Presentation on theme: "International Arbitration & Litigation Strategies Panel 4: International Arbitration Strategies January 29, 2008 Los Angeles, USA Authored by Presented."— Presentation transcript:
International Arbitration & Litigation Strategies Panel 4: International Arbitration Strategies January 29, 2008 Los Angeles, USA Authored by Presented by Moderator Eckart Broedermann James H. Broderick Jeffery J. Daar Jeffery J. Daar Malcolm S. McNeil Matthew M. Walsh Liu Yuwu Ygnacio Reyes-Retana
2 Selection of Arbitrator Quality Management Project Management Know How Management Coordination of Tasks Cost Controlling Coordination of Invoicing Cost estimation Budget Mentality analysis of judge/ arbitrator (training) Research of Facts Controlling of Facts Award Overview: Similar topics as discussed in litigation New York Convention Private International Law Substantive Law Mandatory Law Rules/Law on procedure Institutional versus ad hoc arbitration Litigation versus Arbitration Project Management Quality Management Know How Management Cost Controlling Coordination of Invoicing Cost estimation Budget Mentality analysis of arbitrator (training) Research of Facts Controlling of Facts Liaison with Client For each of these steps it is important to decide on the right strategy. Arbitration clause First Brief initiating the arbitration Statement of Claim Miscellaneous Briefs on Procedural points Work on Evidence Oral Hearings Post Hearing Brief Enforcement Analysis of Respondents Answer Analysis Other multi- National treaties Bilateral treaties National Arbi- tration laws Comparison with UNCITRAL Model law Rules/Law on Service Rules/Law on Evidence Forum: location, location, location
3 Agenda I. Arbitration Strategy Prior to any Dispute Many of these aspects are covered during the day in other panels Arbitration v. litigation (Panel 2) Drafting an arbitration clause (Panel 5) This panel will emphasize a few additional aspects which go beyond these topics (e.g. confidentiality, choice of law) II. Arbitration Strategy at the Beginning of an Arbitration Location of arbitration Selection of Arbitrators Agreements on procedural aspects like language omitted at the drafting stage III. Arbitration Strategy during an Arbitration, e.g. Level of depth in briefs, Provisional remedies Evidence (discovery), Hearing IV. Arbitration Strategy after the Arbitration Procedure
4 I. Arbitration Strategy Prior to any Dispute (1) The decision on arbitration in general and the forum and method in particular is a decision on the degree of freedom and control during the arbitration process: Different rules of arbitration give different freedom to the parties. If there is time, many things can be decided already in the arbitration clause (see Panel 5); if not, (i) the kind of arbitration forum and the rules chosen determine together with the (ii) types of arbitrators chosen/appointed the remaining freedom.
5 Arbitration Strategy Prior to any Dispute (2) Examples: Implications of location The venue and timing can influence the probability of settlement negotiations venue off easy plane connections ? Agreements on general length of an arbitration Agreements on limitation of evidence Language arrangements cannot only reduce the costs, but also influence the atmosphere of the hearing (pre- selection on who can attend) Agreements on integration of IBA Rules on Ethics
6 Arbitration Strategy Prior to any Dispute (3): Choice of Law The choice of the substantive law governing the contract is independent from the rules or the venue chosen Mindset: If it is the law at the place of the venue there is a danger that an international dispute becomes too local If a neutral legal regime is chosen (e.g. the 2004 UNIDROIT Principles, see www.unidroit.info), an arbitration tribunal can handle such choice often better than a national judge www.unidroit.info
7 II. Arbitration Strategy at the Beginning of an Arbitration (1) Selection of Arbitrators Typically governed by arbitration clause or governing rules Agreements on procedural aspects Same as above, although greater opportunity for post-demand agreements
8 Arbitration Strategy at the Beginning of an Arbitration: Selection of Arbitrators (2) Single or 3-arbitrators-panel? If you appoint one of three arbitrators: Concentration on the main job of the party appointed arbitrator: To decide on the right umpire (chairman). To ensure due process To ensure that all points made by the party will be well understood. In contrast: No biased arbitrator. That violates the law & ethics and contravenes the (own) party’s goals
9 Arbitration Strategy at the Beginning of an Arbitration: Selection of Arbitrators (3) Selection criteria: Cultural background, Standing, Personality International competence Education & Know How At the cross road between substantive law and arbitration law Experience Ability to understand the economics Ability to understand the technical background Independence Availability of potential candidate to act as arbitrator to make sure that he/she has the time to devote to the matter
10 Arbitration Strategy at the Beginning of an Arbitration: Agreements on procedural aspects During the first weeks of an arbitration (incl. sometimes the first hearing) there is still room to shape the arbitration process: Either by straightforward agreement (e.g. on the conditions of the arbitrator in an ad hoc process) Or by triggering a procedural order of the tribunal Possible preliminary conference e.g., Language(s) Timing etc.
