Arbitration in 49 jurisdictions worldwide 2014 · Arbitration in 49 jurisdictions worldwide...

Arbitrationin 49 jurisdictions worldwide

Contributing editors: Gerhard Wegen and Stephan Wilske2014

Published by Getting the Deal Through

in association with:Aarna Law

Anderson Mori & TomotsuneASAR – Al Ruwayeh & Partners

Association for International ArbitrationBaker & McKenzie Habib Al Mulla

Bán, S Szabó & PartnersBarbosa, Müssnich & Aragão

Barger Prekop sroBilliet & Co

Braddell Brothers LLPCairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration

Chinese European Arbitration Centre Chinese European Legal Association

Crowell & Moring LLPDorothy Ufot & Co

Dzungsrt & Associates LLCEsin Attorney Partnership

Fangda PartnersFangda Partners (in association with Peter Yuen & Associates)

Gan PartnershipGinestié Magellan Paley-Vincent in association with Ahdab Law Firm

Gleiss LutzHeussen Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH

Hoet Pelaez Castillo & DuqueHughes Hubbard & Reed LLP

Johnson Winter & SlatteryKim & Chang

Kimathi & Partners, Corporate AttorneysKosheri, Rashed & Riad Law Firm

Łaszczuk & PartnersLawFed BRSA

Law Offices BelohlávekLilla, Huck, Otranto, Camargo Advogados

Mamic Peric Reberski RimacMcClure Naismith LLP

Meyer Fabre AvocatsMiranda Correia Amendoeira & Associados

Mkono & Co AdvocatesMotieka & Audzevicius

Niedermann RechtsanwälteNorton Rose Fulbright (Middle East) LLP

Oblin MelicharPérez Bustamante & Ponce

Pestalozzi Attorneys at Law LtdPosse Herrera Ruiz

Roosdiono & PartnersSandart & Partners

Schellenberg WittmerSherby & Co, AdvsStoica & Asociat

´ii

Stockholm Arbitration & Litigation Center (SALC) Advokatbyrå KBTilleke & Gibbins

Vasil Kisil & PartnersVon Wobeser y Sierra SC

flanam

Text Box

Reproduced with permission from Law Business Research Ltd. This article was first published in Getting the Deal Through – Arbitration 2014, (published in January 2014; contributing editors: Gerhard Wegen and Stephan Wilske of Gleiss Lutz). For further information please visit www.GettingTheDealThrough.com.

www.gettingthedealthrough.com 1

contents

Arbitration 2014

contributing editors:Gerhard Wegen and stephan WilskeGleiss Lutz

Getting the Deal Through is delighted to publish the ninth edition of Arbitration, a volume in our series of annual reports, which provide international analysis in key areas of law and policy for corporate counsel, cross-border legal practitioners and business people.

Following the format adopted throughout the series, the same key questions are answered by leading practitioners in each of the 49 jurisdictions featured. New jurisdictions this year include Equatorial Guinea, Mexico, Nigeria and Scotland.

Every effort has been made to ensure that matters of concern to readers are covered. However, specific legal advice should always be sought from experienced local advisers. Getting the Deal Through publications are updated annually in print. Please ensure you are referring to the latest print edition or to the online version at www.gettingthedealthrough.com.

Getting the Deal Through gratefully acknowledges the efforts of all the contributors to this volume, who were chosen for their recognised expertise. We would also like to extend special thanks to contributing editors Gerhard Wegen and Stephan Wilske of Gleiss Lutz for their continued assistance with this volume.

Getting the Deal throughLondonJanuary 2014

PublisherGideon [email protected]

subscriptionsRachel [email protected]

Business development managers George [email protected]

Alan [email protected]

Dan [email protected]

Published by Law Business Research Ltd87 Lancaster Road London, W11 1QQ, UKTel: +44 20 7908 1188Fax: +44 20 7229 6910© Law Business Research Ltd 2014No photocopying: copyright licences do not apply.First published 2006Ninth editionISSN 1750-9947

The information provided in this publication is general and may not apply in a specific situation. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any legal action based on the information provided. This information is not intended to create, nor does receipt of it constitute, a lawyer–client relationship. The publishers and authors accept no responsibility for any acts or omissions contained herein. Although the information provided is accurate as of January 2014, be advised that this is a developing area.

Printed and distributed by Encompass Print SolutionsTel: 0844 2480 112

Introduction 4

Gerhard Wegen and stephan Wilske Gleiss Lutz

CAM-CCBC 10

André de Albuquerque cavalcanti Abbud and Gustavo santos KuleszaBarbosa, Müssnich & Aragão

CEAC 16

eckart Brödermann and christine HeegChinese European Arbitration Centre

thomas Weimann Chinese European Legal Association

CIETAC 21

Peter Yuen, Helen shi and Benjamin Miao Fangda Partners

CMA 25

André de Albuquerque cavalcanti Abbud and Gustavo santos Kulesza Barbosa, Müssnich & Aragão

CRCICA 30

Mohamed Abdel Raouf Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration

DIAC 36

Gordon Blanke and soraya corm-Bakhos Baker & McKenzie Habib Al Mulla

DIS 39

Renate Dendorfer-Ditges Heussen Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH

HKIAC 44

Peter Yuen and Doris Yeung Fangda Partners (in association with Peter Yuen & Associates)

ICC 48

José Rosell and María Beatriz Burghetto Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP

ICSID 54

nicolas Herzog and niccolò Gozzi Niedermann Rechtsanwälte

The Polish Chamber of Commerce 60

Justyna szpara and Maciej Łaszczuk Łaszczuk & Partners

SCC 63

Dan engström & cornel Marian Stockholm Arbitration & Litigation Center (SALC) Advokatbyrå KB

The Swiss Chambers’ Arbitration Institution 67

Philippe Bärtsch, christopher Boog and Benjamin Moss Schellenberg Wittmer

Angola 72

Agostinho Pereira de Miranda, cláudia Leonardo and Jayr Fernandes Miranda Correia Amendoeira & Associados

Australia 79

tony Johnson and Henry Winter Johnson Winter & Slattery

Austria 87

Klaus oblin Oblin Melichar

Bahrain 94

Adam Vause Norton Rose Fulbright (Middle East) LLP

Belgium 102

Johan Billiet Billiet & Co

tatiana Proshkina Association for International Arbitration

Brazil 111

Hermes Marcelo Huck, Rogério carmona Bianco and Fábio Peixinho Gomes corrêa Lilla, Huck, Otranto, Camargo Advogados

contents

2 Getting the Deal through – Arbitration 2014

China 118

Peter Yuen, Helen shi and Benjamin Miao Fangda Partners

Colombia 127

carolina Posada Isaacs, María Alejandra Arboleda González and Diego Romero cruz Posse Herrera Ruiz

