Sentences with phrase «arbitral awards under»

In addition to her trial and appellate experience, Elaine is skilled in arbitration matters (ICC, AAA, JAMS, FINRA and other self - regulatory organizations), litigates challenges to arbitral awards under both the FAA and state equivalents, and litigates issues regarding arbitrability of claims.

Judicial intervention in international arbitral awards under the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law (the «Model Law»)-- though given the force of law by the International Commercial Arbitration Act and the Commercial Arbitration Act — is limited in scope by Article 34.

The EU would not be alone in using GSP status to pressure Argentina — the US announced last month that it would suspend GSP benefits in protest against Argentina's non-payment of prior arbitral awards under the US - Argentina BIT.

Parties have brought successful challenges to enforcement of arbitral awards under article V (1)(c) in several jurisdictions on the grounds that the arbitral award addressed a party that was not bound by the arbitration agreement.

It is doubtful, however, that such exclusion of right of recourse extends to the setting aside of an arbitral award under section 48 of the Arbitration Act.

Summary: The respondent in the arbitration challenged the arbitral award under Section 34 and 34 of the Swedish Arbitration Act.

Summary: The appellant challenged a Swedish arbitral award under Section 34 of the Swedish Arbitration Act, alleging that the arbitral tribunal either exceeded its jurisdiction or committed a...

Represented the prevailing party in an ICC arbitration in enforcing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts a multi-million dollar arbitral award under the New York Convention.

Generally, all you have to do to enforce an arbitral award under the Act is make a court application within two years receiving the award.

Acting and advising in a challenge to an LMAA arbitral award under 68 of the Arbitration Act, on the grounds that the tribunal had failed in their duty to act fairly and impartially and failed to consider all the issues which were put to it.

[139] It is important to remember that, even if section 44 (2) is repealed and the parties choose not to agree to an appeal under section 44 (1), a party can still apply to court in appropriate circumstances to set aside an arbitral award under section 45 of the Alberta Act.

It can also make its own order for security for costs where a party makes an application to challenge an arbitral award under sections 67, 68, or 69.

An appeal against or challenge to an arbitral award under the 1996 Act must be commenced by the issue of an arbitration claim form (in accordance with Part 62 of the English Civil Procedure Rules).

On appeal, the Supreme Court addressed whether a court may validly vacate an arbitral award under the FAA.

A recent case that considered the different tests for leave to appeal an arbitral award under the Arbitration Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure has broad implications for any... Read more

Not exact matches

It is quite fascinating to note that the topic I elected to write a thesis on more than 17 years ago remains a topical issue to the extent that a world leading institution such as the IBA has constituted a sub-committee, under the auspices of the IBA Arbitration Committee, to tackle public policy in relation to enforcement of arbitral awards, and the sub-committee issued an excellent report last year on the matter.

Consequently, where an arbitral tribunal has rendered an award which decides matters beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement, there is a ground for refusing to enforce an award under article V (1)(c).799

With respect to the award of interest, the Hamburg Court of Appeal rejected a challenge to enforcement under article V (1)(c), made on the basis that the arbitral tribunal had awarded more interest than had been claimed, considering that an «arbitral tribunal can in its discretion and on its own initiative award interest and compound interest for the time until the rendition of the award and for the time after the rendition of the award.»

[2] The analysed awards were not only issued under the ICC Rules of Arbitration, but also under the rules of other arbitral institutions, such as the CIETAC, the HKIAC, the DIS, the ICDR, the LCIA, the PCA, the SCC and the SIAC.

Courts have consistently confirmed this in relation to article V (1)(c).837 For example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied a party's attempt to raise a challenge under article V (1)(c) to oppose an order compelling arbitration, that is, before the arbitral proceedings had even taken place.838 The court noted that the provision could only be invoked by a party opposing enforcement of an award, which was not possible in circumstances where no award had been issued, and also unlikely where the party raising the challenge was the claimant in the would - be arbitration, and thus not the party who would be in a position to challenge any resulting arbitral award absent any counterclaims.839

The arbitration clause provided that the local arbitral tribunal issuing the award only had jurisdiction over «non-technical» disputes, and any «technical» disputes were to be resolved by an international arbitral tribunal under the ICC Arbitration Rules.813

«Notwithstanding section (1), the parties may agree to exclude the jurisdiction of the Court under this section and an agreement to dispense with reasons for the arbitral tribunal's award shall be treated as an agreement to exclude the jurisdiction of the Court under this section.»

