By Daniil Vlasenko, foreign attorney at Baker & McKenzie LLP (New York)
At the end
of 2018, the Presidium of the Russian Supreme Court published its “Review of Cases Related to the
Functions of Assistance and Control in Relation to Arbitration and
International Commercial Arbitration” (“Review”). The 51-page Review was dedicated to issues
that the Russian courts have faced while hearing cases arising from domestic
and international arbitration and which require consideration by the Supreme
Court. Numerous issues were covered, including those connected to the
arbitrability of certain types of disputes, the enforceability of arbitral
awards and the validity of arbitration agreements.
By Erin Gleason, Independent Arbitrator and Mediator
Mediation and arbitration are often
categorized as separate and distinct fields for good reason. Arbitration is an adjudicative process;
mediation, on the other hand, is more accommodating, dependent on negotiation
among parties. There is a formality
attached to arbitration that one usually does not find in mediation. While the arbitration process is prescribed
by rules, the mediation experience is created by the parties and the mediator
to fit the needs of a particular dispute.
Jadranka Jakovcic is an associate at
New York office of Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP, International
Arbitration group. She advises in both investment treaty and commercial
arbitrations, with particular experience in cases conducted under the auspices
of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).
Prior to joining Curtis, Ms. Jakovcic served as a judicial trainee to Justice Charles E. Ramos of the New York Supreme Court, Commercial Division. She also interned at the Legal Service of the European Commission, assisting on the preliminary ruling procedure concerning Croatia before the European Court of Justice.
A Croatian national, Ms. Jakovcic trained in both civil law and common law, with a Master of Laws degree from the University of Zagreb and an LL.M. from Fordham University School of Law.
By Vladimir Khvalei, Laurence Ponty, Juan Pablo Valdivia Pizarro, Andreea I. Nica and Maria Teder
article is the result of a collective project, carried out by one of the groups
of the Young ICCA Mentoring Programme, comprised of Juan Pablo Valdivia
Andreea I. Nica
and Maria Teder,
as Mentees, Vladimir Khvalei, as
Mentor, and Laurence Ponty, as Buddy.
With the benefit
of Vladimir Khvalei being one of the drafters of the Prague Rules (or the
“Rules”), the group chose to address this hot topic to contribute to the lively
(and sometimes passionate) debates, which the Rules have triggered even way
before their launch in December 2018. Further, given the concentration of the discussion
on the legal background underlying the Rules (the civil law and more inquisitorial
approach) and the potential tensions with the common law culture approach, the analysis
of the Prague Rules by a group representing a large variety of nationalities
sounded particularly relevant.
By Mahasweta Muthusubbarayan,
Final year B.A. LL.B. student at ILS Law College, Pune, India
A Mareva injunction or a freezing injunction is a form of ad personam interim relief, which is usually sought during the pendency of court or arbitration proceedings or once the proceedings are completed and a verdict is rendered, but before the judgement/award is enforced and executed. This form of injunction is essentially sought by a claimant or judgement/award creditor against a respondent or judgement/award debtor, to prevent the latter from dispersing his assets otherwise than in the ordinary course of business, so as to ensure that the enforcement of a judgement or arbitral award is not defeated. Unlike a regular injunction, a freezing injunction covers even those assets which are not necessarily a part of the subject-matter in dispute or those in which the claimant does not claim any direct right.