11 III. Arbitration Strategy Pending the Arbitration Procedure Provisional remedies Discovery Hearing
12 Provisional Remedies Typically turns on arbitration provision, governing rules, or both Beware of waiver issues for seeking provisional remedies prematurely Security deposit issues
13 Discovery Consult arbitration agreement and governing rules Growing trend towards American-style discovery Discovery often expanded or restricted by post-demand agreement of parties
14 Strategy during the Hearing Agreement on schedule of hearing E.g. is time for settlement negotiations needed (when best? Lunch or dinner time?) Admission/limitation of cross-examination Experts conferencing? Opening and/or closing statements? Closing statement and/or post hearing brief?
15 IV. Arbitration Strategy after the Arbitration Procedure Negotiation or enforcement? Economic and Practical Options for enforcement in different countries? Legal options, e.g., under the doctrine of merging an arbitration award into a court decision? Appeal?
16 Enforcement of Award (1) An international arbitration award is usually grounded in the national legal order of the place of arbitration. It is not recognized per se worldwide; it needs first recognition by the state where enforcement is sought (“Exequatur”). Rules of recognition are contained In the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards (“NYC”, more than 160 member states!); Sometimes in further international treaties; Otherwise in the local legal orders (which are increasingly similar as more and more are based on Art. 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Arbitration).
17 Enforcement of Award (2) As a result, there are a number of akin obstacles to recognition and enforcement of an award. Under the NYC regime the following points are examined ex officio: Foreign award (Art. I para. 1, 2 NYC) Valid arbitration agreement (Art. II para. 1, 2 NYC) Original or copy of award duly notarized (Art. IV NYC) Arbitrability of the subject matter (Art. V para. 2 a NYC) No violation of the public order (Art. V para. 2 b NYC)
18 Enforcement of Award (3) Under the NYC regime, the following points are examined upon request of a party: Failure of party’s ability to act at the time of the conclusion of the arbitration agreement (Art. V para. 1 a NYC) Violation of Due Process (Art. V para. 1 b NYC) Surpassing the competence of the arbitrators (Art. V para 1. c NYC). In contrast, there is no revision of the grounds (no révision au fond).
19 Enforcement of Award (4) Example: Different understanding of “public policy” India: The arbitration law is based on the UNCITRAL Model law (incl. Art. 34). In 2005, the Supreme Court of India held in the nationally and internationally disputed Saw Pipes Case, that the violation of (substantive) Indian law made an award “patently illegal” and would therefore violate public policy. In fact, this leads to the (unforeseeable) revision of the grounds.
