Feed aggregator

Join in the Campaign on Women Arbitrators: Co-sponsored by Arbitrator Intelligence and ArbitralWomen!

Kluwer Arbitration Blog - Mon, 2018-12-03 01:14

Catherine A. Rogers, Louise Barrington and Mirèze Philippe

This year ArbitralWomen (AW) celebrates its 25th Anniversary. Founded in 1993, AW is a network of women from diverse backgrounds and legal cultures active in international dispute resolution in any role, including, arbitrator, mediator, expert, adjudicator, surveyor, facilitator, lawyer, neutral, ombudswoman or forensic consultant. With close to a thousand members from over 40 countries, AW has been instrumental in fostering a dynamic global discussion about the gender imbalance in arbitrator appointments and arbitration practice.  Through these efforts, AW and its members have helped identify the myriad causes for the gender imbalance, from pipeline leakage, to unconscious bias, to the need to better support work-life balance issues.

 

AW has also introduced important innovations to remedy the gender imbalance, including a mentorship program, formal and informal events at which causes and solutions are discussed. AW is a strong supporter of the Equal Representation in Arbitration Pledge (ERA Pledge or the Pledge).  The Pledge, is “a call for the international arbitration community to commit to increase, on an equal opportunity basis, the number of women appointed as arbitrators.” In addition, The Pledge promotes “pledges and charters launched by other organisations and groups, aiming to promote women practitioners namely in dispute resolution but also more broadly in the legal and business fields.”

 

By now, we know that all these efforts have been having important effects. Today, arbitral institutions are publishing both general statistics about gender and other diversity criteria and, in some instances, the names of arbitrators appointed to the cases they administer.  Meanwhile, the percentage of women appointed as arbitrators by institutions in 2016 was, on average, around 17%, up considerably in just a year from the 2015, when the average was 12% and up dramatically from 2012, when the percentages was a mere 6%.  Statistical correlation does not always equal causation, but Lucy Greenwood’s scholarship provides anecdotal input that seems to suggest that much of this progress is in fact tied to implementation of The Pledge.

However, institutional appointments account for only a fraction of all arbitrator appointments.  Concerns about lack of diversity are less evident in the estimated 75% of cases in which parties appoint arbitrators. As Lucy Greenwood cautions, there is a “stark disconnect between the rate at which institutions appoint women and the willingness of the parties to do so.”

 

Parties have many reasons to appoint diverse tribunals. A robust and growing body of literature demonstrates that group decision-making can be markedly improved when decisional bodies have a diverse composition. Other studies have long confirmed, not surprisingly, that representativeness of judges improves perceived legitimacy of adjudicatory apparatus. These studies suggest we would all benefit from greater diversity among arbitrators.

 

These studies have limited impact on actual behavior, however, because they measure the benefits of diversity in the abstract. Arbitrator selection, by contrast, is hyper-individualized and highly personal—both in the process and substance of assessing potential arbitrators. So, to affect parties’ actual practices and priorities when they are selecting individual arbitrators, it is necessary to address their more specific incentives.  When parties are asked they often provide an explanation to the effect: “when asked by a client to select an arbitrator, the desirability of promoting diversity is the last feature on anyone’s mind. ‘We are not being asked to make a statement’ he said, ‘we are asked to pick the best person for the job.’”

 

According to a survey conducted by 2017 survey by Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, 93% of respondents identified “expertise” and 91% identified “efficiency” as the most important features in appointing arbitrators. In the words of our anonymous commentator cited above, they are looking for “the best person for the job.”

 

The problem is that this information is generally not available on arbitrators’ CVs. Given the confidential nature of arbitration, the traditional (and still only) way to collect this information is through personal phone calls with individuals who have appeared before a potential arbitrator or, better yet, sat as a co-arbitrator with that person.

 

There are two main problems with this approach.

 

The first problem with arbitrator research based only on person-to-person inquiries is that it creates an information bottleneck. The limited number of individuals who can provide such information stifles the ability of newer and more diverse arbitrators to develop international reputations that the BLP statistics tell us are key to getting appointments.

 

To illustrate, let’s take a hypothetical.

 

Imagine a young Brazilian woman has been appointed by arbitral institutions in three sizable and complex arbitrations. And she was simply AWESOME. The parties were wowed. Her co-arbitrators were impressed. And the institutions were delighted. How many attorneys worldwide now know about her exceptional abilities? Maybe 20? 30? 40 tops? And what are the chances that one of those 40 people will receive a phone call about her future appointment? To borrow from the philosophical question about a tree silently falling in the woods: What happens if an arbitrator has a fantastic reputation, but no one knows about it?

 

The second problem with ad hoc person-to-person research is that such research largely confines assessment of potential arbitrators to subjective evaluation by a limited number of individuals. This research technique functions more as a telephonic lottery than systematic evaluation. Workplace research in the United States suggests that cognitive biases—those implicit biases we all have but are often unaware of—most easily translate into employment discrimination when hiring is premised on subjective evaluations and processes that do not involve systematic evaluation.

 

Arbitrator Intelligence seeks to promote diversity both by breaking the information bottleneck, and by providing an alternative to the highly subjective, ad hoc nature of arbitrator assessments.

 

The means to these ends is the Arbitrator Intelligence Questionnaire, or AIQ. If parties and counsel complete an AIQ at the end of each arbitration, Arbitrator intelligence will compile the collected about arbitrators, analyze it, and compile it into Arbitrator Intelligence Reports on individual arbitrators. These reports will then be made available (for a fee) through our partner, Wolters Kluwer.

 

The content of the AIQ was developed to replicate the same kinds of information currently sought, and available only, through personal phone calls. Unlike phone calls, however, the AIQ seeks to disaggregate the abstract qualities of “expertise” and “efficiency” into objective, measurable data points. For example, to paraphrase a few questions from the AIQ: Did the arbitrators grant document production? Did they ask questions that demonstrated familiarity with the record? Based on data collected through the AIQ, Arbitrator Intelligence will also be able to determine the overall duration of arbitrations and time to issue the award, and numerous other valuable objective data.

 

Arbitrator Intelligence has been collecting data about arbitrators through the AIQ since the summer of 2017, and already has approximately 500 responses that cover more than 1200 examples of arbitrator case management and decision-making. Arbitrator Intelligence is now analyzing this data to develop Arbitrator Intelligence Reports.

 

After a highly successful Campaign in Latin America, we have sufficient data to create a sample reports on a Latin American arbitrator. However, Arbitrator Intelligence still needs more data to be able to generate sample reports on women arbitrators.

