The Restructuring and Insolvency Arbitration Protocol, developed in consultation with local and international judges, insolvency and arbitration practitioners and the SIAC Court of Arbitration, marks a global first amongst international arbitration institutions and reflects Singapore’s growing prominence as a seat for complex cross-border dispute resolution by providing a version of the SIAC Rules 2025 specifically adapted to disputes arising in the context of restructuring, debt adjustment, and insolvency.
Mohammed Talib, an expert in international arbitration at Pinsent Masons, said: “The SIAC protocol empowers businesses to resolve insolvency-linked disputes without the delays of litigation.”
“Arbitration offers speed, expertise, and neutrality which are qualities essential for navigating financial crises,” he said.
“Companies can now protect their interests while maintaining operational continuity. It’s a forward-looking solution for modern commerce.”
The protocol is accompanied by a guidance note (8-page PDF / 118kb) for parties to arbitration and tribunals and model clauses, which offer standardised language for arbitration clauses.
Hannah Griffiths, an expert in insolvency and restructuring law at Pinsent Masons, said: “Litigious insolvency and restructuring claims are presently determined predominantly by courts across jurisdictions. In cross-border disputes, a common challenge is the conflict of laws between two or more legal systems.”
“Arbitration before a specialist insolvency dispute panel offers a flexible alternative for insolvency practitioners, enabling disputes to be resolved in a neutral forum by subject matter experts,” she said.
“This can be particularly advantageous in matters involving foreign debtors, complex financial instruments, and multi-jurisdictional claims — situations that often give rise to protracted and costly disagreements before insolvency litigation even begins.”
After consultation with the public, the final protocol has a wider scope than originally anticipated in the draft protocol, allowing for it to be used in a broad range of disputes, permitting parties to opt for arbitration even in early-stage or informal restructuring if they have consented to the use of the protocol. Consent can be included in the arbitration agreement before or after the dispute has arisen, as presented in the model clauses.
Griffiths said: “The expedited nature of arbitration proceedings, compared to traditional court processes, may yield residual benefits for insolvency practitioners and creditors.”
“For example, subject to statutory limitations, where an external administrator is conducting investigative proceedings, arbitration may serve as an alternative to filing applications in foreign courts that have limited availability to conduct those investigations or hearings in the short term,” she said.
“More broadly, procedural efficiencies in resolving legal issues are beneficial in both corporate and personal insolvencies and restructurings. By shortening the duration of these dispute resolution processes, and providing a viable alternative to contested litigation, insolvency practitioners will likely be better placed to conclude external administrations strategically and expeditiously including making dividend distributions to creditors, ultimately reducing the impact of insolvency and restructuring processes on stakeholders.”
The protocol allows for shorter deadlines and simplified procedure that support the urgency often required in insolvency arbitration, with the notice of arbitration being required to be submitted within seven days from the commencement of proceedings, compared to 14 under the SIAC rules.
Mohammed Talib, arbitration expert at Pinsent Masons said: “The protocol strengthens Singapore’s position as a leading global centre for arbitration and insolvency resolution.”
“With Singapore law and seat designated as the default under the protocol, parties benefit from a jurisdiction known for its legal sophistication, neutrality, and enforceability,” he said.
“The protocol’s innovative rules and such as truncated timelines, specialist arbitrator panels, and built-in mediation mechanisms, reflect SIAC’s commitment to procedural efficiency.”
The protocol allows for shorter deadlines and simplified procedure that support the urgency often required in insolvency arbitration, with the notice of arbitration being required to be submitted within seven days from the commencement of proceedings, compared to 14 under the SIAC rules.
The sole arbitrator must be nominated within 14 days from the commencement date, compared to 21 days under the SIAC rules, and will be nominated unless the registrar determines otherwise. It also condenses the timeline for arbitrator challenges from seven days to three and dictates that an award must be issued within six months from the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, in line with the deadline of expediated procedure under the SIAC rules.
Additionally, the protocol is designed to ensure better coordination with insolvency or restructuring proceedings.
Talib said: “While commercial disputes are generally considered arbitrable in most jurisdictions, insolvency matters present a more complex picture, as the arbitrability of disputes arising in the context of insolvency, such as avoidance or voidable claims, significantly varies across jurisdictions, resulting in jurisdictional objections and issues at both the implementation and the enforcement stage.”
“The protocol includes several provisions designed to tackle these challenges. As stated in the guidance note, in the context in which the protocol is applied, tribunals should discuss and consider jurisdictional objections including where the scope of arbitrable issues, or any argument that the dispute falls outside the scope of arbitration or is otherwise not arbitrable,” he said.”
“Ensuring that the arbitrability issues are dealt with during the procedure will limit the risks of setting aside.”
Arvand Ghazizadeh of Pinsent Masons said: “Despite the apparent benefits of insolvency and restructuring arbitration which is likely welcomed as another option for insolvency practitioners and creditors to explore, careful consideration must be given to the enforceability and scope of arbitration awards in the jurisdictions where the insolvent company or bankrupt individual is located.”
“For instance, under Australian law, the Corporations Act and Bankruptcy Act only permit a ‘court’, which does not include an arbitral tribunal, to make consequential orders following a finding of a voidable transaction. Similarly, the broad powers conferred on courts under the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations), such as section 90-15, do not extend to arbitrators. As a result, insolvency practitioners may be limited in the relief they can seek through arbitration where referrable to Australian insolvencies and restructuring,” he said.
“This raises a practical concern: whether insolvency practitioners, who are often unfunded or operating with limited resources, will opt for arbitration in circumstances where the scope of claims available for pursuit is narrow and may ultimately require further proceedings in a domestic jurisdiction. Accordingly, arbitration may be suitable only for a limited subset of insolvency and restructuring-related disputes, as presently drafted.”