Third-party funding or litigation finance agreements have become increasingly popular and accepted methods to finance commercial disputes. While some U.S. jurisdictions prohibit enforcement of finance agreements under champerty and similar laws, the majority of jurisdictions now permit them. Examples of champerty state law restrictions on enforcement of funding agreements are discussed in my recent article titled “Champerty re-emerges: an overview of recent US Circuit Court rulings on third-party funding” appearing in the May 2020 Issue of the IBA’s International Litigation News.
Read moreAgreement on “non-binding” arbitration not an arbitration agreement
An agreement to submit to non-binding arbitration is not an enforceable arbitration agreement under the English Arbitration Act 1996. The court dismissed an application for stay of English court proceedings under s9, citing absence of a valid arbitration agreement between the parties. The court held that an arbitration agreement must provide for a binding determination of disputes: IS Prime Ltd v (1) TF Global Markets (UK) Ltd (2) TF Global Markets (AUST) PTY LTD (3) Think Capital Ltd (2020) [2020] EWHC 3375 (Comm)
Read moreAgreement on “non-binding” arbitration not an arbitration agreement
An agreement to submit to non-binding arbitration is not an enforceable arbitration agreement under the English Arbitration Act 1996. The court dismissed an application for stay of English court proceedings under s9, citing absence of a valid arbitration agreement between the parties. The court held that an arbitration agreement must provide for a binding determination of disputes: IS Prime Ltd v (1) TF Global Markets (UK) Ltd (2) TF Global Markets (AUST) PTY LTD (3) Think Capital Ltd(2020) [2020] EWHC 3375 (Comm)
Read moreWinner Takes All: B.C. Court Confirms Indemnification Costs as the Normal Rule in Commercial Arbitrations
In domestic and international commercial arbitrations, it is common for successful parties to be awarded their actual reasonable legal fees and disbursements. The legislation governing domestic commercial arbitrations in British Columbia permits arbitrators to exercise their discretion to award such costs.
The Supreme Court of British Columbia discussed the law applicable to indemnification cost awards in its recent decision in Allard v. The University of British Columbia. In Allard, the successful party to an arbitration had sought – and been awarded – its actual reasonable costs. In awarding these costs, the arbitrator rejected an argument that indemnity costs represent “elevated” costs in the arbitration context, noting:
Read morePredictions for the New Year in Commercial Disputes, International Arbitration, and Judgment Enforcement
First Tuesday Update is our monthly take on current issues in commercial disputes, international arbitration, and judgment enforcement.
As we focus on the New Year and a new Biden administration, we make a prediction in each area we cover. In commercial disputes, we believe that a Biden administration is likely to suspend the private right to bring claims under the Helms-Burton Act. In international arbitration, despite some of Biden's statements to the contrary during the campaign, we believe there are likely to be more trade deals and perhaps some reform to the system of settling investment disputes, but international arbitration is here to stay. Finally, in judgment enforcement, we predict that with the continued presence of COVID-19, the states and perhaps even the federal government will limit or preclude certain judgment enforcement tools intended to protect consumers, but the limits could have broader implications.
Read moreDoes the Supreme Court’s Halliburton judgment make a splash in the pool of arbitrators for global project arbitrations?
On 27 November 2020, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Halliburton Company v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd (formerly known as Ace Bermuda Insurance Ltd) [2020] UKSC 48, concerning whether and to what extent an arbitrator may accept multiple appointments in related matters without making disclosure to the party who is not the common party. Freshfields represented the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) in its intervention in the appeal.
Read moreCould Google really leave Australia?
The government is introducing a law to address a long-bubbling row over whether tech giants should pay for news that appears in search or is shared on their platforms.
The proposed law would mandate that Google has commercial agreements with every news organisation - or enter forced arbitration, something Google says is "unworkable".
"If this version of the code were to become law, it would give us no real choice but to stop making Google Search available in Australia," the regional director, Mel Silva, said.
Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison told Google: "We don't respond to threats".
Read moreWhat are some of the most common commercial contract disputes that have arisen over the past year?
“Many businesses have been left with unpaid invoices due the financial implications of the pandemic. There has also been an increase in disputes resulting from companies struggling to meet contractual obligations for a number of reasons, sometimes outside their control. For example, goods being held up in other countries, the inability to continue work due to government restrictions or one party to the contract triggering their force majeure clause.
Read moreThe Challenges Going Forward
While it is by no means perfect, international arbitration has become the primary mechanism by which disputes are resolved in the oil and gas industry. For cross-border transactions involving parties from a broad range of jurisdictions, or disputes between an investor and a state, there is no practical alternative. It provides the opportunity for an impartial, independent determination of a dispute with an established mechanism for the enforcement of awards in most jurisdictions in the world under the auspices of the New York Arbitration Convention of 1958. Unfortunately, the dispute resolution process itself is becoming increasingly complex and uncertain, adding a further layer of difficulty to the parties finding solutions to their disputes. The time and cost associated with international arbitration now compares unfavourably with litigation (which was never a good benchmark in the first place). Extended document disclosure requests and the willingness of arbitrators to accede to them is burying the process in indiscriminate evidence. And, despite the inherent flexibility and the discretion vested in the arbitrators, first procedural orders are not always designed to meet the specific needs of the parties or the dispute, nor do they provide for an efficient and cost-effective process. This fourth perspective is a cause of concern as uncertainty over the outcome of dispute resolution process only creates additional work and delay, benefiting the international arbitration industry and not the parties it is designed to serve.
Read more