Autoridad del Canal de Panama v Sacyr SA and others [2017] EWHC 2228 (Comm) and [2017] EWHC 2337 (Comm) 1. Summary On 5 September 2017, Blair J, sitting in the Commercial Court, refused a stay under section 9(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (“Section 9(1)”) in respect of proceedings commenced pursuant to guarantees subject to an exclusive jurisdiction clause (the “English Law Guarantees”), in circumstances where there was a parallel arbitration in respect of (i)…
On 8 November, the SCC announced on its website (click here to view the announcement) that as of…
At the end of October, both, ICC and LCIA, introduced revised practice notes. Aiming to increase efficiency of…
As the NAFTA withdrawal rhetoric heats up, it would be prudent to determine whether your company has any claims against a NAFTA government that are covered by the NAFTA investor-state dispute resolution mechanism (ISDS), and, if so, whether your company should prepare to give formal notice of its intention to bring such claims. Given the NAFTA requirement that such notice be given at least ninety days in advance, and given the agreement’s six-month termination notice…
Hunt v. Moore Bros., 861 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2017) Attorney Jana Yocum Rine represented plaintiff James Hunt…
On 1 September, a task force of the ICCA and the Queen Mary School of International Arbitration published…
Recent actions undertaken by the Supreme Court of India could signal a sea change in India’s approach to international disputes. The Supreme Court recently instructed the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA) to appoint an arbitrator to decide a long-standing international dispute between top drug maker Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd and Nigeria-based Falma Organics Limited. The Indian Supreme Court’s action marks the very first time any Indian court—let alone the country’s highest court—has invoked section…
In the recent anonymised judgment of P v Q and others [2017] EWHC 194 (Comm), the England &…
Two years after its noted decision enforcing an annulled award in the Pemex[1] case, the Second Circuit again…
The federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued what is being labeled a “brazen” rule[1] on Monday, July 10, 2017, prohibiting financial firms from using class action waivers to manage consumer complaints and disputes.[2] As we have reported in previous client alerts and blog posts[3], the Supreme Court of the United States has previously upheld consumer arbitration clauses and class action waivers, resulting in a significant increase in the adoption of such clauses by consumer-facing…