By Bryan Dayton and Samuel Song, Associates at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Dubai
Many construction contracts require the contractor to procure a performance bond to give the employer additional recourse should the contractor be delayed in performing, or fail to fully perform, its contractual obligations.
Continue reading Holding Hostage? – Withholding the Release of Performance Bonds in Construction Projects
By R. David Gallo, Law Clerk at the U.S. Court of International Trade
On January 18, 2017, the Second Circuit issued an opinion in the case of CBF Indústria de Gusa S/A et al. v. AMCI Holdings, Inc., 846 F.3d 35 (2d Cir. 2017).1 In Gusa, a party sought to enforce a foreign arbitral award against an entity that was not a signatory to the underlying arbitration agreement. Gusa is the latest in a line of Second Circuit cases to tackle this difficult issue. Gusa is also the latest case to invoke New York Convention (“Convention”) Article V(2)(a) and apply U.S. law – the law of the enforcing jurisdiction – to the question of whether a foreign arbitral award can be enforced against a non-signatory. The below discussion explores some of the reasons why this approach is untenable.
Continue reading The Second Circuit and the Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Against Non-Signatories
Marie-Odile Désy is a Deputy Counsel at the Secretariat of the ICC International Court of Arbitration in Paris (France). Prior to joining the ICC, she worked as an associate at Derains & Gharavi where she participated in arbitral proceedings conducted under the arbitration rules of the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) and the rules of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and also acted as administrative secretary.
Marie-Odile received LL.B. (civil law) and J.D. (common law) degrees from the University of Montreal (Canada) and an LL.M. in international commercial arbitration from Stockholm University (Sweden). She is admitted to the Paris and New York bars.
Continue reading Tips from the Top: Young ICCA interviews Marie-Odile Désy
By Dr Cosmin Vasile, Violeta Saranciuc (Zamfirescu Racoti & Partners, Bucharest)
On 24 March 2017, Law No. 18/2017 approving the termination of the bilateral investment treaties (BITs) between Romania and the European Union Member States came into force in Romania. The law targets 22 BITs entered with Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Croatia, Denmark, Greece, Finland, France, Germany, Lithuania, Latvia, Luxembourg, Poland, UK, Portugal, Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Hungary.
The sole article of the law approves the termination of these BITs by consent or by denunciation.
Continue reading Eyes on Romania As It Enacts a Law Approving the Termination of All Intra-EU Bilateral Investment Treaties
By Piyush Prasad, LL.M. Candidate, The University of Chicago Law School (Class of 2017)
A. The Problems in Cross-Border Arbitration Involving Indian Companies
Any cross-border investment involves financial and enforcement risks. Because of its speed, efficiency, and flexibility, arbitration is usually chosen as the dispute resolution method for cross-border transactions. However, the choice of arbitration does not eliminate reliance on courts. For example, a foreign company may require interim relief from local courts in an exigency. Moreover, for enforcement of awards or decisions, reliance on courts is necessary. These inequalities sometimes nullify the advantages of arbitration, especially in cross-border disputes when timely relief is critical.
This post briefly discusses the solutions to practical problems of cross-border arbitrations in the Indian context.
Continue reading Solutions to Problems of Interim Reliefs and Emergency Awards in India