 

To generate this data, Arbitrator Intelligence and ArbitralWomen are calling on parties, counsel, and third-party funders to complete AIQs on recently completed arbitrations. The AIQ has two phases, which together take about 15 minutes to complete. Anyone with access to the file can complete Phase I, and anyone who participated in the actual proceedings can complete Phase II.

 

Do your part! Take a few minutes any day from now until December 14 to help generate information about women arbitrators. And stay tuned for when, in early January when Arbitrator Intelligence will be hosting a series of webinars and focus group sessions to obtain input on sample AI Reports.

More from our authors: Arbitration in Belgium: A Practitioner’s Guide
by Edited by Niuscha Bassiri, Maarten Draye
€ 185


Men mostly to blame for gender violence and marriage break-ups, says CJ Maraga - The Star, Kenya

Google International ADR News - Sun, 2018-12-02 14:49

The Star, Kenya

Men mostly to blame for gender violence and marriage break-ups, says CJ Maraga
The Star, Kenya
Chief Justice David Maraga has said men must be educated and engaged in discussions of gender violence. He said men are the leading cause of conflicts and break-ups in marriages. Maraga said this is demonstrated in the high number of cases handled at ...

The 2018 ICC Arbitration Clause for Trust Disputes: Cutting the Gordian Knot of Trust Arbitration at Last?

Kluwer Arbitration Blog - Sun, 2018-12-02 05:00

Lucas Clover Alcolea

Over the last century, arbitration has established itself as one of the most popular means for resolving commercial disputes1) Gary B. Born, ‘Chapter 1: Overview of International Commercial Arbitration’, International Commercial Arbitration (2nd edition, Kluwer Law International 2014), 6–224, at 93-97; Queen Mary University London, 2015 International Arbitration Survey: Improvements and Innovations in Arbitration. jQuery("#footnote_plugin_tooltip_3546_1").tooltip({ tip: "#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_3546_1", tipClass: "footnote_tooltip", effect: "fade", fadeOutSpeed: 100, predelay: 400, position: "top right", relative: true, offset: [10, 10] }); and has even penetrated fields of law traditionally reserved for the courts such as antitrust/competition law, company law and even tax law.5) Loukas A. Mistelis & Stavros L. Brekoulakis, Arbitrability: International and Comparative Perspectives (2009, Kluwer Law International), Part II. jQuery("#footnote_plugin_tooltip_3546_5").tooltip({ tip: "#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_3546_5", tipClass: "footnote_tooltip", effect: "fade", fadeOutSpeed: 100, predelay: 400, position: "top right", relative: true, offset: [10, 10] }); One new area of law to which arbitration can advance is the arbitration of internal disputes regarding trusts and the prospect for growth in this area has resulted in a flurry of articles by both trust and arbitration practitioners2) See for example Georg Von Segesser & Katherine Bell, ‘Arbitration of Trust Disputes’ (2017) 35:1 ASA Bulletin, at 10; Lawrence Lawrence Cohen & Joanna Poole, ‘Trust arbitration – is it desirable and does it work?’ (2012) 18: 4 Trusts and Trustees 324; Nicholas Le Poidevin QC, ‘Arbitration and trusts: can it be done?’ (2012) 18:4 Trusts and Trustees 307. jQuery("#footnote_plugin_tooltip_3546_2").tooltip({ tip: "#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_3546_2", tipClass: "footnote_tooltip", effect: "fade", fadeOutSpeed: 100, predelay: 400, position: "top right", relative: true, offset: [10, 10] }); as well as the release of rules and model clauses for such disputes.3) American Arbitration Association, Wills and Trusts; Liechtenstein Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Rules of Arbitration of Liechtenstein, ‘Model arbitration clause for trusts’ at 28. jQuery("#footnote_plugin_tooltip_3546_3").tooltip({ tip: "#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_3546_3", tipClass: "footnote_tooltip", effect: "fade", fadeOutSpeed: 100, predelay: 400, position: "top right", relative: true, offset: [10, 10] });

The latest development in this field occurred on the first of November in Zurich when the ICC launched a new arbitration clause for trust disputes exactly ten years after its first clause on the subject was released in 2008.4)ICC Arbitration Clause for Trust Disputes, ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin Vol. 19 No. 2 at 9. jQuery("#footnote_plugin_tooltip_3546_4").tooltip({ tip: "#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_3546_4", tipClass: "footnote_tooltip", effect: "fade", fadeOutSpeed: 100, predelay: 400, position: "top right", relative: true, offset: [10, 10] }); The aim of this post is to analyse some of the innovations and briefly consider whether it finally resolves some of the intractable problems posed by trust arbitration or whether it could have gone further.

Updating the Classic Trust Scenario

The first improvement of the 2018 clause over the 2008 clause is the provision for protectors and other power-holders to also be bound by the arbitration clause as opposed to just the settlor, trustee and beneficiaries mentioned in the 2008 clause. This reflects the changing practice of offshore, and even onshore, trusts where complicated structures involving protectors and other power holders have become the norm driven by the settlors desire to retain greater control over the trustees and ensure that the trust fund is managed according to their will.

Deemed Acquiescence as Opposed to Conditional Grant of Benefit

The second difference, albeit perhaps not an improvement, is the changed language with regards to the binding effect of the clause on beneficiaries. In the 2018 clause the drafters appear to have opted for a theory of deemed acquiescence so that any beneficiary who claims or accepts ‘any benefit, interest or right under the Trust…’ will be deemed to be bound by it. The 2008 clause on the other hand included not only the idea of deemed acquiescence but also that of a conditional grant, i.e. as a condition for receiving benefit under the trust a beneficiary had to accept the clause. It is not entirely clear why this means of binding beneficiaries was eliminated from the 2018 clause and it might be thought that it represents a step backwards.

Explicit Confidentiality Obligations

The third difference, and a certain improvement, one finds in the 2018 clause is the explicit inclusion of confidentiality obligations regarding any arbitral proceedings rendered due to the clause and any awards or decisions rendered by the arbitral tribunal or a settlement agreement between the parties. Since one of the most important reasons for parties to consider arbitration over litigation to resolve trust disputes is the possibility of keeping matters confidential, their inclusion in the clause itself is certainly to be applauded.

No Duplication of the Rules on Joinder

As the 1998 ICC Rules did not include provisions for joinder and multi-party scenarios, the 2008 clause explicitly included such provisions but given that the new 2017 arbitration rules do so the 2018 clause removes such provisions and relies instead on those provisions in the rules themselves.