By imposing stricter rules on recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, a Contracting State will breach its obligations under the Convention.

In a case concerning an application for enforcement that was subject to both the New York Convention and the European Convention, the Italian Court of Cassation decided that enforcement should be denied where the presumption under Article VIII had not been rebutted because one party seeking enforcement had expressly requested during the arbitral proceeding that reasons be given for the award.

European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration, Geneva, 21 April 1961, Article VIII: «The parties shall be presumed to have agreed that reasons shall be given for the award unless they (a) either expressly declare that reasons shall not be given; or (b) have assented to an arbitral procedure under which it is not customary to give reasons for awards, provided that in this case neither party requests before the end of the hearing, or if there has not been a hearing then before the making of the award, that reasons be given.»

- The provision under which the parties may, subject to the consent of the mediator, agree to appoint the mediator as an arbitrator and request him or her to confirm the settlement in an arbitral award, has been maintained (Article 15).

The case raises numerous issues relating to the enforcement of arbitral awards against sovereign states, including immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978 and the interaction between English proceedings and proceedings in the curial court (Holland).

An overview of the history of the realisation of The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention) can be found under «History 1923 - 1958»

She adds that «Nigerian courts are eager to enforce arbitral awards and the regulatory framework under the New York Convention and Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcements) Act largely favours enforcement of foreign awards».

The section features information on the enforcement procedures in various CIS states, a database of court judgements on the enforcements of SCC arbitral awards, e-books about arbitration in Sweden and samples of documents filed in arbitrations under the SCC Rules.

Elektrim SA v Vivendi Universal SA & Ors [2007] 2 Lloyd's Rep 8: grounds for restraining by injunction an arbitration; as well as several leading cases dealing with interim relief in aid of international arbitral proceedings including Mobil Cerro Negor Ltd v Petroleos de Venezuela SA [2008] 1 Lloyd's Rep 684 (expropriation of Mobil's oil fields in Venezuela; successfully discharged worldwide freezing order for US$ 12 billion under s. 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996); ETI NV v Republic of Bolivia [2009] 1 WLR 665 (CA): (nationalisation of company; successfully discharged a freezing order obtained under s. 25 of the CJJA 1982 and s. 44 of the AA 1996 in aid of an ICSID arbitration); Telenor v Vimpelcom & Altimo Group (pre-arbitration interim relief in S$ 3bn telecommunications shareholder dispute); Yukos Oil v Rosneft (US$ 425m freezing order in support of enforcement of Russian arbitral awards);

Represented a foreign sovereign before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to defend against efforts to have recognized and enforced, under the New York Convention, an approximately $ 1 billion ICSID Additional Facility arbitral award.

If a right of set - off is accepted in principle, then the better position for a seller is for the claim to have been determined and agreed under an arbitral award (or whichever other dispute resolution process is applicable); the main alternative and slightly weaker position for a seller is for the matter to be decided by a relevant expert (depending on the nature of the claim).

The Supreme Court considered whether the English Court, as an enforcing court of a Nigerian arbitral award, was entitled to require a party resisting enforcement to provide security for the money payable under the award as a condition of being entitled to advance a good arguable defence that enforcement should be refused on grounds of English public policy, e.g. because the award was procured by fraud.

Represented a foreign sovereign in regard to recognition and enforcement under the New York Convention of an approximately $ 700 million ICSID Additional Facility arbitral award.

Consolidated Contractors Group S.A.L. (Offshore) v. Ambatovy Minerals S.A. provides a concrete basis for understanding when Courts can refuse the recognition of an arbitral award in Ontario that falls under the International Commercial Arbitration Act.

Represented a foreign company in defense of an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to have an approximately $ 200 million UNCITRAL Rules arbitral award recognized and enforced under the New York Convention.

Represented a foreign sovereign before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in seeking, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration, vacatur of an approximately $ 1.4 billion ICSID Additional Facility arbitral award, and in defending against an attempt to enforce the award under the New York Convention.

