A. LEGISLATION AND RULES A.1 Legislation International arbitration in Canada is, for the most part, a matter of provincial jurisdiction. Each province and territory has enacted legislation adopting the UNCITRAL Model Law, occasionally with slight variations, as the foundational law for international arbitration. Canada’s federal parliament has also adopted a commercial arbitration code based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, which is applicable when the federal government or one of its agencies is a party to…
In Lavvan, Inc. v. Amyris, Inc., No. 21-1819 (2d Cir. Sept. 15, 2022),[1] the Second Circuit affirmed order denying…
245 Park Member LLC v. HNA Grp. (Int’l) Co., 1:22-cv-5136-JGK (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2022)[1] Factual Background In 2017, Petitioner…
In Peace River Hydro Partners v. Petrowest Corp., the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) refused to stay a receiver’s civil lawsuit in favour of multiple arbitration proceedings, finding the arbitration agreements were made inoperative by court order to facilitate an orderly and single insolvency process. This case helps resolve a tension between the expedience of a single insolvency process and the presumptive enforceability of arbitration agreements. Factual Background Peace River subcontracted various Petrowest entities to…
In Agrium v. Orbis Engineering Field Services, the Alberta Court of Appeal held that parties can appeal a…
Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC, v. Coverteam SAS (aka GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS, Corp.,), No. 17-10944 (11th Cir.…
Iraq Telecom Ltd. v. IBL Bank S.A.L., No. 21cv10940 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2022)[1] Factual Background In 2011, Iraq Telecom Ltd. (“Iraq Telecom”) agreed to subordinate a loan to a third party company by entering into a Subordination Agreement with Intercontinental Bank of Lebanon S.A.L. (“IBL”). The Subordination Agreement provided for binding arbitration in Lebanon and the application of Lebanese law. It also provided that any arbitration award would be final and binding, and that any award…
In In Re Romanzi; Kenneth A. Nathan v. Fieger & Fieger, P.C., Nos. 20-2278/21-1004 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr.…
Tethyan Copper Co. Pty Ltd. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, No. 1:19-cv-02424 (D.D.C. Mar. 10, 2022)[1] In 2006,…
The Supreme Court has issued only two decisions on Section 1782. In this Alert, we discuss the second of those two decisions, ZF Automotive US Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd., No. 21–401, issued on June 13, 2022. This decision resolved a Circuit split that can be traced to the Court’s first Section 1782 case (18 years earlier), Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004). The Supreme Court has now made clear that,…