THE AUTHOR:
Rachel Chiu, Associate at White & Case
Benedikt Kaneko, Associate at Gleiss Lutz
Can arbitration be used as an efficient mechanism to resolve disputes arising in the context of restructuring, adjustment of debt, or insolvency?
The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”)’s recent launch of its Restructuring and Insolvency Arbitration Protocol (“RIA Protocol”) on 26 August 2025 strongly suggests that the answer is yes. The RIA Protocol is the first institutional offering of an arbitration-based mechanism tailored to the resolution of restructuring and insolvency-related disputes. This short article explains the key highlights of the RIA Protocol’s scope and application.
Background to SIAC RIA Protocol
Insolvency and restructuring disputes have historically been considered as matters that are properly subject to the jurisdiction of the national courts. Such an approach has been primarily driven by the public policy interest in preserving the assets of an insolvent company for equitable distribution amongst its creditors. However, with the increased demand for tools to resolve cross-border insolvencies (e.g., the 1997 UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency) and the development of arbitration as a trusted alternative dispute resolution mechanism, national courts have in more recent years acceded greater powers to arbitral tribunals to resolve non-“core” insolvency and restructuring related disputes. For example:
- In England and Wales, the Privy Council’s recent decision (on a BVI appeal) in Sian Participation v Halimeda International [2024] UKPC 16 has cemented the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal to decide on insolvency-related matters, particularly where there is a genuine dispute over the debt on substantial grounds.
- Similarly, in Singapore, the Court of Appeal in AnAn Group Singapore v VTB Bank [2020] SGCA 33 has unequivocally affirmed that it would be willing to stay or dismiss winding-up proceedings if there was a prima facie valid arbitration agreement which covered the disputed debt in question, and where the Court was satisfied that the defendant was not abusing the court’s process by raising the dispute.
The SIAC’s RIA Protocol is consistent with these developments, and is another step in the recognition and use of alternative dispute resolution to manage and resolve insolvency and/or restructuring related matters, As noted above, it is the first institutional offering of a specialized framework for resolving such disputes.
Scope and Application of SIAC RIA Protocol
The application of the RIA Protocol is premised on the fundamental principle of party autonomy in arbitration and is broadly defined to cover any dispute that the parties have agreed to arbitration. This includes disputes arising from or in connection with:
- restructuring, debt adjustment, or insolvency laws;
- insolvency proceedings (including those recommended by a court or insolvency officeholder); and
- disputes that do not arise in anticipation of or in relation to insolvency proceedings.
As with SIAC’s Arbitration Rules 2025 or any other alternative dispute resolution mechanism, the RIA Protocol requires the parties to have agreed to resolve their disputes by arbitration and conducted accordance with the protocol. To assist with the uptake and use of the RIA Protocol, the SIAC has provided model clauses for parties wishing to submit their disputes to SIAC arbitration pursuant to the SIAC RIA Protocol. It also allows the court or insolvency officeholders (being a judicial administrator, liquidator, or receivers) to make recommendations for any insolvency-related disputes to be resolved under the protocol. In principle, such provision may provide for further uptake of the RIA Protocol, although it remains to be seen how the protocol will be adopted on the basis of such recommendations, given that it would still require the consent and agreement of all parties involved.
To further promote the effectiveness of its application and use, the RIA Protocol provides that all protocol users agree to waive any objections to the arbitrability of disputes under the Protocol, including objections about the scope of arbitrable issues or whether a dispute falls outside arbitrationl. While this waiver may be intended to limit the challenges to the tribunal’s jurisdiction, it is unlikely that such a waiver will be upheld by national courts, as arbitrability is often considered to be a matter of public policy which national courts retain supervisory jurisdiction over. Additionally, while the RIA Protocol is broadly defined to cover a wide range of insolvency and restructuring related disputes, in practice, its use will expectedly be defined by the jurisdictional limits of the substantive governing law that each insolvency or restructuring process is subject to.