No Provision for Representing Unborn, Unascertained, Minor or Otherwise Incapable Beneficiaries

Neither the 2008 nor the 2018 clauses provide any provisions for the representation of unborn, unascertained, minor or otherwise incapable beneficiaries. As trusts may often involve children, classes whose individual members may not be known or mentally incapable individuals, and courts will be reluctant to approve of such clauses, this represents a major lacuna. In countries which are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights it is highly likely that clauses which do not provide for the appointment of representatives for such beneficiaries are likely to breach those beneficiaries’ Article 6(1) right to a fair trial. Arbitral awards rendered on the basis of such clauses are, therefore, likely to face serious enforcement challenges or be annulled on public policy grounds.

It is true that the explanatory note to the clause underlines the importance of the inclusion of a means for representing such beneficiaries in order to avoid these problems but it could have been clearer about the real risk of an unenforceable or annulled award in such cases. Moreover, it would have perhaps been advisable to provide for sample means of representation. Although it might be objected that this is not desirable in a standard arbitration clause, Lawrence Cohen & Joanna Poole do so in their suggested clause6) Lawrence Cohen & Joanna Poole, ‘Trust arbitration–is it desirable and does it work?’ (2012) 18:4 Trusts Trustee 324 at 330. jQuery("#footnote_plugin_tooltip_3546_6").tooltip({ tip: "#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_3546_6", tipClass: "footnote_tooltip", effect: "fade", fadeOutSpeed: 100, predelay: 400, position: "top right", relative: true, offset: [10, 10] }); and it is therefore certainly possible.

Conclusion

The 2018 ICC Arbitration Clause is a welcome update of the 2008 clause and adds several important elements including confidentiality and provisions binding protectors and other power holders. However, it does not completely sever the Gordian knot of arbitrating trust disputes and could be improved in several respects, for example, by providing default provisions for the representation of unborn, unascertained, minor or otherwise incapable beneficiaries.

References   [ + ]

1. ↑ Gary B. Born, ‘Chapter 1: Overview of International Commercial Arbitration’, International Commercial Arbitration (2nd edition, Kluwer Law International 2014), 6–224, at 93-97; Queen Mary University London, 2015 International Arbitration Survey: Improvements and Innovations in Arbitration. 2. ↑ See for example Georg Von Segesser & Katherine Bell, ‘Arbitration of Trust Disputes’ (2017) 35:1 ASA Bulletin, at 10; Lawrence Lawrence Cohen & Joanna Poole, ‘Trust arbitration – is it desirable and does it work?’ (2012) 18: 4 Trusts and Trustees 324; Nicholas Le Poidevin QC, ‘Arbitration and trusts: can it be done?’ (2012) 18:4 Trusts and Trustees 307. 3. ↑ American Arbitration Association, Wills and Trusts; Liechtenstein Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Rules of Arbitration of Liechtenstein, ‘Model arbitration clause for trusts’ at 28. 4. ↑ ICC Arbitration Clause for Trust Disputes, ICC International Court of Arbitration Bulletin Vol. 19 No. 2 at 9. 5. ↑ Loukas A. Mistelis & Stavros L. Brekoulakis, Arbitrability: International and Comparative Perspectives (2009, Kluwer Law International), Part II. 6. ↑ Lawrence Cohen & Joanna Poole, ‘Trust arbitration–is it desirable and does it work?’ (2012) 18:4 Trusts Trustee 324 at 330. function footnote_expand_reference_container() { jQuery("#footnote_references_container").show(); jQuery("#footnote_reference_container_collapse_button").text("-"); } function footnote_collapse_reference_container() { jQuery("#footnote_references_container").hide(); jQuery("#footnote_reference_container_collapse_button").text("+"); } function footnote_expand_collapse_reference_container() { if (jQuery("#footnote_references_container").is(":hidden")) { footnote_expand_reference_container(); } else { footnote_collapse_reference_container(); } } function footnote_moveToAnchor(p_str_TargetID) { footnote_expand_reference_container(); var l_obj_Target = jQuery("#" + p_str_TargetID); if(l_obj_Target.length) { jQuery('html, body').animate({ scrollTop: l_obj_Target.offset().top - window.innerHeight/2 }, 1000); } }More from our authors: Arbitration in Belgium: A Practitioner’s Guide
by Edited by Niuscha Bassiri, Maarten Draye
€ 185


What We’ve Been Up to in Texas….

ADR Prof Blog - Sun, 2018-12-02 00:15
I wanted to share a recent posting to the Dispute Resolution Listserve from my dear colleague Nancy Welsh describing some of the highlights from the last year at Texas A&M.  It is an honor and joy for me to be a part of it.  Here is Nancy’s message: Dear Colleagues, I’m very pleased to share … Continue reading What We’ve Been Up to in Texas…. →

Books relating to Communication and Conflict

Communication and Conflict Blog - Sat, 2018-12-01 14:58
This page contains a list of books, all of which relate to supporting effective interpersonal communication and conflict resolution

Assumptions we make about others. A TRAINING EXERCISE to explore this

Communication and Conflict Blog - Sat, 2018-12-01 14:56
This page describes a conflict management training exercise used to explore the assumptions we make about others when we meet them.

Judicial reform: You lose, you pay - Philippine Star

Google International ADR News - Sat, 2018-12-01 10:01

Judicial reform: You lose, you pay
Philippine Star
Among the recommendations made by business groups is to make more use of alternative dispute resolution and arbitration in resolving civil disputes outside of the courts to lessen case backloads and speed up the delivery of justice. ... Several years ...

and more »

Avoiding the MFN Clause: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back?

Kluwer Arbitration Blog - Sat, 2018-12-01 01:00

Amrit Singh

International investment agreements (IIAs) are divided into two types: (1) bilateral investment treaties and (2) treaties with investment provisions. I would primarily focus on the first category i.e. bilateral investment treaties. A bilateral investment treaty (BIT) is an agreement between two countries regarding the promotion and protection of investments made by investors from one country to other country’s territory, and vice versa.

India is not particularly new to the concept of BIT as India had signed the first BIT with the United Kingdom (UK) in 1994 and since 1994, India has signed BITs with 84 countries. Now, the reason why India had entered into BITs with other countries was because India wanted to attract foreign investment. The early 90s was the beginning of the era of liberalisation, as the then Prime Minister Mr. Narasimha Rao, along with the financial minister Mr. Manmohan Singh initiated the economic liberalisation of 1991.