21 Thank you! James H. Broderick Malcolm S. McNeil JBroderick@ssd.com firstname.lastname@example.org@carlsmith.com
22 Annex: James H. Broderick Admitted in California (1981); United States Supreme Court; United States Court of International Trade; United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Ninth, and Federal Circuits; United States District Courts, District of Arizona and Northern, Eastern, Southern and Central Districts of California; Supreme Court of California. Boston University, J.D., 1979 Harvard University, A.B., magna cum laude, 1974 Present Position: Partner, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey LLP International Litigation and Arbitration track record: Mr. Broderick has successfully represented international clients in the defense of lender liability lawsuits, consumer class actions, wrongful termination claims, state unfair competition claims, and antitrust and securities litigation. Mr. Broderick worked in Tokyo for 18 months under the auspices of a Japanese Ministry of Education fellowship as a research fellow with the law faculty of Sophia University. His fellowship focused on Japanese antitrust law and constitutional law. Contact: JBroderick@ssd.com; www.ssd.comJBroderick@ssd.comwww.ssd.com
23 Annex: Malcolm S. McNeil Admitted in California (1983), District of Columbia, and U.S. Supreme Court Loyola Law School, J.D., 1983 Antioch University, B.A., 1980 Married; three children Positions: - Partner; Chair of China Practice Group, Carlsmith Ball LLP - Firm representative to multilaw - Immediate Past President, Hollywood Heights Association - Honorary President, AIJA (International Association of Young Lawyers) International Litigation and Arbitration track record: He has participated in cross-national negotiations and has established a network of colleagues throughout the globe who are available to assist clients in foreign countries as the need arises. Contact : email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org Carlsmith Ball LLP 444 S. Flower Street, 9 th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 213.955.1619
24 Annex: Jeffery J. Daar Admitted in California, 1982 University of California at Davis, J.D., 1982 Claremont Men’s College, B.A., 1979 Married; four children Present positions: Managing Attorney of Daar & Newman, P.C. Chairperson, Consulegis Intellectual Property, Entertainment Law and Information Technology Specialist Group Chair, International Law Section of the Los Angeles County Bar Association Chairperson, City of Los Angeles Rent Adjustment Commission International Litigation and Arbitration track record for more than 20 years. Contact: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
25 Annex: Eckart Brödermann LL.M. (Harvard); License en droit (Paris); Maîtrise en droit (Paris); dr. iur. (Hamburg) Admitted in Hamburg (Germany) and New York (New York) July 13, 1958 married, four children Present position: Co-Managing partner of BRÖDERMANN & JAHN Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH, Hamburg; Lecturer at Hamburg University; Chairman, Consulegis International Litigation and Arbitration Specialist Group Membership/on the panel of: German Institute of Arbitration (DIS), London Court of International Arbitration, ICAC Moscow. International Litigation and Arbitration track record for over 20 years including arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules (since the Iran Claims tribunal, 1983/84), ICC (including chairman to an ICC arbitration), ad hoc, Stockholm Rules; Swiss Rules and others; concentration on trade, investment and M&A/corporate-related disputes; action both as arbitrator and counsel Contact: Eckart.Broedermann@german-law.com; www.German-law.comEckart.Broedermann@german-law.comwww.German-law.com
26 Annex: Matthew M. Walsh University of California, Hastings, J.D., 1994 Admitted in California, 1994 Married; two children Present position: Partner, Dewey Ballantine LLP and Member of Firm’s Global Arbitration and Dispute Resolution Group International Litigation and Arbitration track record: Counsel in more than 35 arbitrations over past 13 years involving a variety of commercial disputes, including M&A issues, contract disputes, intellectual property issues and regulatory questions. Contact: email@example.com@deweyballantine.com
27 Annex: Liu Yuwu LLM, University of International Business and Economics LLB, Renmin University of China Admitted in the People’s Republic of China Married, one child Present position: Partner, King & Wood PRC Lawyers Arbitrator, China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) Arbitrator, Beijing Arbitration Commission (BAC) Council Member, CIETAC Expert Advisory Board Mediator, China Chamber of International Commerce Conciliation Center Specialist, CIETAC Domain Name Dispute Resolution Center. International Litigation and Arbitration track record: Worked at the Secretariat of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (“CIETAC”) for ten years. Published more than 50 awards as sole arbitrator, presiding arbitrator or co- arbitrator since 2003. Counsel to more than 10 arbitrations since 2005. Contact: firstname.lastname@example.org
28 Annex: Ygnacio Reyes-Retana Present position: National Partner in Baker & McKenzie Abogados, S.C. Tijuana office International Litigation and Arbitration track record: Member of Baker & McKenzie Global Dispute resolution practice group. Member of Arbitration Commission of the Mexican Chapter of the International Chamber of Commerce. Former member of the NAFTA 2022 Committee on Private Commercial Disputes. Contact: email@example.com@bakernet.com