablecoin transfers involving unhosted wallets (other than P2P transfers between non-customer stablecoin holders): before sending stablecoins to an unhosted wallet on behalf of its customer, obtain and record the following information from the customer: originator’s name number of the originator’s account maintained with the SI and from which stablecoins are transferred (or other unique reference number assigned to the stablecoin transfer by the SI) originator’s address, customer identification number, and (for an individual originator) date and place of birth recipient’s name and wallet address before receiving stablecoins from an unhosted wallet on behalf of its customer, obtain and record the following information from the customer: originator’s name and wallet address originator’s address, customer identification number, and (for an individual originator) date and place of birth recipient’s name and the number of the recipient’s account maintained with the SI and to which stablecoins are transferred (or other unique reference number assigned to the stablecoin transfer by the SI) Equivalent travel rule applies to SVFs Other ongoing obligations Staff training provide adequate training to staff to implement AML/CFT Systems tailor scope and frequency of training according to the job functions, responsibilities and level of experience of the staff Suspicious transaction reporting must file suspicious transaction report (STR) with the Joint Financial Intelligence Unit (JFIU) as soon as reasonable if an SI knows or suspects that any property: (i) in whole or in part directly or indirectly represents any person’s proceeds of, (ii) was used in connection with, or (iii) is intended to be used in connection with drug trafficking or an indictable offence; or that any property is terrorist property should promptly undertake further investigation and analysis on identifying any stablecoin transactions or associated wallet addresses that are directly and/or indirectly associated with illicit or suspicious activities/sources, or designated parties. Any grounds for suspecting transactions should be reported to the JFIU, taking appropriate follow-up actions as required Record keeping SI should keep: CDD information (including analysis results and ongoing monitoring records), transaction records and other records necessary and sufficient to meet statutory and regulatory requirements establish and maintain records of all ML/TF reports made to its Money Laundering Reporting Officer establish and maintain a record of all STRs made to the JFIU Record-keeping period is typically at least five years: CDD, account and business relationship records should not only be kept throughout the business relationship with the customer but also for at least five years after the end of the business relationship, or (applicable to occasional transactions) for at least five years after the transaction is completed Information and records relating to a stablecoin transfer should be retained for at least five years after completion of the transfer, regardless of whether the business relationship ends during that period The HKMA may, by written notice, require the SI to keep records relating to a specified transaction or customer for a longer period, where the records are relevant to an ongoing criminal or HKMA investigation, or for any other purpose specified in the notice Where CDD is outsourced to an intermediary, the SI remains responsible for complying with record-keeping requirements – ensuring that the intermediary has systems in place to comply with all record-keeping requirements, and that documents and records will be provided by the intermediary as soon as reasonably practicable upon the SI’s request and upon termination of the intermediary’s service Equivalent obligations apply

JSM’s fireside chat, “Arbitration in Hong Kong: From foundations to frontiers”, held on 23 October as part of the 2025 Hong Kong Arbitration Week was a resounding success, with a full house of over 110 in-person attendees. Our esteemed panellist enlightened us with stories and reflections from the early days of arbitration in Hong Kong to the modern era, illustrating how the robust early foundations paved the way for the city’s modern arbitration success story. We are especially proud of JSM’s significant role in this journey, highlighting the impactful contributions of two highly-regarded figures in shaping Hong Kong’s arbitration history: Brian Tisdall and the late Robin Peard JP, both former partners of JSM. Special thank you to The Hon. Geoffrey Ma GBM KC SC (Former Chief Justice of Hong Kong, Arbitrator & Mediator of Temple Chambers), Neil Kaplan CBE KC SBS (Independent Arbitrator), Ian Pennicott SC KC (Arbitrator & Counsel of Des Voeux Chambers & Keating Chambers), Dr. Thomas So JP (Arbitrator & Managing Partner of Grandall Zimmern), Queenie Lau SC (Arbitrator & Counsel of Temple Chambers and Member of HKIAC Appointments Committee), Joanne Lau (Secretary General of the HKIAC) – for delivering such an engaging and insightful panel discussion. We also extend our gratitude to our senior partner Terence Tung for delivering the opening remarks about JSM and the HKIAC’s shared heritage in the early history of institutional arbitration in Hong Kong, and to senior associate Jessica van der Kamp for her outstanding moderation of the session.