Croatia 134

natalija Peric and Frano BelohradskyMamic Peric Reberski Rimac

Czech Republic 141

Alexander J BelohlávekLaw Offices Belohlávek

Ecuador 149

Rodrigo Jijón Letort and Juan Manuel MarchánPérez Bustamante & Ponce

Egypt 158

tarek F Riad Kosheri, Rashed & Riad Law Firm

England and Wales 164

Jane Wessel, claire stockford and Meriam n Alrashid Crowell & Moring LLP

Equatorial Guinea 175

Agostinho Pereira de Miranda and cláudia Leonardo Miranda Correia Amendoeira & Associados

France 180

nathalie Meyer Fabre Meyer Fabre Avocats

Germany 189

stephan Wilske and claudia Krapfl Gleiss Lutz

Ghana 196

Kimathi Kuenyehia sr and Kafui Baeta Kimathi & Partners, Corporate Attorneys

Hong Kong 204

Peter Yuen and Doris Yeung Fangda Partners (in association with Peter Yuen & Associates)

Hungary 214

chrysta Bán Bán, S Szabó & Partners

India 222

Mysore Prasanna, shreyas Jayasimha, Rajashree Rastogi and s Bhushan Aarna Law

Indonesia 233

Anderonikus A s Janis Roosdiono & Partners

Israel 241

eric s sherby and tali Rosen Sherby & Co, Advs

Italy 250

Mauro Rubino-sammartano LawFed BRSA

Japan 258

shinji Kusakabe Anderson Mori & Tomotsune

JordanGinestié Magellan Paley-Vincent in association with Ahdab Law Firm see www.gettingthedealthrough.com

Korea 265

Bc Yoon, Richard Menard and Liz Kyo-Hwa chung Kim & Chang

Kuwait 274

Ahmed Barakat and Ibrahim sattout ASAR – Al Ruwayeh & Partners

LibyaGinestié Magellan Paley-Vincent in association with Ahdab Law Firm see www.gettingthedealthrough.com

Lithuania 282

Ramunas Audzevicius and Rimantas Daujotas Motieka & Audzevicius

Malaysia 289

Foo Joon Liang Gan Partnership

Mexico 299

claus von Wobeser and Montserrat ManzanoVon Wobeser y Sierra SC

Morocco Ginestié Magellan Paley-Vincent in association with Ahdab Law Firm see www.gettingthedealthrough.com

Mozambique 306

Agostinho Pereira de Miranda, Filipa Russo de sá and catarina carvalho cunhaMiranda Correia Amendoeira & Associados

Nigeria 313

Dorothy Udeme Ufot sAnDorothy Ufot & Co

Poland 323

Justyna szpara and Andrzej MaciejewskiŁaszczuk & Partners

Portugal 330

Agostinho Pereira de Miranda, cláudia Leonardo and catarina carvalho cunhaMiranda Correia Amendoeira & Associados

Qatar 337

Jalal el Ahdab and Myriam eid Ginestié Magellan Paley-Vincent in association with Ahdab Law Firm

Romania 346

cristiana-Irinel stoica, Daniel Aragea and Andrei Buga Stoica & Asociat

´ii

Saudi Arabia 353

Jalal el Ahdab and Myriam eidGinestié Magellan Paley-Vincent in association with Ahdab Law Firm

Scotland 363

Brandon Malone McClure Naismith LLP

Singapore 372

edmund Jerome Kronenburg and tan Kok Peng Braddell Brothers LLP


contents

Slovakia 382

Roman Prekop, Monika simorova and Peter Petho Barger Prekop sro

Sweden 391

eric M Runesson and simon Arvmyren Sandart & Partners

Switzerland 398

thomas Rohner and nadja Kubat erkPestalozzi Attorneys at Law Ltd

Tanzania 406

Wilbert Kapinga, ofotsu A tetteh-Kujorjie and Kamanga Kapinga Mkono & Co Advocates

Thailand 413

Kornkieat chunhakasikarn and John King Tilleke & Gibbins

Turkey 421

Ismail G esin, Dogan Gultutan and Ali Yesilirmak Esin Attorney Partnership

Ukraine 429

oleksiy Filatov and Pavlo Byelousov Vasil Kisil & Partners

United Arab Emirates 439

Gordon Blanke and soraya corm-Bakhos Baker & McKenzie Habib Al Mulla

United States 448

Birgit Kurtz, Arlen Pyenson and Amal Bouhabib Crowell & Moring LLP

Venezuela 455

José Gregorio torrealba Hoet Pelaez Castillo & Duque

Vietnam 463

nguyen Manh Dzung, Le Quang Hung and nguyen ngoc Minh Dzungsrt & Associates LLC

united StateS Crowell & Moring LLP

448 Getting the Deal Through – Arbitration 2014

United StatesBirgit Kurtz, Arlen Pyenson and Amal Bouhabib

Crowell & Moring LLP

Laws and institutions

1 Multilateral conventions relating to arbitrationIs your country a contracting state to the New York Convention on

the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards? Since

when has the Convention been in force? Were any declarations or

notifications made under articles I, X and XI of the Convention? What

other multilateral conventions relating to international commercial and

investment arbitration is your country a party to?

The United States are a contracting state to the following multilateral conventions:• TheConventionontheRecognitionandEnforcementofForeignArbitralAwards(NewYorkConvention),effective29December1970.TheNewYorkConventioniscodifiedintheFederalArbi-trationAct(FAA)at9USCsections201–208.TheUnitedStatesmadedeclarationsorothernotificationspursuanttoarticlesI(3)andX(1)asfollows:(a)ThisStatewillapplytheConventiononlytorecognitionandenforcementofawardsmadeintheter-ritoryofanothercontractingstate;and(b)ThisStatewillapplytheConventiononlytodifferencesarisingoutoflegalrelation-ships,whethercontractualornot,thatareconsideredcommer-cialunderthenationallaw.

• TheInter-AmericanConventiononInternationalCommercialArbitration(PanamaConvention),effective27October1990,andcodifiedintheFAAat9USCsections301–307.

• The Convention on the Settlement of Investment DisputesBetweenStatesandNationalsofOtherStates(ICSIDConven-tion),effective14October1966,andcodifiedinpartat22USCsection1650a.

