Search for:
Category

North America

Category
In Asia-Pacific

Part II of a Trilogy: Investor claims in response to the State’s protective measures during the Covid-19 pandemic

by and 8 Mins Read

We are pleased to introduce the second part of our trilogy of brief commentaries on Investment Treaty Protection & Covid-19 driven State Intervention. In Part I, we saw that states have taken invasive measures in response to the Covid-19 pandemic; some of these give rise to significant claims. While investment treaties are individually negotiated and drafted, they typically include a number of key protections for investors. Provided that foreign individuals or companies meet the definition…

Read More
In Arbitration Agreements

Supreme Court of Canada finds Uber arbitration clause is unconscionable

by and 8 Mins Read

In Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller, 2020 SCC 16 (“Uber v. Heller”) the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision that Uber’s arbitration agreement is invalid and unenforceable, leaving disputes under the clause to be litigated in the courts. The Court re-affirmed the competence-competence principle and the deference generally afforded to arbitrators by the courts, while creating an exception to the general rule of arbitral referral. Background The case arises from…

Read More
In Asia-Pacific

Part I of a Trilogy: State measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic

by 3 Mins Read

States around the world have adopted measures in reaction to the unprecedented nature and scale of the COVID-19 pandemic to curb the spread of coronavirus, ensure healthcare systems are not overrun and, more recently, balance reviving the economy and keeping control of the virus. These wide-ranging and far-reaching measures are not without consequences, particularly on foreign investments. We highlight examples of measures that may have the potential — and for some have already started —…

Read More
In North America

District court confirms enforcement of foreign arbitral award, denying arguments that tribunal was not impartial and enforcement was contrary to U.S. public policy

by and 5 Mins Read

Petitioner Pao Tatneft (“Tatneft”), previously OAO Tatneft, initiated arbitration against the Ukrainian government. The case arose out of the parties’ joint ownership of CJSC Ukrtatnafta Transnational Financial and Industrial Oil Company (“Ukrtatnafta”) (Pao Tatneft v. Ukraine, Civil Action No. 17-582, (D.D.C. 2020) [click for opinion]). In 1998 and 1999, Tatneft made agreements with other Ukrtatnafta shareholders to vote as a 56% majority bloc. In January 2007, the Ukrainian Privat Group acquired a 1% interest in…

Read More
Load More