Nigel regularly deals with applications under the Arbitration Act 1996, such as applications to stay legal proceedings, for the appointment / removal of arbitrators, for the exercise of judicial powers in support of arbitral proceedings, and for the correction of awards, as well as appeals from arbitration awards on points of law and challenges to awards for want of jurisdiction or on grounds of serious procedural irregularity.

In addition to having been instructed in major arbitrations, such as the Bermudan - based arbitration relating to the reinsurance of Arthur Andersen following the collapse of Enron and WorldCom, and Elektrim SA's long running dispute with Vivendi Universal over Polish telecommunications, he has particular expertise in relation to inter relief applications to the Court in relation to heavy arbitrations such as ETI Euro Telecom V Republic of Bolivia [2008](no pre-emptive relief in aid of an ICSID arbitration); Elektrim SA v Vivendi [2007] 1 Lloyd's Rep 693 (s. 68 of AA 1996 and awards obtained by fraud); Elektrim v Vivendi [2007] 2 Lloyd's Rep 8 (injunction to restrain arbitration continuing) Telenor East Holding II AS v Altimo Holdings & Investments Ltd (multi-billion dollar shareholder dispute — interim injunction under s. 44 of the AA 1996); Steadfast v Baker Hughes (s. 9 (3) step in the action preventing a stay in favour of arbitration) and enforcement of arbitral awards (Yukos v Rosneft: US$ 500m and Yukos v Russian Federation US$ 50 billion.

In reaching this decision, the High Court undertook a review of past Singapore case law and legal commentary on the nature and purpose of Article 34 (2)(a)(iii), ultimately deciding that «as a matter of policy, to hold that Art 34 (2)(a)(iii) does not apply, where no other limb under Art 34 (2) would be engaged, would allow an arbitral tribunal to immunize its awards against judicial scrutiny by delivering its conclusions on both jurisdiction and merits in a single award», which would have been an «unsatisfactory result».

The party also argued that the arbitral award was invalid because the tribunal decided a question not eligible for arbitration under Swedish law, namely whether certain transactions constituted unlawful distributions under the Swedish Companies Act.

Canada acceded to the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in 1986 (the «UNCITRAL Model Law») declaring that it would apply the Convention only to differences arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, that were considered commercial under the laws of Canada, except in the case of the Province of Quebec where the law did not provide for such limitation.

While enforcement, a foreign arbitral award shall, on the application being made to the appropriate court by any party, be enforced by execution by the court under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, in the same manner as if it were a decree of the domestic Court.

However, it has been identified that under the Arbitration Act 1940, the national courts had an extensive supervisory role over the arbitral process and, most importantly, there were problems being faced by arbitration users in relation to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

Marion Boyd's argument is reflected in Omar's comments: if one does not hold out the possibility of enforcing a family arbitral award made under Islamic law, at least on some grounds (and she set out a number of conditions about procedural and substantive fairness), then those who go to arbitration under that law anyway have no protection in civil law, and the arbitrator has no incentive to conform to our general notions of fairness.

The Supreme Court found that security can only be ordered where an application for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award is being adjourned due to challenges to the award in the courts of the country in, or under the law of which, it was made.

Regarding the arbitral awards rendered in 2017, the following can be observed: Under the Arbitration Rules, 28 % of awards were rendered within 6 months of referral, 44 % within 6 - 12 months; under the Expedited Rules, 54 % of awards were rendered within 3 months, and 38 % within 3 - 6 months of refeUnder the Arbitration Rules, 28 % of awards were rendered within 6 months of referral, 44 % within 6 - 12 months; under the Expedited Rules, 54 % of awards were rendered within 3 months, and 38 % within 3 - 6 months of refeunder the Expedited Rules, 54 % of awards were rendered within 3 months, and 38 % within 3 - 6 months of referral.

However, the third paragraph of recital 12 complicates matters as it provides that where a member state court exercising jurisdiction under the Brussels I (recast) or national law has determined that an arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed, the court's judgment on the substance of the matter can be recognised or enforced in accordance with Brussels I (recast)(although this is expressed as without prejudice to the competence of member state courts to decide on recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in accorded with the New York Convention which «takes precedence over» Brussels I (recast)-RRB-.

Extending the certainty offered under regimes such as the Alberta Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act to all international arbitral awards is not only beneficial because it ensures regulatory consistency, but would also be commercially desirable, helping to avoid costly litigation such as the case at issue here.