Key Provisions of the SIAC RIA Protocol
As to the RIA Protocol itself, the rules are based on the SIAC Rules, which have been simplified and adapted to promote a more efficient process. The protocol is also supplemented by a Guidance Note for Parties and Tribunals on Arbitrations under the SIAC RIA Protocol (“Guidance Note”) and the SIAC Specialist Panel for Restructuring and Insolvency Disputes (“Specialist Panel”).
The RIA Protocol includes the following key features:
- Shorter timelines compared to the SIAC Rules: The timelines filing of a response to a notice of arbitration challenges of arbitrator nominations, fixing of case management conference, and for issuance of the tribunal’s final award, are generally condensed compared to the SIAC Rules.
- Limited submissions and hearings: To further encourage an efficient dispute resolution process, the Guidance Note encourages arbitral tribunals to set limits (including page or word limits) on the number and extent of parties’ submissions, document production requests, and fact and expert witness statements or reports. Tribunals together with the parties are encouraged to consider whether hearings are required and, if so, the format and location of any hearing.
- Default rules on the seat and governing law: Absent a different choice or determination by the arbitral tribunal, the RIA Protocol provides that Singapore law shall govern the arbitration agreement and be the seat of arbitration.Mediation and consent awards: Parties may seek to resolve their disputes through mediation and may jointly seek to stay the ongoing arbitration proceedings for such purpose and obtain a consent award from the Tribunal in relation to any successful settlement.Use of arbitral tribunals and tribunal secretaries: The RIA Protocol also offers a streamlined approach to the use of arbitral tribunals and tribunal secretaries. Generally, a sole arbitrator shall be appointed unless the SIAC Registrar determines otherwise, based on the relevant circumstances of the dispute. If the parties fail to jointly nominate a sole arbitrator, the President of the SIAC Court of Arbitration shall appoint the sole arbitrator. A similar mechanism with short deadlines is foreseen for three-member arbitral tribunals. The protocol also generally discourages the use and appointment of tribunal secretaries.
- The SIAC also offers a specialist panel of arbitrators that users may consider. More specifically, while arbitrators do not have to be chosen or appointed from the Specialist Panel, the list of specialist arbitrators offers users a list of arbitrators that have particular experience and expertise with restructuring and insolvency related matters.
Conclusion
The introduction of the SIAC RIA Protocol provides a realistic approach for arbitration to play a wider role in cross-border insolvency and restructuring processes, and reaffirms its relevance and use to resolving disputes regarding the determination of outstanding or resolved debt, and other insolvency or restructuring related disputes. While the SIAC RIA Protocol is without doubt well-adjusted to the particularities of insolvency and restructuring proceedings in relation to Singapore, it remains to be seen how parties and stakeholders from other jurisdictions will be willing to adopt and apply the SIAC RIA Protocol. It will also be interesting to see if similar specialised mechanisms will be developed and offered by other leading arbitral institutions.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Rachel Chiu is an associate at White & Case. Rachel’s practice is focused on international commercial arbitration, in the energy (including oil and gas and renewables), transport infrastructure and financial services sectors. Rachel has experience of arbitrations conducted under most major institutional regimes and under various governing laws, with a focus on English and Singapore law. Rachel also regularly provides counsel on strategy for dispute avoidance and resolution.
Rachel is a visiting fellow at the SOAS Arbitration and Dispute Resolution Centre, and a co-founder of Young Mute-Off Thursdays, a weekly knowledge sharing and networking forum for young women practitioners in international arbitration.
Dr. Benedikt Yuji Kaneko is an associate at Gleiss Lutz. He advises clients on disputes and contentious proceedings, focusing on international commercial and investment arbitrations with a connection to Asia, particularly Japan, Korea, Singapore and China. He is admitted to the German Bar (Rechtsanwalt) and the New York Bar (Attorney at Law).
*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.
