As we have discussed in previous posts, federal appeals courts in the United States are split over whether a private international arbitration constitutes a “foreign or international tribunal” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a), which authorizes U.S. district courts to provide assistance to foreign or international tribunals by ordering discovery of persons in the district.  In a very recent case, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia recognized this split, and directed the parties to provide additional briefing before deciding this hotly disputed issue.

In In re Application of: Food Delivery Holding 12 S.A.R.L., 1:21-mc-00005, 2021 WL 860262 (Mar. 8, 2021), Food Delivery Holding 12 S.a.r.l. (“FDH”) filed an application under 28 U.S.C. §1782 for an order to issue a subpoena for the taking of deposition and production of documents for use in a matter before the Dubai International Finance Centre-London Court of International Arbitration (“DIFC-LCIA”).

The Court began its analysis by noting that deciding whether to grant discovery under Section 1782 involves a two-step inquiry:

First, the court must determine whether it can order the requested relief—that is, whether it has the authority to do so; second, it must decide whether it should order the requested relief—that is, whether exercising its discretion to do so would further the statute’s “twin aims of ‘providing efficient assistance to participants in international litigation and encouraging foreign countries by example to provide similar assistance in our courts.’”


Continue Reading Uncertainty Continues Over Whether Federal Courts Can Order Discovery in Aid of International Arbitrations

The leading international arbitration institutions, including the London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA”) and the International Court of Arbitration (“ICC”), are revising their arbitration rules to improve efficiency, flexibility and transparency, and address challenges and concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In a previous post, we discussed LCIA’s updates to its arbitration and mediation rules, which came in effect on October 1, 2020.  The ICC has issued similar updates to its 2017 Arbitration Rules, which will take effect on January 1, 2021 (the “2021 ICC Rules”).  The updates, according to the ICC Court President, Alexis Mourre:

mark a further step towards greater efficiency, flexibility and transparency of the Rules, making ICC Arbitration even more attractive, both for large, complex arbitrations and for smaller cases.

Notable and substantive revisions to the 2021 ICC Rules include:

Electronic Submissions

            Article 3 of the 2021 ICC Rules now allows the parties to make their submissions by email, replacing the previous requirement to provide the submissions in a hard copy.  This amendment recognizes that most communications are now conducted electronically and addresses COVID-19 concerns when hard copy filing may be impossible and present health risks.

Virtual Hearings

            The ICC, like other international arbitration fora, quickly adopted to the COVID-19 reality of remote hearings.  Article 26(1) of the 2021 ICC Rules now provides that “[t]he arbitral tribunal may decide, after consulting the parties, and on the basis of the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, that any hearing will be conducted by physical attendance or remotely by videoconference, telephone or other appropriate means of communication.”
Continue Reading 2021 ICC Rules Update Aims At Greater Efficiency, Flexibility, And Transparency and Addresses COVID-19 Issues

Arbitration awards may be vacated or annulled based on arbitrator conflicts of interest and even just an appearance of impropriety. Read how different arbitrations deal with disqualification motions.

The Importance of Impartiality and Lack of Conflicts

Arbitrator’s impartiality and independence is the bedrock of international arbitration. Recent arbitration awards have been vacated or annulled due

Learn to Plan, Plan to Learn: FINRA Arbitration Training

A Complimentary Webinar Co-Sponsored by NSCP
Thursday, November 5, 2020  |  Noon PT  |  3 pm ET

Many in the financial industry favor arbitration for the certainty it affords as well as the defined obligations, cost savings and streamlined process it provides. But these benefits can

In our recent post, we have discussed the split in the federal appeals courts over whether a private international arbitration constitutes a “foreign or international tribunal” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a), which authorizes U.S. district courts to provide assistance to foreign or international tribunals by ordering discovery of persons in the district.