We are delighted to present the third issue of the JSM International Arbitration Newsletter, continuing our commitment to delivering timely insights into key developments shaping the arbitration landscape in Hong Kong, Chinese Mainland and beyond. This edition covers the period from July to September 2025, spotlighting recent judgments from Hong Kong, Chinese Mainland, Singapore and the UK. These cases underscore the evolving judicial attitudes toward procedural efficiency, enforcement of arbitral awards and the continued alignment of regional arbitration frameworks with international standards. In addition to case law analysis, this issue explores industry trends and legislative updates, in particular the amendments to the PRC Arbitration Law. Whether you’re a seasoned practitioner or new to the field, we hope this newsletter remains your go-to resource for arbitration news and perspectives. Notable Hong Kong cases | Mainland arbitration updates | Overseas jurisdictions observations  Hong Kong court refuses to grant anti-suit injunction in first application to restrain Cayman winding-up proceedings in favour of arbitration Hyalroute Communication Group Limited v Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (Asia) Ltd [2025] HKCFI 2417 1 August 2025 Summary: The plaintiff sought an anti-suit injunction to restrain winding-up proceedings commenced by the defendant in the Cayman Islands in favour of arbitration in Hong Kong. The relevant arbitration clause provided that any disputes arising out of or in connection with a term facility agreement (“TFA”) between the parties were to be referred to and “finally resolved” by binding arbitration administered by the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre. The Hong Kong Court of First Instance found that the clause imposed (i) an obligation on the parties to have disputes finally resolved by arbitration; and (ii) an obligation not to have disputes finally resolved in a forum not stipulated by the contract. The issue was therefore whether the Cayman winding-up proceedings would have the effect of finally resolving the dispute on the plaintiff’s indebtedness under the TFA. The court held that Cayman law must be considered in determining this question — and that Cayman law does not view a winding-up petition as substantively or finally resolving a dispute. The defendant’s offshore petition therefore did not fall within the scope of the arbitration clause and the plaintiff’s anti-suit injunction application was dismissed.  Takeaway: The decision is a notable addition to developing case law around the interplay between arbitration and insolvency proceedings. While the outcome seems to reflect a creditor-friendly approach, it flows from the court’s consideration of the use of the words “finally resolved” in the arbitration clause – and whether Cayman law views winding-up proceedings as finally resolving a dispute. Therefore, parties seeking to restrain foreign winding-up proceedings should be mindful of the scope of the arbitration agreement as indicated in its express language and whether the offshore proceedings are caught by the arbitration agreement. Link to judgment Link to our full legal update Hong Kong court adopts UK Supreme Court and Privy Council’s jurisprudence in staying unfair prejudice petition for arbitration Re Sirnaomics Limited [2025] HKCFI 4284 19 September 2025 Summary: The petitioners had previously exchanged their shares in a US company for shares in a Cayman Islands company (the “Company”) in anticipation of the Company’s listing on HKEX. They had also entered into a Members’ Agreement with the Company and its other shareholders, which contained an arbitration clause. Following the listing, the petitioners were issued share certificates with a restrictive legend to the effect that any transfer of their shares would require the Company’s approval. In response, they filed an unfair prejudice petition under section 724 of the Companies Ordinance, claiming the restriction was in breach of, inter alia, (i) a “tripartite understanding” among the Company’s shareholders and between the shareholders and the Company; and (ii) implied terms under the Company’s articles of association. The respondent Company and its founder