In the Achmea case the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) held that Article 8 of the Netherlands – Slovakia bilateral investment treaty, which allowed for the resolution of disputes by way of arbitration, was incompatible with EU law. The rationale for the decision was that a tribunal may have to interpret or apply EU law and where a question of law arose, unlike a Member State court, that question of law could not be referred to the ECJ. In other words, intra-EU bilateral investment treaty arbitration provisions, as reasoned by the ECJ, deprived the EU courts of jurisdiction in respect of the interpretation of EU law.
We raised the prospect that the ramifications from the decision were potentially far reaching and were not, it seemed, confined to the BIT between Netherlands and Slovakia.
To read the full text of this post by Duane Morris attorneys Vijay Bange and Matthew Friedlander, please visit the Duane Morris London Blog.
The global pandemic continues to challenge us, with various measures ranging from further lockdowns to restrictions on in-person meetings. The judicial machinery, including that in the arbitration world, has continued to function throughout the pandemic notwithstanding the difficulties of embracing innovative processes and new technology.
To read the full text of this post by Duane Morris attorneys Vijay Bange and Tanya Chadha, please visit the Duane Morris London Blog.
A real estate investor in an independent living facility in Texas has won a $7.9 million arbitration award against a construction company that delivered a project 179 days late.
The case should serve as a warning bell for integrated developer-owner-contractor companies that set up a “special purpose entity” for their development projects, said Benton Wheatley, partner in Duane Morris in Austin, who represented plaintiff Montgomery Street Partners.
To read the full text of this article, originally published in Texas Lawyer, please visit the firm website.
Adjudicators and Arbitrators are occasionally faced with a situation where one of the parties refuses to engage in the process. In such circumstances tribunals are left in a difficult position to ensure fairness and have regard to due process, whilst also giving careful consideration as to whether it is just and appropriate to continue the process. Ultimately, however, the reluctance of one party to engage should not deprive the other of their legal and contractual rights.
To read the full text of this blog post by Vijay Bange, please visit the Duane Morris London Blog.
- The expert witness owed a fiduciary duty of loyalty, arising out of an engagement to provide expert witness services, advice and support in connection with an arbitration.
- The court allowed the continuation of an existing interim injunction refraining the defendant consultancy expert practice from providing expert services to another party in the arbitration.
To read the full text of this blog post by Duane Morris attorney Vijay Bange, please visit the Duane Morris London Blog.
By Michael L. Chartan, partner in the Duane Morris LLP New York office
Effective December 1, 2015, the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York amended its rules. First, home improvement construction contract disputes (one to four family homes or individual units in any residential building including cooperatives and condominiums ) will not be heard by the Commercial Division irrespective of the dispute involving $500,000 or more. Second, the Commercial Division will hear, pursuant to article 75 of New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules, applications to stay or compel arbitration and to affirm or disaffirm awards and injunctive relief irrespective of the $500,000 monetary threshold provided the arbitration agreement requires the arbitration to be heard outside the United States.
The impact of these amendments will be to eliminate access to the Commercial Division for owners and contractors among others where the dispute involves a home improvement contract. At the same time, the Commercial Division will open its doors to arbitration proceedings conducted outside the United States thereby affording parties access to a specialized court in Manhattan. Parties are still free to agree in their arbitration agreements where issues related to arbitration will be heard. If the parties provide for these issues to be heard in New York County, then the Commercial Division will be available to them.
To read the full text of the Administrative Order, please visit the New York Courts website.
For many reasons, it’s good to be New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady in Boston. However, in light of two recent Massachusetts trial court decisions, it may have been good for him that he was not in court in Boston over the summer when challenging the NFL’s adverse arbitration ruling. Over the space of two weeks in late November and early December, the Massachusetts Superior Court showed a markedly, if not surprising, pro-arbitration bent, as it upheld a party’s right to enforce an agreement to arbitrate, even after eight months of litigation in court, and upheld an arbitral award that applied out-of-state law in conferring multiple damages against a respondent despite a choice-of-law clause in the agreement mandating Massachusetts law. Either decision taken individually would be indicative of significant judicial deference to arbitration and arbitral awards. Together, they show the challenges that parties may face when attempting to avoid both an arbitration clause and/or a highly adverse, perhaps even peculiar, result.
Please visit the Duane Morris website to read the Alert, written by Duane Morris partner Michael B. Donahue in the firm’s Boston office, in its entirety.
Both lawyers and clients agonize over the tactical advantages and disadvantages of arbitration and litigation. Generally, the reason for the prolonged deliberation is the parties are attempting to make a reasoned and informed decision when selecting a dispute resolution provision for their contract.
Some parties prefer arbitration, because they believe arbitration is faster and provides them with a decision-maker who is experienced in the industry. Others prefer litigation, because, among other things, they want access to a trial by jury. Costs are also a decisive factor in determining whether to arbitrate or litigate.
Continue reading “Administrative Fees Should Be Considered When Selecting a Dispute Resolution Provision”