UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥

Arbitration in the Americas

NOTE: This document contains links to guidance on the International Centre for Dispute Settlement (ICDR)'s 2021 International Arbitration Rules. The new edition of the ICDR International Arbitration Rules has been published, and entered into force on 1 March 2021.

Arbitration in the United States of America (USA or US)

Arbitration in the US—Getting the Deal Through guide

This guide, published by Getting the Deal Through (GtDT), provides an introduction to Arbitration in the United States of America covering such topics as: arbitration agreements, constitution of arbitral tribunal, jurisdiction, arbitral proceedings, interim measures, awards, proceedings subsequent to issuance of award and update and trends. See Practice Note: Arbitration—USA—Q&A guide.

Enforcing a New York Convention award in the USA

This Practice Note sets out how to enforce an arbitral award in the USA, taking into account the Federal Arbitration Act, the criteria set out in the New York Convention and considerations of the local court. It also sets out the practicalities of filing suit, such as where to file and the documents required. See Practice Note: Enforcing a New York Convention award in the USA.

Defences

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥ or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Arbitration News

Arbitration Clauses and Third Parties: Limits of Protection (Renaissance Securities v ILLC Chlodwig Enterprises)

Arbitration analysis: In this decision, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal seeking an anti-suit injunction (‘ASI’) restraining Russian proceedings brought against affiliates of the appellant. Although the relevant agreements on which part of the dispute was founded contained London-seated LCIA arbitration clauses governed by English law, the court held that these agreements to arbitrate did not extend to third-party affiliates. The court also rejected the argument that the arbitration clauses implied a negative obligation not to litigate related claims elsewhere. Further, while recognising the Russian proceedings may be vexatious and/or designed to circumvent arbitration clauses and applicable sanctions, the court declined to grant an ASI on discretionary grounds: it found that the appellant failed to provide full and frank disclosure of its corporate relationship with the affiliates following their sale. This lack of transparency undermined the request for relief. This decision underscores that English courts will not extend the scope of an agreement to arbitrate to affiliates without clear contractual language and will carefully scrutinise parties seeking equitable relief where material facts are withheld. The decision also reaffirms the English court’s willingness to intervene in foreign proceedings where necessary to protect arbitration, but only where that intervention can be properly justified. Written by Oliver Browne, partner at Paul Hastings (Europe) LLP.

View Arbitration by content type :

Popular documents