applied for stay of the proceedings in favour of arbitration. In considering whether the dispute falls within the ambit of the arbitration agreement, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance adopted the principles laid down by the Privy Council in FamilyMart China Holding Co Ltd v Ting Chuan (Cayman Islands) Holdings Corp. [2023] 2 248 CLC and the UK Supreme Court in Republic of Mozambique v Privinvest Shipbuilding SAL (Holding) and others [2023] Bus LR 1359. In particular: (i) the court should not be “overly respectful” to the petitioner’s formulations aimed at avoiding arbitration, nor to the respondent’s defence which may be equally designed to avoid adjudication by court; and (ii) the overarching consideration of the court is the true substance of the matter of dispute. In this case, although the petitioners framed their claim as independent of the Members’ Agreement, relying on the Listing Rules and implied terms, the court held that the Members’ Agreement was legally relevant and central to the dispute because the petitioners’ rights to removal of the restrictive legend depended on it – so the true substance of the petitioners’ claim is enforcement of a clause in the Members’ Agreement relating to restrictive legends, which falls within the ambit of the arbitration agreement. Thus, the applications for stay were allowed.  Takeaway: Parties should remember that the court takes a practical and common-sense approach in ascertaining the substance of a dispute. The court will not be easily swayed by pleadings crafted carefully to circumvent arbitration (or to avoid litigation, as the case may be). Link to judgment Hong Kong court continues worldwide Mareva injunction in aid of post-arbitration enforcement  Flame Asia Resources Pte Ltd v Full Idea Trading Limited and Others [2025] HKCFI 4139  5 September 2025  Summary: The plaintiff had previously obtained from the Hong Kong Court of First Instance (i) leave to enforce two arbitral awards against a company (the “Company”); (ii) disclosure orders against the Company; and (iii) disclosure orders against certain banks for banking documents of the Company and the first defendant. It was discovered that the Company had dissipated the cash in its bank account by transfers to the first and second defendants during the arbitration. The transfers were authorised by the third defendant and indirectly benefitted the third and fourth defendants. The plaintiff then brought an action against the defendants for (i) unlawful means conspiracy and (ii) procuring breach of the arbitration agreement, obtaining an ex parte interim worldwide Mareva injunction against the second to fourth defendants. In ordering a continuation of the injunction, the court found there was a real risk of dissipation of assets given that, inter alia, the conduct of the defendants showed a flagrant disregard of arbitration awards and court orders, as well as a lack of commercial morality. The court also stated that in a post-arbitration enforcement action it would be more inclined to grant the injunction to enable effective enforcement.  Takeaway: This is yet another illustration of the readiness of Hong Kong courts to facilitate enforcement of arbitral awards by granting / continuing worldwide Mareva injunctions in related separate civil proceedings. In particular, parties ignoring arbitral awards and disclosure orders may well be seen in the eyes of the court as having “no commercial morality”, which can be an important factor of the court in weighing whether there is a real risk of dissipation when granting or continuing a Mareva injunction. Link to judgment Hong Kong court finds taxation of costs non-arbitrable in solicitor-client dispute  Gibson Dunn & Crutcher (a firm) v Sunshine Success Global Inc. and Anor. [2025] HKCFI 4567  30 September 2025  Summary: The plaintiffs were previously engaged by the defendants to provide legal services under an Engagement Letter and Terms of Retention, both of which contained a clause providing for resolution of disputes by HKIAC arbitration. Following the defendants’ non-payment of five bills issued by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs issued an Originating Summons for taxation under section 67(2) of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (“LPO”). The defendants opposed the Originating Summons on the grounds that, inter alia, the defendants were severally liable to pay the plaintiffs’ fees (Several Liability Ground), and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any remuneration because of alleged professional negligence (Negligence Ground). The defendants further sought a stay of the Originating Summons pending resolution of the negligence claim. Departing from the view expressed in Fung Hing Chiu Cyril v Henry Wai & Co [2018] 1 HKLRD 808 