India had been entering into sundry BITs but the major problem with the provisions of those agreements was identified by India in 2011, when an arbitral tribunal found India liable of violating the India-Australia Bilateral Investment Treaty. It was only in 2011 that India faced its first adverse arbitral award arising out of a BIT in the White Industries case.

White Industries was an Australian mining company and it entered into a contract with Coal India Limited for the supply of certain equipment and development of a coal mine. The dispute relating to bonus, quality and penalty payments arose in 1999 between Coal India and White Industries. The latter commenced arbitration under the ICC Arbitration Rules and secured an award in its favour as the tribunal awarded to White Industries a compensation of USD 4.08 million.

Coal India applied to the Calcutta High Court to set aside the ICC award as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996. Subsequently, White Industries approached the Delhi High Court to enforce the same award in India. However, to the dismay of both the parties, the proceedings were not completed in due time. Moreover, to White Industries’ surprise, the enforcement proceedings were stayed and therefore it filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of India. The matter couldn’t be decided until 2010 and thus finally, White Industries resorted to arbitration as it invoked the arbitration clause under the India-Australia BIT.

The contention of White Industries was that it had been denied “effective means” of enforcing its rights in relation to its investment, a protection incorporated into the India-Australia BIT by virtue of an MFN clause it contained. Thus, due to an ineffectual judicial (justice) system, India paid a huge price.

This proceeding signalled the start of a new decade for India, as this case was followed by a spate of proceedings against India. The major problem with India was that the whole BIT regime was more of an investor-friendly regime rather than a balanced one. Thus, India started working on a new model and hence, India signed just one BIT between 2011 and 2015 and that with the UAE. The draft on the new model BIT was subsequently approved by the Cabinet in December 2015.

The new model BIT has significantly departed from the earlier model as this time it follows a protectionist policy and does not favour the investors much. It is very evident that the new model BIT is a result of the backlash that India has faced in the past 7 years. It is to be noted that according to the World Investment Report 2016, India was one of the top 15 most frequent respondent states in 2015, which can certainly daunt the potential investors planning to set up a business enterprise in India. Therefore, it seems pretty clear that now India, instead of adopting a balanced approach towards the investors, has chosen to be on the defensive side.

The model BIT adopted in 2015 indicates that from now on, India would give precedence to the host state’s right to regulate over investment protection. This can be inferred from the various changes that have been introduced, amongst which some of them are: (1) narrowing down the definition of investment adopting an ‘enterprise-based’ definition of investment instead of an ‘asset-based’ definition; (2) providing for a number of actions which could not be decided by the arbitral tribunal; and (3) deleting the MFN clause, etc.

The MFN clause in a BIT aims to create a level-playing field for all foreign investors by prohibiting the host state from discriminating against investors from different countries. Majorly, foreign investors have preferred borrowing beneficial clauses and provisions from another BIT signed by the host state with other country. Now, it is to be noted that based on the previous model, India used to have a MFN provision in the BIT. But the MFN clause has been completely excluded in the new model BIT.

Moreover, it is not surprising that India has excluded the MFN provision due to the problems it faced in the White Industries case where Australia invoked the ‘effective means’ provision contained in the India-Kuwait BIT. Now it is very easy to conclude to the fact that India obviously did not want to grant the same remedy of effective means to Australia and that is why India formulated a balanced BIT.

However, it is also pertinent to note that the tribunals often import clauses of BITs entered into by a state with other countries even when that state had purposely not kept the same clause or provision. The reason why the tribunals resort to this approach is because the MFN clause aims to provide the benefit to a country and therefore in this particular case, India suffered a lot and hence finally removed the MFN provision from its new BIT.

It is highly debatable as to whether this move in the current context is favourable or not but the reason for doing that is clear to the arbitration community. India should have been cautious in adopting such a stand, as this would definitely restrict the number of investors in India as they longer could enjoy the right of having the same rights as of those investors of other nations. Moreover, the MFN clause is also important in order to ensure that every state/or investor is treated equally, without any kind of discrimination. Hence, India has definitely come forward with some new and impressive developments but with that there are also some major shortcomings which can act as an impediment to attracting foreign investments in India.

More from our authors: Arbitration in Belgium: A Practitioner’s Guide
by Edited by Niuscha Bassiri, Maarten Draye
€ 185


Sweden Adopts Revisions to Modernize its Arbitration Act

Kluwer Arbitration Blog - Sat, 2018-12-01 00:32

Patricia Shaughnessy

 

Introduction

On November 21, 2018, the Swedish Parliament adopted revisions to the Swedish Arbitration Act with the aim of modernizing it to further facilitate effective and attractive international and domestic arbitration in Sweden. The welcomed revisions will become effective for arbitrations commenced from March 1, 2019,1) The exceptions for application to arbitrations commenced after March 1, 2019 are:  Sections 41 (simplified court procedure for contesting arbitrator compensation) applies to proceedings brought to court after March 1, 2019; Section 43, para. 2, (oral evidence-taking in English in challenge proceedings) applies to challenges commenced after March 1, 2019; and Section 45 (a) (permission for appeal in challenge proceedings to the Supreme Court), apples to challenge judgments made after March 1, 2019. jQuery("#footnote_plugin_tooltip_6480_1").tooltip({ tip: "#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_6480_1", tipClass: "footnote_tooltip", effect: "fade", fadeOutSpeed: 100, predelay: 400, position: "top right", relative: true, offset: [10, 10] }); following a nearly five-year long legislative process to update the twenty-year old Arbitration Act of 1999, generating two earlier Kluwer blog posts by Brian Kotick and Anja Havedal Ipp. The revisions continue to reflect the influence that the UNCITRAL Model Law also had on the 1999 Act, while the Swedish Act retains its current approach and unique features. This short post highlights the key features of the revisions.

 

Jurisdictional Objections

One of the most notable revisions provides for a new procedure for judicial review of jurisdiction.  Under the current Act, parties have had the option of bringing a declaratory action to the District Court to determine jurisdiction prior to or during an arbitration, with the arbitrators entitled to continue the proceedings concurrent with the court proceedings.  Parties also have had the option of challenging an Award on jurisdictional grounds in set-aside proceedings at the Court of Appeal.  The revisions to Sections 2 and 4 (a) of the Act, allow parties to bring declaratory actions to determine jurisdiction only prior to the commencement of arbitration, unless the other party does not object to such concurrent proceedings after commencement of arbitration.  The revisions include a new provision allowing arbitrators to decide jurisdiction in an order that a party may appeal to the Court of Appeal within 30 days, resulting in a final jurisdiction decision.  During the judicial review, the arbitration may continue.  This approach reflects Article 16 of the Model Law and brings with it some issues that will be likely be addressed in future Swedish practice.  Parties should be careful to observe the shortened time for an appeal for such an order as compared to challenging an Award on jurisdictional grounds.