2 Bilateral investment treatiesDo bilateral investment treaties exist with other countries?

The United States have entered into several bilateral investment trea-ties(BITs),alistofwhichcanbefoundonthewebsiteoftheUnitedStatesDepartmentofStateatwww.state.gov/s/l/treaty/tif/index.htm,whichlistsall‘treatiesinforce’(TIF)withtheUnitedStates.

3 Domestic arbitration lawWhat are the primary domestic sources of law relating to domestic

and foreign arbitral proceedings, and recognition and enforcement of

awards?

Theprimarydomesticsourcesarefoundinbothfederalandstatelaw,andinbothstatutesandjudge-madecaselaw.TheFAAgovernsthevalidityandenforceabilityofarbitrationagreementsinmaritimetransactions and in contracts ‘evidencing a transaction involv-ingcommerce’.MoststatesintheUnitedStateshavealsoenactedarbitration statutes that are based on the Uniform Arbitration Act

(UAA)ortheRevisedUniformArbitrationAct(RUAA),withsomevariations.Statestatutesmaycomplementandexpandonfederal arbitrationlaw,totheextentthattheydonotconflictwiththeFAA.Intheeventofaconflict,theFAApre-emptsstatestatutes.IntheUnitedStates,thereisastrongpolicyinfavourofarbitra-

tionandtheenforceabilityofarbitrationagreements.Chapter1oftheFAAgovernsdomesticarbitrationagreementsandawards,andappliestointernationalarbitrationtotheextentitdoesnotconflictwiththeNewYorkConvention.Chapters2and3oftheFAAgovernarbitrationsundertheNewYorkConventionandthePanamaCon-vention,respectively.FAAsections202and302defineaninterna-tionalagreementasanagreementarisingoutofalegalrelationship,whethercontractualornot,whichisconsideredascommercialandinvolvingatleastonenon-UScitizen,orifentirelybetweenUSciti-zens,onethatinvolvespropertylocatedabroad,envisagesperform-anceorenforcementabroad,or‘hassomeotherreasonablerelationwithoneormoreforeignstates’.

4 Domestic arbitration and UNCITRALIs your domestic arbitration law based on the UNCITRAL Model Law?

What are the major differences between your domestic arbitration law

and the UNCITRAL Model Law?

DisputesinvolvinginterstatecommercearegovernedbytheFAA,andtheFAAisnotbasedontheUNCITRALModelLawonInterna-tionalCommercialArbitration.Themajorityofstatearbitrationstat-utesarebasedontheUAAandtheRUAA,withsomestatestatutesalsobeingbasedontheUNCITRALModelLaw.UnderUSlaw,thequestionofarbitrabilitymayonlybereferredtothearbitraltribunalwhere there is clear and unmistakable evidence in the arbitration agreementthatthequestionofarbitrabilityshouldbedecidedbythearbitraltribunal.AnumberofinstitutionalarbitrationrulesarebasedontheUNCITRALModelLaw,orpermitthepartiestooptfortheapplicationoftheUNCITRALRulesintheirarbitration.

5 Mandatory provisionsWhat are the mandatory domestic arbitration law provisions on

procedure from which parties may not deviate?

UScourtshaveheldrepeatedlythat‘arbitrationisacreatureofcon-tract.’Asaresult,arbitraltribunalsareboundbytheparties’agree-ment.Byreferenceinthearbitrationagreement,thetribunalmayalsobeboundbyinstitutionalrulesconcerningprocedure.UndertheFAA,courtscanvacatearbitrationawardsonlyonverylimitedproceduralgrounds,includingarbitratormisconductorpartiality,refusaltohearmaterialevidence,andwherethearbitratorshaveactedultravires.

© Law Business Research Ltd 2014


Crowell & Moring LLP united StateS

6 Substantive lawIs there any rule in your domestic arbitration law that provides the

arbitral tribunal with guidance as to which substantive law to apply to

the merits of the dispute?

Asageneralrule,theparties’choiceofsubstantivelawisenforce-ableandbinding,andarbitraltribunalsmustgenerallyapplythesubstantivelawchosenbythepartiestogoverntheirdispute.InsomestatesintheUnitedStates,choiceoflawprovisionsaresubjecttotherequirementthatthechosenjurisdictionhaveasubstantialrelation-shiptothepartiesortheunderlyingtransaction,orthatthepartieshaveareasonablebasisintheirchoiceoflaw.Ifthearbitratorsdonotapplythesubstantivelawselectedbythepartiesinthearbitra-tionagreement,thearbitralawardmaybevacatedonthegroundsthatthearbitratorsmanifestlydisregardedthelaworthattheyactedultravires.

7 Arbitral institutionsWhat are the most prominent arbitral institutions situated in your

country?

The most prominent arbitral institutions in the United States are:

American Arbitration Association (AAA)1622AvenueoftheAmericasNewYork,NY10019United Stateswww.adr.org

International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR)120Broadway,21stFloorNewYork,NY10271United Stateswww.icdr.org

Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (JAMS)620EighthAvenue,34thFloorNewYork,NY10018United Stateswww.jamsadr.com

International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR)575LexingtonAvenue,21stFloorNewYork,NY10022United Stateswww.cpradr.org

ICC International Court of Arbitration (SICANA)1212AvenueoftheAmericas,9thFloorNewYork,NY10036United Stateswww.iccwbo.org

Arbitration agreement

8 ArbitrabilityAre there any types of disputes that are not arbitrable?

Anydisputeofacivil/commercialnaturebetweenprivatepersonsorentitiescanbearbitrated.

9 RequirementsWhat formal and other requirements exist for an arbitration

agreement?

CourtsintheUnitedStateshaveconfirmedrepeatedlythatarbitra-tionisa‘creatureofcontract.’Arbitrationagreementsare,therefore,

subjecttothegeneralrequirementsconcerningtheformation,validityandenforceabilityofcontracts.Statutesgoverningtheenforcementofarbitrationagreementsgenerallyrequirethatanarbitrationagree-ment be in writing and valid under the laws of the state governing thearbitrationagreement.TheFAApre-emptsstatelawsrestrictingtheformationorvalidityofarbitrationagreements.

10 EnforceabilityIn what circumstances is an arbitration agreement no longer

enforceable?

UndertheFAA(section2),arbitrationagreementsarevalid,irrevo-cableandenforceableunlessgrounds‘existatlaworinequityfortherevocationofanycontract.’Thus,generalprinciplesofcontractlawapplyforchallenginganarbitrationagreement,whichincludestandardgroundssuchasduress,fraudulentinducement,fraud,ille-gality,lackofcapacity,unconscionabilityandwaiver.

11 Third parties – bound by arbitration agreementIn which instances can third parties or non-signatories be bound by an

arbitration agreement?