that applications for taxation under the LPO are capable of being submitted to arbitration, Madam Justice Au-Yeung in this case revisited Assaubayev v Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd [2014] 6 Costs LR 1058 (as considered in Henry Wai & Co) and decided that applications for taxation of costs under Part VI of LPO (and under the court’s supervisory jurisdiction over solicitors) cannot be resolved by arbitration. Further, the Terms of Retention had expressly preserved the LPO’s operation. It was therefore held that taxation of the bills should be handled by the court rather than in arbitration. That said, as the Several Liability Ground and Negligence Ground were both issues that should be referred to arbitration, the court ordered a stay of the Originating Summons pending resolution of these issues – on the condition that the defendants commence arbitration within 21 days.  Takeaway: While disputes over liability and alleged negligence are arbitrable, this case confirms that within the context of a solicitor-client dispute over fees, taxation of legal costs under the LPO is non-arbitrable – at least when the terms of engagement have not displaced the LPO. Link to judgment Free access to HKIAC Case Digest and new Jus Mundi partnership  1 July 2025  Summary: On 10 April 2025, the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) announced that the HKIAC Case Digest will be freely accessible, starting 1 July 2025. Launched in 2021 and awarded Best Innovation in 2022, this offers insights into HKIAC’s procedures, covering decisions, as well as analysis of different procedural issues by HKIAC’s Proceedings Committee and Appointment Committee. This move providing access supports HKIAC’s goals of transparency and innovation. Partnering with Jus Mundi, HKIAC will use Jus AI to generate consistent, high-quality procedural decision summaries. Takeaway: HKIAC’s free Case Digest, powered by Jus Mundi’s AI, enhances access to arbitration insights and procedural transparency, marking a significant step forward in legal tech and dispute resolution innovation. Link to HKIAC article Hong Kong Chief Executive’s 2025 Policy Address proposes measures to promote arbitration development  17 September 2025 Summary: Hong Kong’s Chief Executive announced a number of arbitration-related initiatives in his annual Policy Address on 17 September 2025. Key measures include: Establishing a working group by 2026 to study potential amendments to the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap.609) where necessary Setting up a platform by the end of 2026 to promote commercial mediation and arbitration within the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area Publicising Hong Kong’s strengths in arbitration by leading delegations comprising of local legal professionals to visit overseas countries Takeaway: These initiatives mark a promising step towards Hong Kong’s goal in establishing itself as an international legal and dispute resolution services centre. Link to Chief Executive’s 2025 Policy Address   PRC adopts newly revised Arbitration Law 12 September 2025  Summary: The Standing Committee of the 14th National People’s Congress adopted the newly revised PRC Arbitration Law (the “Revised Law”), which will take effect on 1 March 2026. The Revised Law introduces extensive and significant reforms, featuring: Broadened scope of foreign-related disputes eligible for arbitration administered by a foreign arbitral institution in China, extending to economic and trade activities, transportation, and maritime matters Introduction of the “seat of arbitration” concept in relation to foreign-related arbitrations, allowing parties to specify their choice of jurisdiction and applicable law, aligning with international standards Recognition of ad hoc arbitration for the first time, but only limited to foreign-related maritime disputes and only foreign related disputes among enterprises locating in designated Free Trade regions in China Institutional governance & integrity that mandate transparency and robust governance for arbitration institutions, introducing formal procedures for modification and deregistration Recognition of online arbitration becomes valid and enforceable unless parties opt out More structured professional standards for the composition and qualifications of arbitration institution members and arbitrators, requiring multidisciplinary expertise, specifying term limits and allowing qualified foreign professionals to serve Enhanced procedural efficiency & judicial support for cross-border recognition, enforcement of arbitral awards, interim measures and evidence preservation  Takeaway: The Revised Law marks a major step towards a more transparent and open arbitration framework in the PRC that aligns with international