 

Appointment of the Tribunal

Under the current Act, when an arbitrator appointed by a party can no longer act or has been removed for reasons that existed when the arbitrator was appointed, and when the Parties have not agreed to a procedure for appointment and replacement, (such as under arbitral institutional rules of the SCC or ICC), the District Court will appoint the replacement arbitrator upon the request of a party.  The revisions allow for the party who appointed the original arbitrator to appoint the replacement arbitrator unless the court finds reasons not to allow such an appointment, for example delay or obstruction. (Section 16). If the original arbitrator must be replaced due to circumstances arising after the appointment, the party appointing the original arbitrator may appoint the replacement arbitrator, unless the parties have agreed otherwise. (Section 16, para 2.).

 

As complex arbitrations increasingly involve multi-parties, the revisions address the appointment of the arbitral tribunal in such cases when the parties have not agreed otherwise, which they typically would by agreeing to arbitral institute rules such as the SCC or ICC.  When the parties have not agreed to a procedure for appointment, the Act provides that the district court will appoint.  The revisions provide that upon the request of a party, the court shall appoint the entire tribunal in multi-party situations, including releasing any arbitrator previously appointed by the Claimant, unless the parties agree otherwise. (Section 14, para 2).

 

Consolidation of arbitrations

While modern rules of arbitration, such as the SCC 2017 Rules, provide for consolidation and joinder, the current Act has not addressed these issues.  The revisions have added a provision allowing a party to request the District Court to consolidate an arbitration with another when three conditions are met:  the parties agree to consolidate, it is advantageous to consolidate, and the same arbitrators are appointed.  (Section 23 (a)).  The court may also separate the arbitrations if justified. (Id.).  This provision would not be applicable when parties have agreed to arbitral rules providing for consolidation procedures; and, consequently, the Act’s consolidation provision would be used in ad hoc proceedings.

 

Determination of the Applicable Substantive Law 

The current Act does not provide for the determination of the substantive law applicable to the dispute.  The revisions provide that the arbitrators shall apply the law or set of legal rules the parties have agreed to, which unless otherwise indicated will be the substantive law and not a reference to such law’s choice of law rules.  (Section 27, para. 1).  If the parties have not agreed to the applicable law, the arbitrators may directly decide this issue. (Section 27, para. 2).  Arbitrators may only decide ex aequo et bono or as amiable compositeur if the parties have so agreed. (Section 27, para.3).

 

Terminology

Two revisions refer to terminology without having any significant impact on existing Swedish practice.  The term “seat” of an arbitration replaces the term “place” of arbitration to ensure the legal distinction between the legal seat and the place where hearings or other matters may take place (Section 22 of the Act).   The current Act refers to the impartiality of arbitrators but not to the independence , however, in practice both impartiality and independence have been required of arbitrators.  The revisions add the term “independence” to ensure clarity. (Section 8).

 

Termination of Arbitration

Pursuant to the current Act, once an arbitration is commenced it must be terminated with an Award.  This unique requirement may cause difficulties when the parties settle, withdraw a case, or fail to pay the advance on costs, and when rules, such as the ICC, require scrutiny of an Award.  The revisions allow the arbitrators to dismiss the case with an order, (Section 27), subject to certain provisions relating to the termination of the proceedings through an Award, (such as Section 36).

 

Excess of Mandate

Excess of mandate is a ground for setting aside an Award under the current Act.  Readers familiar with the Swedish arbitration will recognize that the current Act requires that a procedural error “must probably have affected the outcome of the case” to justify setting aside a challenged Award, (unlike the Model Law), while this has not been a requirement under the Act for excess of mandate.  The revisions will now impose this causality requirement also for setting aside an Award for excess of mandate.  (Section 34.3).

 

Challenge Procedure

To increase the efficiency of challenge procedures, the revisions have decreased the time-limit for bringing a challenge from three months to two months from receipt of the Award.  Parties should be aware that all of the grounds for challenge must be brought within this two-month period, (Section 34), which can be difficult when reviewing the records, consulting with clients, translating materials, and preparing filing submissions.    Section 33 of the Act has not been revised and provides no time limit for attacking “invalid awards”, namely when an Award violates public policy, the dispute is not arbitrable, or the Award is not in writing nor signed.  (Section 33).  The revisions have decreased the time period for contesting termination decisions (Section 36) and arbitrators’ compensation (Section 41) to two months.

 

The revisions provide a court may, upon the request of a party, allow the parties in challenge proceedings to take oral evidence in English, without translation to Swedish. This applies to both the Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court (Section 45).

 

The current Act provides for an appeal of a challenge judgment from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court when the Court of Appeal provides permission for such an appeal, which is made with regard to the importance of the issues and establishing precedents.  Currently, such an appeal is not limited to particular issues in the case.  The revisions provide that upon such permission from the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court may grant or deny leave for appeal and may determine which issues it will hear and decide.  (Section 43).

 

Conclusion

The revisions to the Swedish Arbitration Act enhance and increase the effectiveness of the already pro-arbitration legal environment for international and domestic arbitration in Sweden.  The new provisions may raise some new issues when put into practice, but will not dramatically change the landscape of Swedish arbitration.  The revisions are designed to support party autonomy and to interface with the modern rules and practice of international arbitration.

 

 

The author was a government- appointed expert in the committee mandated to investigate and propose revisions to the Swedish Arbitration Act.  Her views are entirely her own.

