Register Today for NYIAC Training Program

NYIAC Logo

What Makes
International Arbitration Different?
Tips for Lawyers and Arbitrators

November 24, 2014
Training Program

International arbitration differs in key ways from domestic United States arbitration and from litigation in local courts, from the vocabulary used to the presentation of evidence to the form of the award. This day-long training program offered by NYIAC will address legal and cultural issues specific to international arbitration. Attendees will learn the practical “know how” needed to approach international arbitration with confidence from the perspective of the arbitrator and the advocate.

You Should Attend If:

  • You are an arbitrator and wish to expand your practice to international cases
  • You are a litigator and want to represent clients in international arbitration
  • You are in-house at a company exploring alternative dispute resolution options
  • You have some international arbitration experience but want to deepen your understanding of how cases proceed in practice

Learn about:

  • The basic legal framework and instruments
  • The significance of the seat of arbitration
  • How the institutions make arbitrator appointments
  • Strategies for selecting party appointed arbitrators
  • Process differences: briefs vs. memorials, discovery vs. disclosure
  • The impact of cultural differences on how advocates present arguments and evidence and how arbitrators conduct hearings
  • Ethics for counsel in a world of conflicting ethical obligations
  • Practical suggestions from leading arbitrators

New York CLE credit (including one ethics credit) will be available.

For more information and to register, click HERE


New-York-Times-Logo

NYIAC featured in The New York Times

In a Dealbook article, reporter Elizabeth Olson writes:

“…New York has long been a major site for global arbitration proceedings because its contract law is predictable and does not allow for appeals on specious grounds.

Proprietary research for the New York State Bar association projected that an increase of 10 to 20 percent in such proceedings in the city could add as much as $400 million annually to law firm coffers.

[...]  New York is also burnishing its arbitration credentials. Last year, the New York International Arbitration Center opened in Manhattan, as a space where arbitrators can hold hearings to examine the facts and settle cross-border grievances. Some 37 law firms funded the site.

The center, which celebrated its first anniversary in June, has hosted some 20 hearings so far. Most involved commercial arbitrations between two private parties involving issues such as oil and gas, construction and intellectual property, and one dispute arose from a bilateral investment treaty where investors could invoke arbitration in a dispute with governments and governmental entities.

The opening of an International Chamber of Commerce office in Manhattan this year is also likely to help funnel more cases to New York. Thus far, the cases filed increasingly involve parties from North America, said Alexandra Dosman, the center’s executive director, adding that this “reflects the importance of the American market, and that it’s growing.””

Read the article here.


 

ICC Logo Digital

ICC Releases 2013 Statistics: New York Most Favored Seat in the U.S.

New York is Seat in 63% of New U.S. Cases

The International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) has published its 2013 Statistical Report (abstract here; subscription required for full access).  The statistics reflect New York’s dominance as an arbitral seat within the United States, with 63% of all U.S. ICC cases seated in the city.  The report also shows that parties chose New York law to govern their disputes in a majority of cases under U.S. law.  The highlights:

  • The ICC Secretariat registered 767 new cases in 2013; of those, 22.8% involved parties in the Americas.
  • U.S. parties were involved in 8.2% of all ICC arbitrations in 2013, ahead of parties of German nationality at 6.6%.
  • New York is one of the six most popular arbitral seats worldwide, along with Paris, London, Geneva, Zurich and Singapore.
  • New York was chosen as the seat in 63% of U.S. cases.
  • New York law was chosen to govern the parties’ disputes in 52% of cases, ahead of California and Texas at 13% each and twelve other states at 2% or 3% each.

 


Connect with NYIAC!

FacebookButtonLinkedin-buttonTwitterButton

Book Your Next Arbitration Hearing At NYIAC

Contact us to reserve space for your upcoming arbitraton. NYIAC’s world-class hearing rooms and breakout rooms accommodate arbitrations of any size and duration.

19C5474

We have cutting edge technological capabilities, including high-tech video conferencing and built-in facilities for simultaneous interpretation.

19C5478

Beautiful, comfortable amenities and a location in the heart of Manhattan make NYIAC an ideal arbitration destination.

19C5649

Book your hearing today!

Legal Developments and Analysis

U.S. Supreme Court Reverses BG Group v. Argentina

On March 5, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit’s controversial 2012 decision in BG Group PLC v. Republic of Argentina. The Court ruled that an arbitral award rendered by a tribunal constituted under a bilateral investment treaty is entitled to the same broad deference afforded awards rendered by commercial arbitration tribunals.

Read the full decison (PDF)

Muddy Waters in the Land of Section 1782

In the January 31, 2014 edition of the New York Law Journal, Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky mark the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s lone Section 1782 decision by discussing the significant uncertainty that remains concerning an issue spawned by that decision.

Read the full article (PDF)

New York Court of Appeals Rejects Attempt to Bind Non-Signatory

On October 17, 2013, the New York Court of Appeals refused to apply direct benefits estoppel to bind a non-signatory to arbitrate. “The mere existence of an agreement with attendant circumstances that prove advantageous to the non-signatory would not constitute the type of direct benefits justifying compelling arbitration by a non-party.” Matter of Belzberg v Verus Invs. Holdings […]

Read the full decision (PDF)

Recent U.S. Court Decisions Confirm Arbitrator Discretion to Limit Discovery

Three recent decisions by the U.S. Courts of Appeals in New Orleans, Boston and New York reaffirm the longstanding position that arbitrators in U.S.-based arbitrations have discretion to determine the proper scope of discovery and are not bound to follow U.S. litigation discovery practices.  Gregory A. Litt and Colm P. McInerney examine these cases.

Read the full article (PDF)