On May 6, 2009, the French Supreme Court rendered a decision relating to the consequences of insolvency proceedings commenced in France against a party to pending international arbitration proceedings (Jean X. v. International Company For Commercial Exchanges (Income), May 6, 2009, Case no. 08-10281).
A French company had signed three contracts for the sale of crystallized [...] read more »
Archive for October, 2009
International Arbitration and French Insolvency Proceedings: French Supreme Court Reiterates Importance of Public Policy
The Relationship Between Enforcing Judgments and Denial of Justice Claims?
My colleague Trey Childress has a nice summary of the recent decision by a federal court in Florida in Osorio v. Dole Food Company to refuse to enforce a $97 million Nicaraguan judgment. Here’s the key excerpt of the decision:
“the evidence before the Court is that the judgment in this case did not arise [...] read more »
Federal Tribunal Revises Award Influenced by Fraud
Summary
In a decision of 6 October 2009 (4A.596/2008), the Swiss Federal Tribunal granted revision of a final international arbitral award that was influenced by fraud. This is the first time since the entry into force of the Federal Statute on the Federal Tribunal in 2007, and only the second time since the entry into force [...] read more »
Another misapplication of MFN? Tza Yap Shum v. The Republic of Peru
The Decision on Jurisdiction and Competence (19 June 2009) in Tza Yap Shum v. The Republic of Peru (ICSID Case No. ARB/07/6) is noteworthy as the first publicly available decision involving a claim by a Chinese investor under a Chinese investment treaty. The claim is a tangible reminder of the fact that Chinese investors are [...] read more »
The “difference without a distinction” strikes again in Glamis Gold: notes on the persisting confusion of preliminary objections to “admissibility” with objections to “jurisdiction” in investment disputes
In one of the most recent NAFTA awards, Glamis Gold v. United States, the United States (“US”) raised objections to the tribunal’s “subject matter jurisdiction” against Glamis’ claims of expropriation under NAFTA Chapter 11. The US argued that the Canadian mining company’s claims based on recently passed California legislation were not “ripe” because the [...] read more »
A decision based on a written submission of a third party does not violate the right to be heard if the parties to the proceedings had enough time to comment on it
In a decision of 23 June 2009 (4A_62/2009), the Swiss Federal Supreme Court held that the right to be heard is not violated where an arbitral tribunal bases its decision on a written submission of a third party and the parties to the proceedings had enough time to comment on such written submission.By letter of [...] read more »
Recent Comments