Arbitrationagreementsgenerallybindonlythecontractingparties.Inlimitedcircumstances,thirdpartiesandnon-signatoriescanbeboundbyarbitrationagreements(orbeabletoenforcearbitrationagreements)throughtraditionalprinciplesofstatecontractlawsuchasassumption,piercingthecorporateveil,alterego,incorporationbyreference,third-partybeneficiary,waiverandestoppel.

12 Third parties – participationDoes your domestic arbitration law make any provisions with respect

to third-party participation in arbitration, such as joinder or third-party

notice?

Ifnon-signatoriesparticipateinanarbitration,theyaregenerallysubjecttothesamerulesandproceduresassignatories.

13 Groups of companiesDo courts and arbitral tribunals in your jurisdiction extend an

arbitration agreement to non-signatory parent or subsidiary companies

of a signatory company, provided that the non-signatory was somehow

involved in the conclusion, performance or termination of the contract

in dispute, under the ‘group of companies’ doctrine?

The‘groupofcompanies’doctrineisnotgenerallyrecognisedintheUnitedStates.Whilenon-signatoriestypicallyarenotboundbyarbi-trationagreements,parentandsubsidiarycompaniesmaybecom-pelled to arbitrate in cases in which the claims against them are based onthesamefactsas,andareinherentlyinseparablefrom,theclaimsagainstthesignatorycompany.Non-signatoryparentandsubsidiarycompaniesmayalsobecompelledtoarbitratebasedonstatelawtheoriesofalterego,veil-piercingandagency.

14 Multiparty arbitration agreementsWhat are the requirements for a valid multiparty arbitration

agreement?

Foramultipartyarbitrationagreementtobevalid,itmustcomplywithgeneralcontractlawrequirements;forexample,itshouldbein writing and demonstrate the intent of the parties to be bound bytheagreement.Theconsolidationofmultiplearbitrationsintoasinglearbitrationwillinmostcasesnotbepermittedunlessexpresslyauthorisedbyalltheparties.Classarbitrationwillbepermittedonlywherethereisacontractual

basis for concluding that the parties agreed to authorise such a proceed-ing (Stolt-Nielsen SA v AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp,559US662(2010)).




Butiftheagreementissilentandthequestionofclassarbitrabilityisdeferredtothearbitraltribunal,acourtmustdefertothearbitrator’scontractualinterpretation,aslongasthearbitrator‘arguablycon-strued’ the agreement (Oxford Health Plans LLC v Sutter,133SCt2064(2013)).Courtsmustrigorouslyenforcearbitrationagreementsaccordingtotheirterms,includingthosethatcontainclassactionwaivers,evenwherethecostofpursuinganindividualclaimwouldbe prohibitive (American Express Co v Italian Colors Restaurants,133SCt2304(2013)).

Constitution of arbitral tribunal

15 Eligibility of arbitratorsAre there any restrictions as to who may act as an arbitrator? Would

any contractually stipulated requirement for arbitrators based on

nationality, religion or gender be recognised by the courts in your

jurisdiction?

Thepartiestoanarbitrationagreementmayrestrictwhomayactasanarbitratorinadispute,forexample,bysettingforthcertainchar-acteristicsthatarbitratorsmusthave.Inaddition,codesofjudicialconducttypicallyprohibitanactivejudgefromactingasanarbitra-tor,andapartytoanarbitrationisalsotypicallynotpermittedtoserveasanarbitratorinthatarbitration.TheFAAdoesnotaddresstheappointmentofarbitratorsonthebasisofnationality,religionorgender.Incasesinwhichthepartiesarefromdifferentcountries,theAAACommercialRules(R-15)providethattheAAA,onitsowninitiativeorattherequestofaparty,mayappointasanarbitratoranationalofacountryotherthanthatofanyoftheparties.

16 Default appointment of arbitratorsFailing prior agreement of the parties, what is the default mechanism

for the appointment of arbitrators?

FAAsection5providesfortheappointmentofarbitratorsbycourtsif the parties have failed to provide a method for their selection or havefailedtoavailthemselvesofsuchamethod.Severalinstitutionalrulesalsoprovidefortheappointmentofarbitratorsinsuchcases.

17 Challenge and replacement of arbitrators On what grounds and how can an arbitrator be challenged and

replaced? Please discuss in particular the grounds for challenge and

replacement, and the procedure, including challenge in court. Is there

a tendency to apply or seek guidance from the IBA Guidelines on

Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration?

InaUS-seatedarbitration,pursuanttotheFAA(section10),apartyseekingtochallengeanarbitratorinUScourtscandosoonlyafterthefinalarbitrationawardhasbeenissued,inthecourseofseekingtovacateanawardbasedonarbitratorpartiality.TheFAAprovidesnobasisforanarbitratorchallengeasaformofinterlocutoryrelief.Institutionalrulesgenerallyprovideforthechallengeandreplace-

mentofarbitratorsonsuchgroundsaspartialityorbias,incapacity,failuretoparticipateintheproceedings,failuretomeetthequali-ficationsagreedonbytheparties,anddeath.Adeterminationofarbitratorpartialityorbiasisafact-specificinquiryandcanincludescenarios such as an arbitrator with a financial interest in the case or aparty,undisclosedbusinessorpersonalrelationshipswithaparty,andarefusaltoadmitevidence.Institutionalrulesprovidethespecificprocedurestobefollowed,

including deadlines for raising a challenge and the procedure for installinga replacementarbitrator.Failure to followthe specificrulesrelatingtoanarbitratorchallengemayresultinwaiverofthatchallenge.SomearbitrationinstitutionstaketheIBAGuidelinesonCon-

flicts of Interest in International Arbitration into consideration when

decidingarbitratorchallenges;partiestoanarbitrationcanalsoagreetofollowtheIBAGuidelines.

18 Relationship between parties and arbitratorsWhat is the relationship between parties and arbitrators? Please

elaborate on the contractual relationship between parties and

arbitrators, neutrality of party-appointed arbitrators, remuneration, and

expenses of arbitrators.