References   [ + ]

1. ↑ The exceptions for application to arbitrations commenced after March 1, 2019 are:  Sections 41 (simplified court procedure for contesting arbitrator compensation) applies to proceedings brought to court after March 1, 2019; Section 43, para. 2, (oral evidence-taking in English in challenge proceedings) applies to challenges commenced after March 1, 2019; and Section 45 (a) (permission for appeal in challenge proceedings to the Supreme Court), apples to challenge judgments made after March 1, 2019. function footnote_expand_reference_container() { jQuery("#footnote_references_container").show(); jQuery("#footnote_reference_container_collapse_button").text("-"); } function footnote_collapse_reference_container() { jQuery("#footnote_references_container").hide(); jQuery("#footnote_reference_container_collapse_button").text("+"); } function footnote_expand_collapse_reference_container() { if (jQuery("#footnote_references_container").is(":hidden")) { footnote_expand_reference_container(); } else { footnote_collapse_reference_container(); } } function footnote_moveToAnchor(p_str_TargetID) { footnote_expand_reference_container(); var l_obj_Target = jQuery("#" + p_str_TargetID); if(l_obj_Target.length) { jQuery('html, body').animate({ scrollTop: l_obj_Target.offset().top - window.innerHeight/2 }, 1000); } }More from our authors: Arbitration in Belgium: A Practitioner’s Guide
by Edited by Niuscha Bassiri, Maarten Draye
€ 185


Global standing of UK legal services continues to grow - Re:locate Magazine

Google International ADR News - Fri, 2018-11-30 08:22

Re:locate Magazine

Global standing of UK legal services continues to grow
Re:locate Magazine
... international," said the report."English law is currently used in 40 per cent of all global corporate arbitrations. However, while the reputation of UK courts continues to grow, in 2017, over 32,800 disputes were also resolved by alternative ...

and more »

Does Investor-State Arbitration Have a Future? Keynote Speech by Sir Christopher Greenwood

Kluwer Arbitration Blog - Fri, 2018-11-30 02:49

Lixin Chen and Aaron Yoong

The 8th edition of the Herbert Smith Freehills – SMU Asian Arbitration Lecture, jointly organised with the Centre for Cross-border Commercial Law at the Singapore Management University, took place on 18 October 2018. The distinguished event, graced by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, hosted a panel comprising: Sir Christopher Greenwood, DAG Lionel Yee, Judith Gill QC and Alastair Henderson (moderator). This post takes a closer look at the keynote speech delivered by Sir Christopher Greenwood.

 

The event was set against the sombre backdrop of increasing criticisms about investor-state arbitration (“ISA”). This was reflected in recent trends such as withdrawal of Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela from the ICSID Convention, and Australia’s aversion to ISA clauses in its Free Trade Agreements. Further, the famous Achmea decision by the EU Court of Justice earlier this year lent support to opponents of ISA (see Kluwer Articles here, here, here and here). Indeed, in Sir Greenwood’s words, “the storm clouds have been gathering” (for further analysis, see Kluwer Articles here, here and here).

 

But does ISA have a future, and should it? In addressing these questions, Sir Greenwood helpfully outlined the four major criticisms against ISA and provided suggestions for reform. While acknowledging that the future of ISA is “much more open to question”, he expressed hopes for its continued relevance.

 

Intrusion into state sovereignty

Sir Greenwood first observed that the entire system of ISA has been negatively viewed as an intrusion on the sovereignty of states. This has emerged in recent years as part of a wider backlash against globalisation, evidenced by Brexit and “America First” campaign under President Trump.

 

As Sir Greenwood noted, this criticism is perhaps unsurprising, for ISA tribunals are increasingly being involved in states’ domestic regulatory policies, possibly overriding a democratically-elected government’s view of what is in its best interest. A primary example of this is seen in the case of Philip Morris Asia Limited, where the Permanent Court of Arbitration (“PCA”) was made to decide on a matter relating to Australia’s plain packaging legislation for cigarettes.

 

In response to this, however, he suggested that the matter is perhaps “more complicated than it seems”. A bilateral investment treaties (“BIT”) involves, at all levels, two sovereignties. A state’s act of concluding of a BIT itself is a sovereign act – where each state party agrees to limit the exercise of its sovereign regulatory powers. This is further evidenced in the nature of bilateral investments, as the investment in a recipient state by another’s sovereign wealth fund necessarily involves the sovereignty of both. Even if the investment is by a private company, it would have to have been permitted to commit a portion of the sovereign wealth to overseas investment by its state’s domestic legislation. ISA thus involves sovereignty of both jurisdictions.

 

Vagueness of applicable standards

Sir Greenwood then shared his thoughts on the perception that concepts – such as indirect expropriation, and fair and equitable treatment – are too vague to be applied with certainty by tribunals. He disagreed with the view that parties would shy away from ISA because these terms led to unpredictability in arbitral awards. Ultimately, if it were truly the case that such terms are so vague to be unworkable, then it is “extraordinary” the terms in BITs concluded over the past 50 years have remained significantly unchanged. Any “bad reputation” should, in Sir Greenwood’s view, be attributed to the quality of claims raised and not the awards themselves.

 

Notwithstanding the admonition against extravagant claims, he cautioned arbitrators against examining these terms in the abstract. Treaty interpretation is an exercise distinct from interpreting domestic statutes or contracts. There is thus a need to assess what parties meant in the treaty, with reference to treaty definitions and practices of the states in applying the treaty after concluding it. For instance, if a treaty provides that the interpretations of the Free Trade Commission are binding, the tribunal should give effect to the treaty’s provisions even if the Commission’s interpretation is objectionable.

 

On this note, Sir Greenwood acknowledged that the very nature of ISA, in resolving disputes that are closely intertwined with administrative law and other public law issues, concerns fundamental issues of policy. Arbitrators involved in the proceedings must, in his words, “face up to the magnitude of the task of investor-state arbitration” and take caution in their assessment of disputes.

 

Lack of institutional framework and accountability

Sir Greenwood observed that yet another criticism levelled against ISA pertained more to the nature of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism. Several characteristics of arbitration were discussed. First, he noted that as compared to courts where judges are appointed according to established mechanisms, arbitral tribunals have been criticised for not having to go through any stringent selection and formation process. In response, he questioned the basis for this conception that courts have more legitimacy than arbitral tribunals. Ultimately, a BIT-formed arbitral tribunal derives its legitimacy from a treaty, no different from the International Court of Justice, International Criminal Court, or European Court of Human Rights. Yet, the same criticism about the lack of legitimacy does not apply in the same vein to these international courts.

 

Secondly, he was also critical of the argument that tribunals are neither subject to a general set of ethical standards nor held accountable through elaborate appellate mechanisms. Such arguments on accountability could, in his opinion, also be raised against national systems worldwide where the provision of judicial tenure makes policing of accountability difficult. In any case, even if we look to national courts that are often impartial and efficient, they are primarily governed by domestic legislations and unable to give effect to a treaty standard.

 

Thirdly, Sir Greenwood touched upon the recent debates over the level of transparency expected of arbitral tribunals. He observed anecdotally, that the state was often the party that strove to ensure confidentiality of proceedings, pleadings and even awards. He also pointed out that the default rule in UNCITRAL remains one of confidentiality, as most treaties that are still being heard were completed before the 2013 Rules of Transparency came into effect. In his opinion, awards should minimally be published with reduction, for anything less would “abandon any concept of courts and tribunals as we know them today”. Further, tax payers should not be expected to fork out so much money with no understanding of the grounds which the state has lost the case.