standards. However, it remains the case that tribunals do not have the power to order interim measures – and despite the new power of the tribunal to rule on the validity of the arbitration agreement, the court’s determination on the tribunal’s jurisdiction will prevail. While it enhances flexibility and efficiency in dispute resolution, the Revised Law also requires parties to draft arbitration agreements with greater care to avoid ambiguity and fully benefit from the new legal landscape. Link to the revised PRC Arbitration Law Recommended list of arbitrators established by the Shanghai Arbitration Commission for securities and futures disputes  1 July 2025  Summary: The China (Shanghai) Securities and Futures Arbitration Centre, established by the Shanghai Arbitration Commission (SHAC) in 2021, recently released a pilot list (the “List”) of 90 experienced arbitrators selected from SHAC’s existing roster who specialise in securities and futures disputes. SHAC will appoint arbitrators from this List as chief or sole arbitrators in relevant cases, although parties may still select arbitrators freely under SHAC’s Arbitration Rules. The List took effect on 30 June 2025 and remain valid until the end of the current committee’s term.  Takeaway: The List of 90 arbitrators with expertise in securities and futures disputes reinforces SHAC’s commitment to specialised and credible dispute resolution. The List will guide appointments in relevant cases while preserving party autonomy under SHAC’s Arbitration Rules. This initiative reflects SHAC’s ongoing efforts to enhance professionalism and transparency in financial arbitration.  Link to the full recommended list of arbitrators by SHAC First case under Beijing Arbitration Commission/Beijing International Arbitration Court’s fast-track mediation rules concluded in just seven days 4 July 2025  Summary: The Beijing Arbitration Commission/Beijing International Arbitration Centre (BAC/ BIAC) introduced its new Fast-Track Mediation-Arbitration Procedure Rules (the “Rules”) on 15 April 2025 – an initiative designed to streamline dispute resolution. According to BAC/BIAC, the first case under the Rules, a shareholder dispute, was resolved in just seven days, exemplifying the procedure’s efficiency. The Rules introduce tailored processes and reduced fee structures, offering a significantly more cost-effective alternative to traditional arbitration and litigation. This initiative reflects BAC/BIAC’s commitment to flexible, efficient and cost-effective services, supporting Beijing’s rise as a global arbitration hub and marking a shift from procedural adaptation to rule-making leadership.  Takeaway: The Rules represent a meaningful advancement in the pursuit of efficient and cost-effective dispute resolution. The remarkably swift resolution of the first case within just seven days highlights the tangible benefits of this streamlined mechanism. By introducing greater procedural flexibility and affordability, the Rules not only enhance user experience but also strengthen Beijing’s standing as a dynamic and innovative centre for international arbitration. Link to the article by BAC/BIAC   Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) launches new Restructuring and Insolvency Arbitration Protocol  26 August 2025  Summary: The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) introduced the SIAC Restructuring and Insolvency Arbitration Protocol (the “RIA Protocol”) with immediate effect. The RIA Protocol is the first mechanism of its kind that specifically deals with resolution of disputes in context of restructuring, adjustment of debt and insolvency. It adopts and modifies existing SIAC Rules to adapt to the insolvency context and ensure efficient conduct of proceedings. Notable features include: Truncation of timelines in the existing SIAC Rules for filing of response to the notice of arbitration; parties’ agreement on nomination of arbitrators; submission of draft award for review; and announcing the final award Alignment with restructuring and insolvency context whereby tribunals, during case management conference, should consider questions of third-party joinder and the need to disclose any decision, ruling, order or award of the tribunal to creditors and other stakeholders in related insolvency proceedings Default seat of arbitration and governing law to be Singapore and Singapore law respectively to govern parties’ agreement to submit disputes to arbitration under the RIA Protocol Simplified procedure to appoint a sole arbitrator unless the complexity, quantum involved or other circumstances of the dispute warrant the appointment of three arbitrators Support from specialist panel comprising arbitrators with experience and expertise in restructuring and insolvency-related disputes, who may be appointed as