Asnotedabove,arbitratorscanbechallengedandreplacedbasedonpartiality,andtheFAA(section10)allowsforvacaturofanawardwhereanarbitratorexhibitedpartiality.Institutionalrulesgenerallyrequirearbitratorcandidatestodisclosefactsthatmaysuggestpar-tialityorlackofindependencefromtheparties.Althoughpartiesmaygenerallyagreeonthearbitratorappoint-

mentprocess,whichmayincludeparty-appointedarbitrators,evenparty-appointedarbitratorsmustremainneutral.Forexample,botharticle11.1oftheICCArbitrationRulesandarticle7oftheAAA/ICDR’sInternationalArbitrationRulesrequirethatarbitratorsbeimpartialandindependent.The2004revisiontotheAAA/ABACodeofEthicsforArbitratorsinCommercialDisputesmakesclearthattheneutralityrequirementextendstoallarbitrators,includingparty-appointedarbitrators,unlesspartieshaveagreedotherwise.Compensationofarbitratorsvariesdependingontheinstitutional

rules.Forexample,undertheAAACommercialArbitrationRulesandtheAAA/ICDR’sInternationalArbitrationRules,anarbitrator’scompensation is based on the arbitrator’s stated rate of compensa-tion.TheICCArbitrationRules,ontheotherhand,provideforafeeschedulesetbytheICCCourt.

19 Immunity of arbitrators from liabilityTo what extent are arbitrators immune from liability for their conduct in

the course of the arbitration?

Article35oftheAAA/ICDRInternationalArbitrationRulespro-videsthatarbitratorsareimmunefromliabilityexceptforinten-tionalwrongdoing.TheAAACommercialArbitrationRulesandtheUNCITRALRules(revisedin2010)containsimilarlanguage.TheICCArbitrationRules(article40),ontheotherhand,provideimmu-nityfromliabilitywithnoexceptionfordeliberatewrongdoing.IntheUS,stateorfederallawultimatelycontrolarbitratorimmu-

nityfromliability,andbecausearbitratorsassumeaquasi-judicialrole,theyaregenerallyaffordedimmunitybyUScourts.

Jurisdiction and competence of arbitral tribunal

20 Court proceedings contrary to arbitration agreementsWhat is the procedure for disputes over jurisdiction if court

proceedings are initiated despite an existing arbitration agreement,

and what time limits exist for jurisdictional objections?

Section3oftheFAAprovidesthatasuitbroughtinfederalcourtwillbestayed,uponapplicationbyaparty,ifthecaseissubjecttoavalid,writtenarbitrationagreementbetweentheparties.Ifthepartiesdisputetheexistenceofavalid,writtenarbitration

agreement,section4oftheFAAprovidesthatafederalcourtmayholdahearingand,ifthecourtfindsthatavalid,writtenarbitrationagreementexists,itwillorderthepartiestoproceedwiththearbitra-tion.Iftheexistenceofthearbitrationagreementisinissue,thecourtwillconductatrial.TheFAArequiresthatapartyseekingarbitrationprovidetheotherpartywithfivedays’noticeofitsintenttopetitionthecourtforanorderdirectingarbitration.




21 Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunalWhat is the procedure for disputes over jurisdiction of the arbitral

tribunal once arbitral proceedings have been initiated and what time

limits exist for jurisdictional objections?

The ‘competence-competence’ principle refers to the concept that a tribunal is competent to decide on its own competence to hear adispute.Internationalarbitraltribunalsaregenerallypresumedtohavethispowertodecideontheirownjurisdiction.Indeed,themajorarbitralinstitutionalrulesinclude‘competence-competence’relatedprovisions.Parties thathaveeitheragreed inthearbitra-tionagreementtoreferjurisdictionalquestionstothetribunal,orwho have adopted institutional rules that include a ‘competence- competence’provisionwithintheirarbitrationagreements,aregener-allypresumedtohaveagreedtoconferonthetribunalthepowertodetermineitsownjurisdiction.AlthoughtheFAAdoesnotexpresslyaddressthe‘competence-

competence’principle,UScourtshaveacknowledgedthatarbitraltribunalshavethepowertodeterminetheirownjurisdiction(eg,Howsam v Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc,537US79(2002)).TheAAA/ICDR InternationalArbitrationRules (article 15)

requirethatjurisdictionalchallengesbemadenolaterthanthetimeofsubmittingthestatementofdefence(within30daysafter thearbitrationiscommenced);otherwise,jurisdictionalchallengesarewaived.

Arbitral proceedings

22 Place and language of arbitrationFailing prior agreement of the parties, what is the default mechanism

for the place of arbitration and the language of the arbitral

proceedings?

If the parties have not identified the place of arbitration in the arbitra-tionagreement,andotherwiseareunabletocometoanagreement,most institutional arbitral rules provide that either the administrator orthetribunalwilldeterminetheplace,or‘seat’ofthearbitration,typicallyconsideringissuessuchasthenationalityofthepartiesandarbitratorsandtheapplicablelaw.UndertheFAA(section4),UScourts,whenissuingorderscom-

pellingarbitration,havethepowertospecifytheparticularplacethearbitrationistoproceed.UScourtshave,insomecases,doneso even where the parties agreed to institutional rules that provided foranalternateseatselectionprocedure(eg,Tolaram Fibers, Inc v Deutsche Eng’g Der Voest-Alpine Industrieanlagenbau GmbH,No.2:91CV00025,1991WL41772(MDNC,26February1991)).Ifthepartieshavenotagreedonthelanguageofthearbitration,

most institutional rules empower the tribunal to select the language ofthearbitration,whichwilloftenlooktothelanguageoftheunder-lyingcontract.

23 Commencement of arbitrationHow are arbitral proceedings initiated?

Arbitration agreements sometimes include requirements relating to commencinganarbitration,suchasnoticerequirementsorarequire-mentofnegotiationormediationbeforecommencingarbitration.Institutional arbitral rules contain the specific requirements for a noticeofarbitration(alsocalledarequestordemandforarbitration),includingcontentrequirementsaswellasfeerequirements.Ingen-eral,thenoticeofarbitrationmustbeprovidedtotherespondent.

24 HearingIs a hearing required and what rules apply?

Mostinstitutionalarbitralrulesprovideforahearing,inkeepingwith the general proposition that the parties have the right to be heardandtopresenttheircase.AlthoughtheFAAdoesnotexpressly

requireahearing,UScourtshavevacatedawardsundertheNewYorkConventionbasedonafailuretoallowpartiestobeheard(eg,Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co Inc v Societe Generale de l’Industrie du Papier (RAKTA),508F2d969(2dCir1974)).

25 EvidenceBy what rules is the arbitral tribunal bound in establishing the facts of

the case? What types of evidence are admitted and how is the taking

of evidence conducted?