 

As a last note on transparency, Sir Greenwood stressed that there is a “need to be candid about who writes the arbitration award”; referring to the need for appointed arbitrators to perform their jobs, instead of relying on their secretaries or other unknown individuals.

 

No longer cheap or fast

The final criticism raised is related to the view that ISA no longer provides a quick resolution process, is expensive, and does not uphold confidentiality as before. While acknowledging these issues, Sir Greenwood suggested that these partly results from attempts to tackle other existing criticisms. For instance, in response to the calls for greater transparency, awards must provide a more detailed account of pleadings, effectively requiring more time. This is enshrined within Article 52(1)(e) of the ICSID Convention, which provides for the failure to state reasons as one of the grounds for annulment. Additionally, disputing parties played a role in causing delays and high costs, particularly through submissions that are unnecessarily long and overloaded with arguments in hopes that one might stick.

 

Sir Greenwood advocated calibrating the award on costs to reflect the quality of arguments and the corollary delayed caused, as was done in the Philip Morris case. He acknowledged, however, that this suggestion may prove impractical where costs are issued alongside the merits of an award.

 

Concluding thoughts

In summary, in Sir Greenwood’s words, when viewed with a sense of proportion, the ISA “edifice is not crumbling”. Despite the withdrawals from the ICSID Convention, 154 states have ratified it. While the number of cases have slowed down, ICSID alone has over 50 new cases in 2017–2018 – almost half of all cases including those before the PCA and the International Chamber of Commerce. Concurrently, Australia has relaxed its hostility while the UK remains as big a proponent of ISA.

 

Sir Greenwood also underscored that given the lack of viable alternatives, the abolition of ISA would cause a return to a “Wild West World” – one of snatch and grab expropriation, with abuse of regulatory power under the guise of protectionism. ISA obviates the need to rely completely on states discretion to bring claims against another, and avoids risking diplomatic relationships in every dispute.

 

On a final note, Sir Greenwood pointed out that the recent criticisms of ISA have arisen precisely because ISA has been evolving to address the problems of the past. In our opinion, its relevance is aptly seen in Singapore, which has been involved in the Sanum v. Laos and Lesotho v. Swissborough cases, despite being neither the investing nor receiving state. While reforms are undoubtedly needed in specific areas, there is hope that ISA will move into a better age.

More from our authors: Arbitration in Belgium: A Practitioner’s Guide
by Edited by Niuscha Bassiri, Maarten Draye
€ 185


The Professionalism of Arbitrator

Kluwer Arbitration Blog - Fri, 2018-11-30 01:41

Ana Gerdau de Borja Mercereau

After introduction by the French Arbitration Committee’s (Comité Français de l’Arbitrage or “CFA”) President, Mr. Laurent Jaeger, Mr. Yves Derains started his speech on “The Professionalism of the Arbitrator” by saying that arbitration has become the natural way to resolve international disputes.1) This note was based on Mr. Yves Derains’ speech at the 10 October 2018 Conference of the French Arbitration Committee (CFA), held at the Palais de justice, Salle des criées, in Paris. jQuery("#footnote_plugin_tooltip_3245_1").tooltip({ tip: "#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_3245_1", tipClass: "footnote_tooltip", effect: "fade", fadeOutSpeed: 100, predelay: 400, position: "top right", relative: true, offset: [10, 10] });  According to him, this is because of arbitrators’ neutrality and because of the efficacy of arbitral awards, which are often easier to enforce than State court judgments.  He agreed with Professor Jan Paulsson that the time of arbitration’s innocence has ended with counsel’s and arbitrators’ increasing professionalism.

 

Mr. Derains explained that the purpose of his speech was to discuss whether a profession as an arbitrator exists and, if so, what are the qualities expected from arbitrators.  He would first consider the expected qualities of arbitrators and then examine whether the profession of arbitrators exists in view of the functions they perform and the community they belong to.

 

He gave the example of Article 14 of the Washington Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States of 1965, which provides that arbitrators “shall be persons of high moral character and recognized competence in the fields of law, commerce, industry or finance, who may be relied upon to exercise independent judgment.”  Article 14 does not require arbitration experience, let alone qualification to practice as a lawyer; rather, an arbitrator should be an “amateur éclairé”, a knowledgeable and enlightened decision-making person.  In his view, an arbitrator’s decision is an act of justice and thus a jurisdictional act, which explains the requirement that arbitrators be independent.  An arbitrator is expected to determine the arbitral procedure and to propose procedural solutions when the rules are not always pre-determined, acting efficiently within the limits of his or her mandate.

 

Mr. Derains went on to discuss the qualities that arbitrators need to fulfil their duties.  According to him, there are at least four needed qualities: (1) the capacity to decide; (2) the capacity to inspire trust from the parties and from his or her colleagues; (3) the capacity not to have a need for approval from the parties; (4) the capacity to manage the proceedings and to work well.

 

First, the Parties do not want an arbitrator that hesitates and does not decide.  An arbitrator does not decide only in the award; rather, an arbitrator must be capable of deciding procedural matters at all times.  For example, the president and the sole arbitrator cannot afford to lose control of the proceedings during the examination of factual and expert witnesses.  This requires the capacity to decide and to decide quickly.

 

Second, an arbitrator must be able to inspire trust from the parties and from his or her colleagues.  This means having the capacity to decide with no brutality, with diplomacy and some pedagogy.  Inspiring trust requires some cultural neutrality, which enables an arbitrator to appreciate better the legitimate expectations of the parties.  If an arbitrator only knows his or her own legal system, he or she may take decisions to the detriment of a party from a different legal system.  Trust from the colleagues is also important although co-arbitrators will not always be truly independent.  An efficient technique to measure the independence of co-arbitrators is finding a very weak argument and commenting on this argument with them; if a co-arbitrator defends the party putting forward this weak argument, one should rather be cautious.

 

Third, an arbitrator must not have a need for approval from the parties and should not be worried to please them no matter what.  According to Mr. Derains, it is inherent to an arbitrator’s function not to please.  To please at all times means taking unjust decisions.  An arbitrator should not fear being challenged or having its decision annulled, and should not condescend to a parties’ dictatorship threatening annulment.  Rather, an arbitrator should decide what is right and should not fear the future.

