Rusoro Mining Ltd. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 16-cv-02020 (D.D.C. Mar. 1, 2018) [click for opinion] Rusoro, a Canadian company, owned 58 mining concessions and contracts for the exploration and production of gold in Venezuela. At the time of Rusoro’s acquisition of its mining rights (between 2006 and 2008), Venezuela championed the policy of “liberty of export,” with limited conditions required to export gold. By 2009, however, Venezuela enacted a resolution that mandated that…
Transocean Offshore Gulf of Guinea VII Ltd. v. Erin Energy Corp., No. H-17-2623 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2018)…
Balkan Energy Ltd. v. Republic of Ghana, No. 17-cv-00584 (D.D.C. Mar. 22, 2018) [click for opinion] In 2007,…
Following a request for a preliminary ruling from the Brussels Court of First Instance (“CFI”), the Constitutional Court (“CC”) held in a judgment of 16 February 2017 that third parties should be entitled to lodge third-party opposition against arbitral awards, but they should not be able to rely on the limited grounds of annulment against arbitral awards to challenge arbitral awards directly. A company that was not a party to an arbitration proceeding, but nevertheless…
On 24 November 2017, the Netherlands Supreme Court rendered a notable judgment in exequatur proceedings in a case…
The ambiguous legal position of the grounds to set aside an arbitral award since the Arbitration Act 2005…
The Polish Supreme Court[1] dealt with two issues arising out of setting aside proceedings. First, the question of the relationship between the decision of the court in setting aside proceedings and its impact on the arbitration commenced after the setting aside of the award. Second, the issue of whether the certainty of the law embodied in the statute of limitations may constitute the basic rules of law which should be protected under the public policy…
China’s Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”) recently issued the SPC Provisions on Issues related to Enforcement of Arbitral Awards…
According to the Polish Supreme Court – very far, as it allowed an arbitral award to modify the…
For those not familiar with the relevant rules, the calculation of the time limit for challenging an English arbitral award before the English courts may come as a surprise. In two recent High Court decisions, the court has emphasised that the 28 day time limit for challenging an award commences on the date the award is made and not the date it is received by the parties. In both cases, despite the fact the parties…