Institutionalrulesgenerallyprovidearbitraltribunalswithbroaddiscretionoverthearbitralprocedure,inparticularrelatingtotheadmissibility andweight of evidence. Arbitral tribunals do notgenerallyapplyrulesofevidencethataretypicalinUSlitigation,suchastheFederalRulesofEvidenceortheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure.Theexchangeofdocuments(sometimesreferredtoas‘discovery’

or‘disclosure’)isavailableinarbitration,albeitinamuchmorelim-itedscopethaninUSlitigation.Tribunalsoftenapply,oratminimumseekguidancefrom,theIBARulesontheTakingofEvidenceinInternationalArbitration.Most institutional rules allow forbothparty-appointedand

tribunal-appointedexperts.Mostinstitutionalrulesrequirepartiestosubmitwrittenwitness

statements,oratminimumidentifytheirwitnessesandtheirantici-patedtestimonysubjectareas,inadvanceoftheevidentiaryhearing,soastoavoid‘surprise’testimony.

26 Court involvementIn what instances can the arbitral tribunal request assistance from a

court and in what instances may courts intervene?

Section7oftheFAAprovidesanarbitraltribunalwiththepower,inparticularcircumstances,toordertestimonyanddocumentproduc-tion,and,ifthetribunal’sordersaredisregarded,thetribunalmayseekjudicialassistancetocompeldiscovery.Section7alsoallowspartiestoanarbitrationtomakesucharequestforjudicialassistanceintakingevidence.SomeUSstatelaws(forexample,theNewYorkCivilPractice

LawandRules,CPLR)alsoprovidetribunalsorpartieswiththepowertoissuesubpoenasfordocumentsortestimonyinarbitrations,whichwouldthenbeenforceableincourt.

27 ConfidentialityIs confidentiality ensured?

TheFAAdoesnotprovideforconfidentialityofarbitralproceedingsorofawards.Manyinstitutionalrulescontainconfidentialityprovi-sions,withdifferingscopes.TheIBARulesontheTakingofEvidencealsocontainalimitedconfidentialityprovision.Toensureconfidenti-ality,partiesshouldincludeconfidentialityrequirementswithintheirarbitrationagreements,selectinstitutionalrulesthatincludesatis-factoryconfidentialityprovisions,oradoptamorespecific,tailoredconfidentialityagreementatthestartofthearbitration.

Interim measures and sanctioning powers

28 Interim measures by the courtsWhat interim measures may be ordered by courts before and after

arbitration proceedings have been initiated?

Although section8of theFAAgives courts thepower toorderinterimmeasuresonlyinanarrowcategoryofadmiraltyormari-timedisputes,UScourtshavefoundthattheyhavethepowertoorderinterimmeasures(eg,Teradyne, Inc v Mostek Corp,797F2d43,51(1stCir1986)).Interimmeasurescanincludeinjunctions,




temporaryrestrainingordersorordersdirectingthetakingofevi-denceorpreservationofevidenceorassets.Someinstitutionalrulesalsoprovidethatcourtsmayentertain

requestsforinterimmeasures,althoughsomerulessuggestthatsuchrequestsshouldbemadebeforethetribunalisempanelled,andthatanyrequestsforprovisionalmeasuresfollowingthetribunal’sforma-tionshouldbehandledbythetribunal.Thepartiescanalsoagreethattheywillnotseekinterimmeasuresfromthecourts.

29 Interim measures by an emergency arbitrator Does your domestic arbitration law or do the rules of the domestic

arbitration institutions mentioned above provide for an emergency

arbitrator prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal?

TheFAAdoesnotprovideforanemergencyarbitrator.Someinstitu-tionalrules,suchastheAAA/ICDRInternationalArbitrationRules(article37)andtheICCArbitrationRules(AppendixV),doprovideforanemergencyarbitratorbeforetheconstitutionofthearbitraltribunal.

30 Interim measures by the arbitral tribunalWhat interim measures may the arbitral tribunal order after it is

constituted? In which instances can security for costs be ordered by

an arbitral tribunal?

Manyinstitutionalrulesprovidethearbitraltribunalwiththepowertoorder interimmeasures, oftenwithbroaddiscretion. Interimmeasurescanincludeinjunctions,temporaryrestrainingorders,ororders directing the taking of evidence or preservation of evidence orassets.Manyinstitutionalrulesalsoprovideforsecurityforcostsasaninterimmeasure.

31 Sanctioning powers of the arbitral tribunalPursuant to your domestic arbitration law or the rules of the domestic

arbitration institutions mentioned above, is the arbitral tribunal

competent to order sanctions against parties or their counsel who use

‘guerrilla tactics’ in arbitration?

TheAAACommercialArbitrationRules(R-58)providethetribunalwiththepowertosanctionaparty,uponaparty’srequest,forfailuretocomplywithitsobligationsundertherulesorwithanorderofthetribunal.Evenwhereinstitutionalrulesdonotprovideexpresssanctions

provisions,mostarbitralinstitutionalrulesprovidethetribunalwithbroaddiscretiontoapportionthecostsofthearbitration.Althoughtheserulesdonotincludesanctioningpowerperse,thisbroaddiscre-tion empowers the tribunal to take the parties’ conduct into account inthecourseofapportioningcosts.The2012ICCRulesincludean update that empowers the tribunal to apportion costs based on ‘theextenttowhicheachpartyhasconductedthearbitrationinanexpeditiousandcost-effectivemanner’.

Awards

32 Decisions by the arbitral tribunalFailing party agreement, is it sufficient if decisions by the arbitral

tribunal are made by a majority of all its members or is a unanimous

vote required? What are the consequences for the award if an

arbitrator dissents?

TheFAAdoesnotstatewhetheramajorityorunanimityof thetribunalmustrendertheaward.Mostinstitutionalrulesrequireamajorityawardand,insomecases,requirethattherebeawrittenstatementexplainingwhyanyarbitratorfailedtosigntheaward.Adissentingopinionbyanarbitratordoesnotformpartoftheawardandhasnoimpactontheenforceabilityoftheaward.

33 Dissenting opinionsHow does your domestic arbitration law deal with dissenting opinions?

Unlessthepartieshaveotherwiseagreed,adissentingopinionshouldnotaffecttheenforceabilityofanaward.

34 Form and content requirementsWhat form and content requirements exist for an award?

A US court will enforce an award that is rendered in compliance withtheparties’agreement,theapplicablerulesorthelawofthestatewhereitwasawarded.TheFAA(section10(a)(4))requiresthat arbitralawardsbe‘mutual,final,anddefinite,’butdoesnotexpresslyimposeanyformalrequirements.Generally,UScourtswillrequireanawardtobeinwritingandsignedorotherwiseauthenticated.Insti-tutionalrulesmayimposefurtherrequirements,forexamplethattheawardincludethedateandplacewheretheawardwasmade.