 

Fourth, an arbitrator must know how to organize and manage the proceedings.  This is true in international arbitration enshrining a myriad of legal traditions, and is especially true in large arbitrations.  An arbitrator has to know the file and has to prepare for the hearings.  For example, deciding on document production requests requires knowing the file to make good decisions.  And all this means working hard.

 

Mr. Derains then moved to the next topic:  Is there a profession of arbitrators?  According to him, an arbitrator is “un être de passage” a fleeting, non-permanent being.  And arbitrators act within what has now become a market.  He recalled that Professor Pierre Lalive found it risky when arbitrators become sellers.  Mr. Derains then noted that a profession of arbitrators exists in two senses: (1) the functions an arbitrator performs (“le métier d’arbitre”); and (2) the group of individuals that perform these functions.  He then recalled Professor Jean Robert’s statement that arbitration was conceived as a profession of gentlemen made for gentlemen.  And this persists today when we think of arbitration values and its underlying values of justice.  In Mr. Derains’ view, this has lost, however, much importance today.

 

He also told the audience that it was true that many people make a living with arbitration.  So, the profession of arbitrators exists, and it is quite competitive.  The arbitrators show themselves to counsel, for example, in arbitration conferences.  In this respect, he recalled a statement from Professor Bruno Opetit that arbitration conferences sometimes serve as marketing places for self-promotion and publicity.  Mr. Derains did not find, however, that competition is necessarily a bad thing.  Fierce competition existed between the great artists Michelangelo and Raphael during Renaissance times without affecting the quality of their work.  Moreover, while one of the premises of a liberal profession is having clients, arbitrators cannot have clients as this would result in lack of independence.  In his view, the profession of arbitrators is therefore a liberal profession without clients.

 

Mr. Derains also noted that a profession of arbitrators exists in the sense of an organized community, but which is not homogeneous.  The community of arbitrators is a combination of professional and occasional arbitrators, with the secretaries of arbitral tribunals playing a role as well.  This leads to numerous conflicts of interests.  There is no control to enter the profession.  There are certifications to acquire the qualities of an arbitrator, but this does not make anyone an arbitrator.  Some say that this is an elitist club, but Mr. Derains disagreed because the parties are the ones choosing the arbitrators.  He shared with the audience the example of ICC arbitration whose 80% of cases have the parties choosing the arbitrators.  Direct appointments by the ICC Court and ICC Court appointments upon national committees’ nomination are thus much less frequent.  Although sometimes the parties hesitate to nominate new arbitrators, new arbitrators have been nominated.  He argues that the circle is continuously renewed.  The profession of arbitrators auto-regulates itself with codes of ethics, which limit abuse.

 

Mr. Derains concluded that one can refer to the professionalism of arbitrators.  He noted that sometimes this comes with the arbitral procedure being standardized, when arbitrators systematically reproduce procedural rules like including document production rules when the parties have requested none.  But he added that this can be easily fixed if arbitrators adopt made-to-measure procedural rules.

References   [ + ]

1. ↑ This note was based on Mr. Yves Derains’ speech at the 10 October 2018 Conference of the French Arbitration Committee (CFA), held at the Palais de justice, Salle des criées, in Paris. function footnote_expand_reference_container() { jQuery("#footnote_references_container").show(); jQuery("#footnote_reference_container_collapse_button").text("-"); } function footnote_collapse_reference_container() { jQuery("#footnote_references_container").hide(); jQuery("#footnote_reference_container_collapse_button").text("+"); } function footnote_expand_collapse_reference_container() { if (jQuery("#footnote_references_container").is(":hidden")) { footnote_expand_reference_container(); } else { footnote_collapse_reference_container(); } } function footnote_moveToAnchor(p_str_TargetID) { footnote_expand_reference_container(); var l_obj_Target = jQuery("#" + p_str_TargetID); if(l_obj_Target.length) { jQuery('html, body').animate({ scrollTop: l_obj_Target.offset().top - window.innerHeight/2 }, 1000); } }More from our authors: Arbitration in Belgium: A Practitioner’s Guide
by Edited by Niuscha Bassiri, Maarten Draye
€ 185


“New NAFTA” signed in Buenos Aires

Donald Trump, Justin Trudeau and Enrique Pena Nieto have signed the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or as Trudeau referred to it, “new NAFTA”, at the G20 summit in Buenos Aires. A signing ceremony...

Updated HKIAC Arbitration Rules Seek to Save Time and Costs - JD Supra (press release)

Google International ADR News - Thu, 2018-11-29 17:21

Updated HKIAC Arbitration Rules Seek to Save Time and Costs
JD Supra (press release)
The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) recently released a new version of the HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules, effective November 1, 2018. The new version updates the 2013 HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules, and makes ...

Updated HKIAC Arbitration Rules Seek to Save Time and Costs - JD Supra (press release)

Google International ADR News - Thu, 2018-11-29 17:21

Updated HKIAC Arbitration Rules Seek to Save Time and Costs
JD Supra (press release)
The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) recently released a new version of the HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules, effective November 1, 2018. The new version updates the 2013 HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules, and makes ...

MAYER BROWN: Mayer Brown promotes 34 to partner worldwide - Madison County Record

Google International ADR News - Thu, 2018-11-29 13:01

Madison County Record

MAYER BROWN: Mayer Brown promotes 34 to partner worldwide
Madison County Record
Mr. Whitaker handles a wide range of matters across a broad range of industries, often with a large international, multi-jurisdictional element, in the context both of traditional High Court litigation and of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms ...

Airbnb hit by claim over removed West Bank listings

A pro-Israel activist and lawyer has launched an American Arbitration Association claim against Airbnb over the internet platform’s “discriminatory” decision to remove listings of homes for rent in Israeli...

Jay-Z highlights lack of diversity among arbitrators

UPDATED. World-renowned rapper Jay-Z has won a temporary stay of a US$200 million American Arbitration Association proceeding from a New York court after complaining that the institution does not have...

Updated HKIAC Arbitration Rules Seek to Save Time and Costs - Lexology

Google International ADR News - Thu, 2018-11-29 11:15

Updated HKIAC Arbitration Rules Seek to Save Time and Costs
Lexology
The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) recently released a new version of the HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules, effective November 1, 2018. The new version updates the 2013 HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules, and makes ...

Communication and Conflict

Communication and Conflict Blog - Thu, 2018-11-29 07:00
A website about the relationship between communication and conflict. Articles on conflict resolution, mediation, why effective communication is important for conflict management in relationships.
Syndicate content