Menu
Browse Options
What Can We Infer from the Ascendi Case?

By José Miguel Júdice and Luís Castilho, PLMJ – Sociedade de Advogados

Three years after the entry into force of the Portuguese Tax Arbitration Regime, the European Court of Justice (“the Court”) has, in the Ascendi Case (Case 377/13), finally issued a groundbreaking decision regarding the long standing question of whether the Tax Arbitral Court (the “CAAD”) is a true “jurisdictional body” for the purposes of the preliminary ruling mechanism.

Despite being directly established in the preamble of the Portuguese Tax Arbitration Regime that the Tax Arbitration Court could present preliminary rulings before the ECJ – within the context of an arbitral tax proceedings – the rea [...]

Admitting illegally obtained evidence in CAS proceedings – Swiss Federal Supreme Court Shows Match-Fixing the Red Card

By Georg von Segesser / Elisabeth Leimbacher / Katherine Bell, Schellenberg Wittmer Ltd.

In two almost identical German language decisions dated 27 March 2014 (Decisions 4A_362/2013 and 4A_448/2013) the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (“Supreme Court”) considered that the reliance on an illegally obtained video recording in a CAS award does not violate public policy (these decisions are also summarized in the related ITA Arbitration Reports).

This post takes a closer look at the assessment of admissibility of illegally obtained evidence in sport arbitration. Such an assessment is generally undertaken by balancing the interest in finding the truth against the legal interests which were harmed wh [...]

Was the Bar Set Too High to Sustain RICO Jurisdiction? More on the Conproca vs. Pemex Case.

In a recent decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered Pemex’s allegations insufficient to sustain RICO jurisdiction in the Conproca vs. Pemex case. This prompts out a number of interrogations:

Was the bar set too high for Pemex to sustain RICO Jurisdiction?

Was the underlying reason of the Court’s decision to uphold the award?

Is this an example of the US courts’ pro-arbitration policy?

Does this kind of decisions encourage the parties to look for enforcement of awards before the US courts?

Does it trigger forum shopping for the enforcement of awards?

Pemex is a Mexican public entity dealing with the oil and gas industry. Conproca is a Mexican [...]

The Pemex case: the Ghost of Chromalloy Past?

By Lorraine M. Brennan, Esq 1

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and should not be regarded as representative of, or binding upon ArbitralWomen and/or the author’s institution. 

The international arbitration community sat up and took notice when a recent decision issued by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein from the Southern District of New York in the Pemex 2 case ordered that an arbitration award that had been set aside by the Mexican courts could be enforced in the United States. The case was particularly noteworthy because there is only one other reported case in the United States—Chromalloy 3 from 1996—which ordered the same result, albeit for different leg [...]

Surveys Seek Input on Settlement Enforcement

Time Sensitive

Over the next two weeks, two surveys will be gathering input from dispute resolution professionals on the challenge of enforcing settlement agreements across borders.

The surveys are intended to provide empirical data to aid the decision making process for the proposed UNCITRAL convention on the international enforcement of settlements reached in mediation.

IMI Survey of Corporate Needs

The first survey is just four questions, and is from the International Mediation Institute. It is focused on the level of corporate demand for such a convention.

The results of the IMI survey will be discussed and developed further at the October 29, 2014 convention in London on Shaping Inte [...]

Apotex III’s Application of Res Judicata Ensures Finality, Legal Security and Judicial Economy

The recently published Award in Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v. United States of America (Apotex III Award) is the first NAFTA award to apply the doctrine of res judicata. The Apotex III Tribunal confirmed that the operative part, together with the underlying reasoning, of an earlier award determined that Apotex’s abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) did not qualify as “investments” under the NAFTA. As such, the Tribunal, by a majority,* held that Apotex was barred from relitigating the issue despite Apotex’s argument that the earlier award concerned different kinds of ANDAs (those that were tentatively approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as opposed to th [...]

Contributors, Authors, Books, & More...