arbitrator under the RIA Protocol Takeaway: The RIA Protocol – accompanied by a Guidance Note and model clauses – reinforces Singapore’s position as a prominent seat for complex insolvency-related disputes. It expedites arbitration proceedings by providing for shorter timelines, a welcome development for practitioners and other stakeholders given the urgency of insolvency disputes. Link to SIAC RIA Protocol Link to Guidance Note Link to Model Clauses Ciarb publishes 2025 Guideline on Third-Party Funding  11 September 2025 Summary: The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Ciarb) has published the 2025 Guideline on Third-Party Funding (the “2025 Guideline”) to explain the functions and procedure of third-party funding (“TPF”) for arbitration stakeholders, including parties, funders and tribunals. The 2025 Guideline is structured in two parts. Part 1 outlines the key stages and considerations in the funding process, including pricing models, types of funding arrangements, contractual terms and a balanced overview of the advantages and disadvantages of TPF. Part 2 addresses the practical implications of TPF in arbitration proceedings, such as disclosure obligations for the funded parties, conflicts of interest, confidentiality concerns and cost recovery mechanisms. Takeaway: The 2025 Guideline provides a comprehensive and practical roadmap for arbitration stakeholders navigating third-party funding. It offers valuable clarity on the expectations and responsibilities of all stakeholders. Link to the full 2025 Guideline Link to our full legal update Singapore International Commercial Court upholds arbitral award despite alleged breach of natural justice and public policy  DNO v DNP [2025] SGHCI 24  18 September 2025  Summary: DNO applied to set aside a Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) arbitral award in favour of DNP, a commodities trader, arising from eight contracts for the sale of raw cashew nuts disrupted by COVID-19 and governed by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 24 July 2020. DNO claimed standing as successor to a partnership firm involved in the arbitration. The challenge was based on alleged breach of natural justice and conflict with public policy under the International Arbitration Act. The SIAC dismissed the application, finding no procedural unfairness in the tribunal’s refusal to allow amendments and no public policy violation. The award, which upheld DNP’s right to terminate the MOU and sell the cargo, granted damages of around USD 33,000 and INR 22.3 million plus interest.  Takeaway: The Singapore International Commercial Court reaffirmed its pro-arbitration stance by rejecting attempts to set aside an award based on unfounded alleged breaches of natural justice and public policy. This highlights the court’s strict approach to standing and its reluctance to interfere with arbitral outcomes absent clear procedural violations. Link to judgment English Court of Appeal dismisses arbitration appeal due to late filing under a contractual deadline  Eronat v CNPC International (Chad) Ltd & Cliveden Petroleum Co Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1054 1 August 2025 Summary: The appellant, Friedhelm Eronat, sought permission to appeal an arbitral award on a question of law under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The arbitration arose from a dispute over indemnity obligations under a 2003 Deed of Indemnity governed by Hong Kong law, with arbitration seated in England under LCIA Rules. The tribunal awarded CNPC and Cliveden USD 324 million, which they had paid to a third party in settlement. The key issue was whether the contractual time limit for appeal – namely, “within thirty (30) days after the decision is rendered” – ran from the date the award was made (11 April 2024) or the date it was sent to the parties (16 April 2024). The court held that “rendered” referred to the date the award was made, not communicated. As the appeal was filed by the appellant on 16 May 2024, it was five days out of time. The court also found that the parties had expressly waived the right to apply for an extension of time under the Arbitration Act. Even if such a right had existed, the High Court would not have exercised its discretion to extend time due to lack of explanation for the delay and the importance of finality in arbitration. Takeaway: This case emphasises the importance of precise contractual language in arbitration agreements, particularly regarding time limits for appeals. Parties should also be aware of the consequences for waiving procedural rights, including the right to extend time. The decision additionally reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to upholding arbitration finality and respecting agreed procedural frameworks. Link to judgment