Reversing a district court decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit recently ruled that federal district courts have jurisdiction to enforce a summons issued by arbitrators inContinue Reading Ninth Circuit Rules that Federal Courts Have Jurisdiction to Enforce SummonsesIssued by Arbitrators in International Arbitrations under the New York Convention
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that, unlike petitions to compel arbitration, petitions to confirm or vacate an arbitration award cannot be brought in federal court simply because the underlying…
Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Petitions to Confirm or Vacate Arbitration Awards Cannot Be Brought In Federal Court Simply Because the Underlying Dispute Involves a Federal Question
International Arbitration and Cross-Border Insolvency – Common Scenarios Encountered by Practitioners
The topic of whether an arbitrator or a court should decide the question of arbitrability has been the subject of long-standing debate among international scholars and practitioners. In First Options of Chicago Inc. v. Kaplan, the Supreme Court stated the general rule that “[c]ourts should not assume that the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitrability unless there is ‘clear and unmistakabl[e]’ evidence that they did so.” 514 U.S. 938. But what constitutes clear and unmistakable evidence of the intent to arbitrate arbitrability?
The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware recently provided an example of an arbitration clause that contains such “clear and unmistakable” evidence to delegate questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator. In Nidec Corporation v. Seagate Technology LLC, Civ. Action No. 21-52 (D. Del. July 20, 2021), Nidec Corporation (“Nidec”) brought a patent infringement action against Seagate Technology LLC (“Seagate”) and other defendants. Seagate, relying on the arbitration clause in the parties’ agreement, moved to compel arbitration. Seagate argued that the arbitration clause requires the Court to delegate to an arbitrator the decision whether the agreement applies to the claims at issue. Seagate relied on the following language in the agreement:
If the parties are unable to resolve any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement, including the formation, interpretation, breach or termination thereof, whether the dispute, controversy or claim asserted is able to be arbitrated … then either party will have the option to request that the dispute be finally determined by arbitration in accordance with the JAMS International Arbitration Rules.
Nidec argued that it only agreed to arbitrate disputes that arise under the agreement and Seagate should not be allowed to compel arbitration by declaring that each dispute between the parties is a dispute arising out of or relating to the agreement. …
Continue Reading Delaware Federal Court Must Abide By The Parties Decision To Delegate The Arbitrability Of The Dispute To The Arbitrator Even If The Arbitration Agreement Is Irrelevant To The Dispute
Strategies to Collect International Arbitration Awards
One of the problems that parties to international arbitration face is that the opposing party may attempt to move its assets so that if…
Continue Reading Strategies to Collect International Arbitration Awards
The Supreme Court has granted certiorari on an issue involving domestic arbitration that has divided the federal courts of appeal (Badgerow v. Walters, Docket No. 20-1143):
As the U.S. Supreme Court currently considers the issue of whether a private international arbitration constitutes a “foreign or international tribunal” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a), the…
Continue Reading The D.C. District Court Allows State Sponsored Tribunal to Seek Discovery in Federal Court under 28 USC § 1782(a)
Insolvency proceedings can create potential roadblocks for arbitration proceedings that require careful navigation. Arbitration proceedings are private contractual proceedings intended to resolve individual claims. In contrast, insolvency proceedings are public…
Continue Reading Insolvency and Arbitration Proceedings – Are They So Happy Together?
Erika Levin, Oksana Wright and Michael Lieberman discuss, in a Law360 article, new Article 21 of the 2021 ICDR Rules, which specifically reinforces the tribunal’s authority to rule on…
Continue Reading Fox Rothschild’s Attorneys Publish Law360 Article On Recent ICDR Updates
Like some other international arbitration institutions, the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (“ICDR”) recently adopted amendments to its International Dispute Resolution Procedures (the “2021 ICDR Rules”). The ICDR’s amendment became effective on March 1, 2021. The amendments, according to the ICDR, aim to “promote greater efficiency and economy by addressing the early disposition of issues, emphasizing the use of mediation, and expanding the applicability of the expedited procedures. Importantly, the rules also place an increased emphasis on arbitrators’ ethical obligations.” The 2021 ICDR Rules also address challenges and concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic, including the use of video, audio, and other electronic means of communication.
Notable and significant revisions include:
Authority of International Administrative Council (“IARC”)
Article 5 of the 2021 ICDR Rules expressly authorizes IARC to (1) determine challenges to the appointment or continuing service of an arbitrator; (2) decide disputes regarding the number of arbitrators to be appointed; (3) determine whether a party has met the administrative requirements to initiate or file an arbitration; (4) in case of parties disagreement, determine the initial place of arbitration.
The joinder rules have been expanded in Article 8(1) as now the joinder is permitted after the constitution of the tribunal if the tribunal determines that the joinder is appropriate and the additional party consents to be joined.
As we have previously reported, International Court of Arbitration (“ICC”) also recently expanded its joinder rules.
Continue Reading Revised ICDR 2021 Rules Are Now In Effect