35 Time limit for awardDoes the award have to be rendered within a certain time limit under

your domestic arbitration law or under the rules of the domestic

arbitration institutions mentioned above?

TheFAAdoesnotsetatimelimitforrenderinganaward.UndertheRUAAandUAA,thepartiesmayagreetoadeadlinefortheaward,otherwisethecourtmayorderatime.TheAAACommercialRules(R-45)instructthearbitratortoissuetheaward‘promptly’and,unlessotherwiseagreedbythepartiesorspecifiedbylaw,nolaterthan30daysfromthedateofclosingofthefinalhearingoroftheAAA’stransmittalofthefinalstatementsandproofstothearbitrator,iforalhearingshavebeenwaived.

36 Date of awardFor what time limits is the date of the award decisive and for what

time limits is the date of delivery of the award decisive?

Thedateofanawardtriggerstimelimitsrelatedtoconfirmation,modification,correctionorvacaturofanaward.UndertheFAA,apartymustapplytoconfirmadomesticarbitralawardwithinoneyearandaforeignarbitralawardwithinthreeyearsofthedateoftheaward.TheRUAAandUAAdonotimposeatimelimitforcon-firminganaward,butprovidethatamotionto‘change’orclarifyanawardmustbemadewithin20daysofthedateoftheaward,andamotiontomodifyorvacatemustbemadewithin90days.Likewise,undertheAAACommercialRules(R-50),apartymustfileamotiontomodifytheawardwithin20daysofitstransmittal.

37 Types of awardsWhat types of awards are possible and what types of relief may the

arbitral tribunal grant?

Subjecttotheparties’agreement,arbitratorsaregenerallyfreetoissueanytypeofreliefconsistentwiththelawandcircumstancesofthecase,includingdamages,injunctions,specificperformance,punitiveorexemplarydamages,interest,costsandattorneys’fees.TheRUAAandUAAallowanarbitratorto‘orderanyremediesthearbitratorconsidersjustandappropriateunderthecircumstancesofthearbitrationproceeding,’regardlessifsucharemedywouldbegrantedbyanenforcingcourt.Similarly,theAAACommercialRules(R-47)permittribunalstograntanyreliefdeemed‘justandequitable’withinthescopeoftheparties’agreement.

38 Termination of proceedingsBy what other means than an award can proceedings be terminated?

Anarbitrationmayterminateattherequestofthepartiesoriftheparties have reached a settlement.TheAAACommercialRules




(R-57(f),FlexibleFeeSchedule)alsoallowforterminationoftheproceedings if the parties fail to make full deposits or an annual abeyancefeeifthepartieshaveagreedtostaytheproceedings.Ifa federal or state court finds that the agreement to arbitrate is not valid,itmayorderarbitrationproceedingstobeterminated.TheAAA/ICDRInternationalArbitrationRules(article29(2))furtherprovidethatatribunalmayterminateproceedingsiftheybecome‘unnecessaryorimpossible’.

39 Cost allocation and recoveryHow are the costs of the arbitral proceedings allocated in awards?

TheFAAissilentontheallocationofcostsandfees.UnderUSprac-tice,partiestraditionallybeartheirowncostsandfees.Institutionalrulesoftenallowatribunaltoawardreasonableattorneys’feesandotherreasonableexpensesasappropriateorpursuanttoagreementbytheparties.TheAAACommercialRulesincludedetailedadmin-istrative fee schedules and allow the AAA to assess additional fees whennecessary.

40 InterestMay interest be awarded for principal claims and for costs and at what

rate?

Whetherinterestispermittedinanawardwillvary,dependingonstatestatutes,institutionalrulesandanyagreementoftheparties.TheAAA/ICDRInternationalArbitrationRules(article28)expresslyallowthetribunaltoawardpre-awardandpost-awardinterest,sim-pleorcompound,asitconsidersappropriate,takingintoconsidera-tionthecontractandapplicablelaw.Likewise,theAAACommercialRules(R-47(d)(i))permittheinclusionofinterestintheaward. Proceedings subsequent to issuance of award

41 Interpretation and correction of awardsDoes the arbitral tribunal have the power to correct or interpret an

award on its own or at the parties’ initiative? What time limits apply?

Ingeneral,itisuptothepartiestorequestmodification,correctionorinterpretationoftheaward.TheRUAAandUAAprovidethatapartymaymovetomodifyorcorrectanawardwithin20daysof

Enforcement of ICSID awardsTwo recent federal court decisions upheld ICSID awards against sovereign attempts to resist enforcement, reflecting the US judiciary’s resolve to promote the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the US. In Duke Energy Int’l v Republic of Peru, 904 F Supp 2d 131 (DDC 2012), the DC District Court rebuffed Peru’s attempt to avoid payment under an ICSID award not once but twice. And in Blue Ridge Investments, LLC v Republic of Argentina, 902 F Supp 2d 367 (SDNY 2012), the Southern District of New York likewise rejected Argentina’s defences to confirmation of an ICSID award. The Second Circuit upheld the district court’s decision in Blue Ridge, finding that ‘Argentina waived its sovereign immunity by becoming a party to the ICSID Convention’ (Blue Ridge Investments, LLC v Republic of Argentina, 735 F3d 72, 84 (2d Cir 2013)).

Although Argentina and Peru challenged their respective awards on different grounds, the federal courts’ decisions to confirm the awards over the states’ objections illustrate a continuing deference to arbitration and to the statutes compelling their enforcement. In Duke, the DC District Court emphasised that judicial review of arbitration awards is ‘limited by design’, and that, so long as the award was ‘sufficiently clear,’ the court was ‘required by statute to give the Award full faith and credit and confirm it accordingly’ (Duke, 904 F Supp 2d at 132-33). Similarly, the Southern District of New York found that, by consenting to arbitrate before ICSID, Argentina was subject to the ‘automatic recognition and enforcement’ of its award in signatory states like the US (Blue Ridge, 902 F Supp 2d at 374).

While limited to the enforcement of ICSID awards (which are subject to a different statute from other foreign arbitration awards), these two cases stand as important precedents in upholding the binding force of foreign awards.

New AAA appeals procedureAlthough arbitration has typically been viewed as a faster, more efficient, and final form of dispute resolution, the AAA enacted its Optional Appellate Arbitration Rules in November 2013, an optional appeals procedure within the arbitration process itself. For a party to appeal under these new rules, the parties must have agreed to adopt these appellate rules. Parties may agree to the AAA Optional Appellate Arbitration Rules even if the underlying arbitration was not conducted pursuant to the AAA or ICDR’s institutional rules.

