Oct 21

Ciments Français – a Russian Putrabali? by Michael Wietzorek

Ciments Français – a Russian Putrabali?

by Michael Wietzorek, Trainee Lawyer at the Regional Court of Krefeld, Germany

This case note is limited to an attempt to answer the question whether the case Ciments Français v. Sibirskij Cement might be “[a] Russian Putrabali?”[1]

 

A. The facts of the Ciments Français case relevant to the question

 

On 26 March 2008, Ciments Français (France), OAO Holdingovaja Kompanija “Sibirskij Cement” (Russian Federation) and İstanbul Çimento Yatırımları Anonim Şirketi (Turkey) entered into a share purchase agreement, according to which Sibirskij Cement promissed to pay, and consequently paid, Ciments Français an initial payment at an amount of EUR 50.000.000,00.

 

On 7 December 2010, an ICC tribunal seated in Istanbul rendered a partial award between Ciments Français and Sibirskij Cement.[2] The tribunal found that Ciments Français had duly and validly exercised its right to terminate the contract, and that as a consequence, Ciments Français was entitled to keep the sum paid as an initial payment.

Read the rest of this entry »

Leave comment

Oct 17

Gauging the Tension Between Finality and Fairness in Arbitration: An Assessment of the Scope and Limits of “Correction” and “Interpretation” of Final Awards By Shalini Soopramanien

Gauging the Tension Between Finality and Fairness in Arbitration: An Assessment of the Scope and Limits of “Correction” and “Interpretation” of Final Awards By Shalini Soopramanien

 

Table of Contents

PART I: INTRODUCTION

PART II: An Overview OF Functus officio and its limited exceptions

2.1. Functus Officio

2.2. The Three Limited Exceptions

2.3. Consequences of Violating the Functus Officio Principle

PART III:Requests for correction.

3.1. Methodology

3.2. National Arbitral Laws

3.2.1. Introduction

3.2.2. UNCITRAL ML

3.2.3. Switzerland

3.2.4. U.K.

3.2.5. U.S.A.

3.3. Institutional Arbitral Rules

3.3.1. Introduction

3.3.2. LCIA

3.3.3. ICC

3.3.4. ICSID

PART IV:Requests for interpretation.

4.1. National Arbitral Laws

4.1.1. Introduction

4.1.2. UNCITRAL ML

4.1.3. Switzerland

4.1.4. U.K.

4.1.5. U.S.A.

4.2. Institutional Arbitral Rules

4.2.1. Introduction

4.2.2.  LCIA

4.2.3. ICC

4.2.4. ICSID

PART V: ISSUES AND CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE.

PART VI: CONCLUSION.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

Read the rest of this entry »

Leave comment

Feb 01

Drafting an Arbitration Agreement for Contracts Related to Saudi Arabia By Abdulrahman Hammad

Drafting an Arbitration Agreement for Contracts Related to Saudi Arabia

By Abdulrahman Hammad (a.hammad@whitecase.com)

08 June 2011

While much has been written about the enforceability of arbitral awards, foreign and domestic, in The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (“The Kingdom”), articles seldom advise on the practicalities of drafting international arbitration agreements recognizable and enforceable by The Kingdom’s courts. Generally, such agreements are added to contracts entered into with a domiciliary of The Kingdom, or contracts the principal place of performance of which is within the territorial boundaries of The Kingdom. This article will focus on effectively drafting an arbitration agreement (also known as an arbitration clause) for contracts relating to The Kingdom. It will address the relevant issues to be reviewed in such agreements, and conclude with a sample agreement for Saudi-related contracts. It will not focus on the enforcement or scope of review of arbitral awards by Saudi courts.

Read the rest of this entry »

Leave comment

Older posts «