On September 22, 2020, in Servotronics, Inc. v. Rolls-Royce PLC et al., No 19-1847, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit joined the Second and Fifth Circuits in holding that 28 USC § 1782(a) does not apply to private international arbitration.  As we have previously discussed, the Sixth and Fourth Circuits both recently ruled that section 1782 may be invoked to seek discovery in aid of private foreign or international commercial arbitrations. 
Continue Reading The Seventh Circuit Joins the Second and Fifth Circuits in Holding That 28 USC § 1782(a) Does Not Apply to Private International Arbitration

Due to uncertainties created by the pandemic, virtual hearings will continue to remain the default option in particular in domestic, international and cross border proceedings, in which in-person appearances are made difficult by travel constraints.

There are many practical considerations that practitioners and clients face with regard to virtual hearings.  This post summarizes some important issues that need to be considered in advance of a remote hearing:

  • Technical aspects: There are various technical aspects that need to be planned in advance, including the platform for the hearing; presentation of electronic evidence; translations; recording and transcribing.  Most of these technical aspects are better left to the professionals, rather than the attorneys, who should be focusing on the legal aspects of the hearing.  For example, if the budget allows, there should be a designated person assigned whose responsibility is to ensure that the technical aspects of the hearing are running smoothly.  Such individual should be responsible, among other things, for presentation of electronic evidence, muting and unmuting of participants, setting up the break out rooms, and ensuring participants’ access to the hearing.


Continue Reading Virtual Reality Of Arbitration Hearings

In these series of posts, we discuss the differences that have emerged in rulings by federal appeals courts in the United States Circuits on certain issues that may affect the ability of a party in an international arbitration to obtain evidence from non-parties to the arbitration.

Arbitrator’s Power To Order Pre-Hearing Document Production Or Testimony From Non-Parties

In Part I of our post on the Circuit Courts split over discovery matters in international arbitration, we have discussed the Courts’ different views on whether a private international arbitration constitutes a “foreign or international tribunal” within the meaning of section 1782. The federal Courts of Appeals do not agree on another discovery matter that relates to obtaining evidence from non-parties in arbitration—including international arbitration—with the seat in the United States.  There is a Circuit split on whether an arbitrator may compel pre-hearing document production or testimony from non-parties pursuant to Section 7 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), which applies to any arbitration in the United States involving interstate or international commerce.

The Second Circuit, Third Circuit (which includes Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania), and Ninth Circuit (which includes Arizona, Alaska, California, and Hawaii) have ruled that an arbitrator does not have power to compel pre-hearing discovery of documents and testimony pursuant to the FAA, and can compel such discovery only for an arbitration hearing.


Continue Reading U.S. Circuit Courts Split Over Issues Concerning the Ability To Obtain Evidence From Non-Parties In International Arbitration, Part II

In these series of posts, we discuss the differences that have emerged in rulings by federal appeals courts in the United States Circuits on certain issues that may affect the ability of a party in an international arbitration to obtain evidence from non-parties to the arbitration.

 Application Pursuant 28 U.S.C. §1782

 A federal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1782, states that U.S. district court may provide assistance to foreign or international tribunals by ordering discovery of persons in the district.  The Circuit Courts, however, disagree whether a private international arbitration constitutes a “foreign or international tribunal” within the meaning of section 1782.

In In re Application of Hanwei Guo for an Order to Take Discovery for Use in a Foreign Proceeding Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, 965 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. July 8, 2020), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reaffirmed its previous holding that a party cannot invoke 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to obtain documentary and testimonial evidence to be used in a private international commercial arbitration proceeding.
Continue Reading U.S. Circuit Courts Split Over Issues Concerning the Ability To Obtain Evidence From Non-Parties In International Arbitration, Part I

Join virtually Oksana Wright and many other international law practitioners for a discussion of relevant international arbitration and litigation topics at the 12th Annual Conference on the Resolution of CIS Related Business Disputes organized by the ABA International Law Section and Russian Arbitration Association.  Oksana will be speaking on September 17 at the session entitled

A recent decision of the Southern District of New York illustrates enforcement of arbitral awards under the New York Convention in situations when there are competing decisions issued by an arbitration tribunal and a foreign court.

In Ocean World Lines, Inc. v. Transocean Shipping Transportagentur GesmbH, No. 19 CIV. 43 (AT), 2020 WL 3250734,