In Albaniabeg Ambient Sh.p.k. v. Enel S.p.A. and Enelpower S.p.A., No. 15 Civ. 3283 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2016), the District Court for the Southern District of New York concluded that Section 203 of the FAA and the New York Convention do not provide subject matter jurisdiction over actions to enforce a foreign court’s judgment, even where a party contends that the foreign judgment is inconsistent with an earlier arbitral award or agreement to arbitrate. In…
In Al Rushaid v. National Oilwell Varco, Inc., No. 15-20260 (5th Cir. Feb. 17, 2016), the Fifth Circuit…
The topic of arbitrator bias has been the subject of two recent English law cases: W Limited v.…
One of the central questions considered by the court in Barrier Limited v Redhall Marine Limited [2016] EWHC 381 (QB) was whether an arbitration clause from a contract (the “Main Contract”) between A and B had been incorporated into a subcontract between B and C. Background facts: The applicant was the subcontractor, engaged to paint the interior and exterior of Astute class submarines. It applied to the court for pre-action disclosure against the respondent, who…
In a recent case the English High Court refused to apply the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest…
On 19 January 2016, the English High Court in Pencil Hill Ltd v US Citta Di Palermo SpA…
Are offers to arbitrate in BITs (Bilateral Investment Treaties) between EU member states compatible with the laws of the European Union? On 3 March 2016, the German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof or short: BGH) submitted this question to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for preliminary ruling. The CJEU’s decision in this matter could have wide ranging implications for EU investors. Background to the Case The case originates from an investment arbitration…
You might have asked yourself whether it really makes a difference whether you agree in your arbitration clause…
In January 2016, the German Federal Supreme Court had to deal with the question whether an arbitral tribunal…
In its decision dated March 22, 2016 (case no. 4A_678/2015), the Swiss Federal Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether or not to set aside a CAS arbitral award on the grounds that the tribunal had ruled infra petita and had disregarded a party’s right to be heard. The underlying dispute revolved around a claim raised by a Brazilian football player (B.) against a Portuguese football club (Club A.), the latter of which is a…