Key changes to the CIETAC Arbitration Rules
The China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (“CIETAC“) has recently published its revised Arbitration Rules, which will come into force on 1 May 2012 (the “2012 Rules“). This is the seventh revision of the CIETAC Rules since they were first published in 1956. Whilst the majority of the changes in the 2012 Rules are aimed at clarifying existing practice, a number of the developments may have a significant impact on the conduct of CIETAC proceedings in the future.
The publication of the 2012 Rules comes at a time when CIETAC’s influence is perhaps greater than it has ever been. Whilst many alternatives exist, CIETAC maintains a dominant position in China, where PRC [...]
2012 Queen Mary / White & Case International Arbitration Survey Launched
- By Paul Friedland, White & Case LLP,
for White & Case
The views of lawyers involved in international commercial and investment arbitration are being sought for a new international arbitration survey from Queen Mary, University of London (QMUL).
Conducted by QMUL’s School of International Arbitration and sponsored by White & Case LLP, the 2012 survey aims to examine whether a “harmonised international arbitration procedure is emerging, by canvassing the views of experienced arbitration practitioners from all over the world,” comments Professor Loukas Mistelis, Director of the School of International Arbitration at QMUL.
Entitled “Current and Best Practices in the Arbitral Process,” the survey is the fourth carried out by QMUL since 2006, [...]
Scandinavian Reinsurance: Good News for Those Arbitrating in New York?
Following its June 2011 decision in the case of STMicroelectronics, NV v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, 648 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2011), the Second Circuit has again considered the issue of vacating an award due to an arbitrator’s non-disclosure. Earlier this month, the Second Circuit handed down judgment in the case of Scandinavian Reinsurance Co Ltd v. Saint Paul Fire and Marine Ins Co, 2012 WL 335772 (Scandinavian Re), refusing vacatur on the grounds that the vacating party failed to show ‘evident partiality’ – the Federal Arbitration Act’s (FAA) standard for vacating an award for arbitrator bias.
The events leading to the Second Circuit’s judgment began in August 1999 when Scand [...]
A judge by any other name? Arbitrator challenges in state-to-state disputes
What makes an international arbitrator different from a national judge? All of us in the arbitration world have a pretty solid answer to this question. At what point do the distinctions between an international arbitrator and an international judge melt away? That’s a bit of a trickier question, depending on the case.
With the increase in investment law jurisprudence in recent years, we’ve become accustomed to seeing international judges sit on the same investment arbitration panels as commercial arbitrators with their own private practices. In any given arbitration, international judges serving as arbitrators are subject to the same challenge standards as their commercial arbitrat [...]
Judge-Arbitrators in Delaware
It is not unusual for retired judges to serve as arbitrators. But what about sitting judges? A number of European countries permit sitting judges to serve as arbitrators. See Gary B. Born, International Commercial Arbitration 1449 (2009); see, e.g., U.K. Arbitration Act 1996, § 93. In the United States, however, ethics rules generally prohibit judges from serving as arbitrators. See ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct, Rule 3.9.
In 2009, Delaware became an exception to this general rule when it authorized judges from the Court of Chancery — the highest profile court in the United States specializing in business matters — “to arbitrate business disputes” when the parties so agr [...]
Reflections on the LCIA Arbitrator Challenge Digests
The recently published abstracts of LCIA Court decisions on arbitrator challenges between 1996 and 2010 (Arbitration International, vol. 27, no. 3, 2011) make surprisingly interesting reading. They are an important reminder of the types of egregious arbitrator conduct that, while fortunately rare, can give the system a bad name unless promptly corrected. At the same time, the abstracts also shed light on the lengths to which parties sometimes will go in launching challenges, often for tactical reasons, on grounds that are manifestly unfounded.
Of the 28 published abstracts, six cases were considered to be sufficiently problematic to satisfy the LCIA challenge standard, involving circumst [...]