The new rules provide for an appellate arbitral tribunal that reviews arbitral awards for errors of law that are material and prejudicial, and for determinations of fact that are clearly erroneous. Under the rules, the appeals process takes approximately three months, and the appeal tribunal’s decision becomes the final award. Although it remains to be seen how frequently this appeals process is utilised, it may be especially attractive for parties to complex cases, that, without the opportunity to appeal an arbitral award, may otherwise choose to litigate disputes within the US court system, which includes the right to appeal.

Update and trends

Birgit Kurtz [email protected] Arlen Pyenson [email protected] Amal Bouhabib [email protected]

590 Madison Avenue Tel: +1 212 223 4000

New York, NY 10022 Fax: +1 212 223 4134

United States www.crowell.com




receivingnoticeoftheaward.UndertheAAA/ICDRInternationalArbitrationRules(article37(6)),atribunalmaymodify,correctorvacateaninterimawardissuedbyanemergencyarbitrator,butanyotherrequesttomodifyorinterpretanawardmustbemadebyoneoftheparties.TheFAA(section11)allowsafederalcourttomodifyorcorrectanawarduponrequest.

42 Challenge of awardsHow and on what grounds can awards be challenged and set aside?

Apartymaymovetovacateadomesticawardwithinthreemonthsofthefilingordeliveryoftheaward.Thegroundsonwhichanawardmaybesetasideare,however,limitedindeferencetothearbi-trationprocess.UndertheFAAandUAA,awardsmaybevacatedintheeventoffraudorcorruption,evidentpartialitybythearbitra-tors,arbitratormisconductorrefusaltohearmaterialevidence,dueprocessconcerns,orwherethearbitratorsexceededthescopeoftheirpowersorfailedtomakeamutual,finalanddefiniteaward.Interna-tionalarbitrationawardsmaybesetasideonthegroundscontainedineithertheNewYorkorPanamaConventions,or,inthecaseofanICSIDaward,pursuanttotheICSIDConvention.

43 Levels of appealHow many levels of appeal are there? How long does it generally take

until a challenge is decided at each level? Approximately what costs

are incurred at each level? How are costs apportioned among the

parties?

Generally,arbitrationawardsarefinalandnotappealable,eithertoUScourtsorwithinthearbitrationprocessitself.Somearbitralinstitutionshaverecentlydraftedrulesallowingforlimitedappealswithinthearbitration,asdiscussedfurtherin‘Updateandtrends.’PartiesmayappealfromUScourtordersrelatingtoconfirmationorvacaturofanawardthroughnormallitigationprocedures;thisprocessisgenerallylengthyandquitecostly.

44 Recognition and enforcementWhat requirements exist for recognition and enforcement of domestic

and foreign awards, what grounds exist for refusing recognition and

enforcement, and what is the procedure?

Eitherpartymaymoveto‘confirm’anawardaccordingtotheappli-cableproceduressetforthinthecourtthathasjurisdiction,usuallybymotionorpetition.Underbothfederalandstatelaw,confirmationisintendedtobeasummaryproceeding,andthecourtisexpectedto

converttheawardintoajudgmentalmostautomatically.Althoughapartymayobjecttoconfirmation,thecourtislimitedinitsabilitytoreviewanawardandmaynotsecond-guessatribunal.UndertheFAA(section9),anawardmustbeconfirmedunlessitisvacated,modifiedorcorrected.

45 Enforcement of foreign awardsWhat is the attitude of domestic courts to the enforcement of foreign

awards set aside by the courts at the place of arbitration?

UScourtsmaygivedeferencetoaforeignjudgmentannullinganawardintheplaceofarbitrationsolongasthatjudgmentdoesnotviolateUSdueprocessrequirements.Ingeneral,UScourtsconsiderthecourtattheplaceofarbitrationtohave‘primary’jurisdictionovertheaward.

46 Cost of enforcementWhat costs are incurred in enforcing awards?

Underthe‘Americanrule,’eachpartymustbearitsowncostsforpost-awardlitigation,unlessotherwisespecifiedbycontract.

Other

47 Judicial system influenceWhat dominant features of your judicial system might exert an

influence on an arbitrator from your country?

AdominantfeatureofUSlitigationis‘pretrialdiscovery,’includingvoluminousdocumentproductionanddepositions.USarbitratorsmayfavourextensivediscoveryandmotionpractice.Witnessescanbecompelledtoappearatanarbitrationhearing(FAAsection7,which confers the same powers to compel a witness to appear upon atribunalasUScourts).Unlessotherwiseagreed,partyofficersmaytestify.

48 Regulation of activitiesWhat particularities exist in your jurisdiction that a foreign practitioner

should be aware of?

ForeignpractitionersparticipatinginanarbitrationintheUSshouldbeawareofdifferencesrelatingtotheattorney-clientprivilege,thework-productdoctrineandconflictofinterestrules.Forinstance,intheUS,itisgenerallyacceptedthatin-housecounselarecoveredbyattorney-clientprivilege.


Strategic research partners of the ABA International section

For more information or to purchase books, please visit:

www.GettingTheDealThrough.com

Official Partner of the Latin American Corporate Counsel Association

ArbitrAtion 2014 iSSn 1750-9947

Annual volumes published on:

For more information or to purchase books, please visit: www.gettingthedealthrough.com

Acquisition FinanceAir TransportAnti-Corruption RegulationAnti-Money LaunderingArbitrationAsset RecoveryBanking RegulationCartel RegulationClimate RegulationConstructionCopyrightCorporate GovernanceCorporate ImmigrationData Protection & PrivacyDispute ResolutionDominancee-CommerceElectricity RegulationEnforcement of Foreign Judgments EnvironmentForeign Investment ReviewFranchiseGas RegulationInsurance & ReinsuranceIntellectual Property & AntitrustInvestment Treaty ArbitrationIslamic Finance & MarketsLabour & EmploymentLicensing

Life SciencesMediationMerger ControlMergers & AcquisitionsMiningOil Regulation OutsourcingPatents Pensions & Retirement PlansPharmaceutical AntitrustPrivate Antitrust Litigation Private ClientPrivate EquityProduct LiabilityProduct RecallProject FinancePublic ProcurementReal EstateRestructuring & Insolvency Right of PublicitySecurities FinanceShipbuildingShipping Tax ControversyTax on Inbound InvestmentTelecoms and MediaTrade & CustomsTrademarksVertical Agreements

Arbitration in 49 jurisdictions worldwide 2014 · Arbitration in 49 jurisdictions worldwide...

Documents

Transcript of Arbitration in 49 jurisdictions worldwide 2014 · Arbitration in 49 jurisdictions worldwide...