Feed aggregator

Save the Date – 11th Annual Works-in-Progress Conference

ADR Prof Blog - 5 hours 47 min ago
As the semester ends and a lot of us are planning our summer research and writing, please keep in mind that the 11th Annual AALS Alternative Dispute Resolution Section’s Works-in-Progress Conference will be October 20th and 21st, at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University in downtown Phoenix in the new … Continue reading Save the Date – 11th Annual Works-in-Progress Conference →

NAM Voted #1 ADR Firm in the US – for the 2nd Year in a Row, NAM Mediators Voted #1, 2 and 3 in the US – Sweep ... - MilTech

Google International ADR News - 10 hours 44 min ago

NAM Voted #1 ADR Firm in the US – for the 2nd Year in a Row, NAM Mediators Voted #1, 2 and 3 in the US – Sweep ...
MilTech
Mr. Adams was also named a 2016 Alternative Dispute Resolution Champion by the National Law Journal and he was voted a top 5 International Mediator in the New York Law Journal Survey in 2012, the only year the category was ranked. Mr. Adams ...

NAM Voted #1 ADR Firm in the US – for the 2nd Year in a Row, NAM Mediators Voted #1, 2 and 3 in the US – Sweep ... - Yahoo Finance

Google International ADR News - 10 hours 46 min ago

Yahoo Finance

NAM Voted #1 ADR Firm in the US – for the 2nd Year in a Row, NAM Mediators Voted #1, 2 and 3 in the US – Sweep ...
Yahoo Finance
Mr. Adams was also named a 2016 Alternative Dispute Resolution Champion by the National Law Journal and he was voted a top 5 International Mediator in the New York Law Journal Survey in 2012, the only year the category was ranked. Mr. Adams ...

and more »

Shorten IRS Tax Audit Disputes Through New Program - Forbes

Google International ADR News - 10 hours 52 min ago

Forbes

Shorten IRS Tax Audit Disputes Through New Program
Forbes
It is an alternative dispute resolution mechanism within the IRS. Normally, if you don't agree with ... Fast Track Settlement has been available for complex audits with the IRS Large Business & International Unit (LB&I) for some time. And since the mid ...

INSTITUTIONS OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION - CDR News Magazine

Google International ADR News - 11 hours 22 min ago

INSTITUTIONS OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION
CDR News Magazine
Further, foreign businesses can take comfort from the knowledge that they can always turn to the Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration for alternative dispute resolution should this be a relevant option for them. Egypt's ...

Trust Disputes Non-Arbitrable in India

Kluwer Arbitration Blog - 13 hours 19 min ago

Mohit Mahla

Coincidentally, at the same time last year, the world witnessed two historical developments. First, Donald J. Trump was elected as the 45th president of the United States. Second, in an attempt to curb black money (a move, the result of which is still to be evaluated), the Modi-led Government demonetised 500 and 1000 currency notes in India. Even before, interestingly, the Supreme Court of India through its judgment in Shri Vimal Kishor Shah & Ors. v. Mr. Jayesh Dinesh Shah & Ors. (“Vimal Kishor Shah”) [2016 (8) SCALE 116] in effect has demonetised arbitration of trust disputes in India.

From being typically charitable in nature to becoming an effective commercial vehicle for succession and estate planning, trusts in India have evolved with time. With the growing complexity of trust deeds and the constantly evolving nature of trusts, came the inevitable raven – “disputes”. Resolving trust disputes through arbitration – which comes with the usual advantages over litigation, such as confidentiality, party autonomy, limited curial review, costs and time benefits – seemed to be an attractive option. That being said, arbitration of trusts disputes raises issues that make trusts disputes non-arbitrable in many jurisdictions including India.

The question of arbitrability of disputes arising out of trust deeds was considered by the Supreme Court of India in Vimal Kishor Shah. The court was hearing an appeal against an order of the High Court of Bombay appointing an arbitrator to hear disputes arising out of a family trust deed. The arbitration agreement in that deed provided for arbitration of any disputes between trustees; trustees and beneficiaries; and beneficiaries, it held that disputes arising out of trust deeds are non-arbitrable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the “Arbitration Act”). The Supreme Court, however, ignored certain important facets of modern-day-arbitrations which are problematic. A few of those problems are the following.

A trust deed is not an Arbitration Agreement

The Supreme Court concluded that a trust deed cannot be construed as an agreement let alone an arbitration agreement within the meaning of Section 7 of the Arbitration Act (which is based on Article 7 of UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 1985). The Supreme Court found that trust deeds are not signed by the beneficiaries and, thus, beneficiaries under a trust deed containing an arbitration clause cannot be regarded as a “party” to the arbitration agreement under the Arbitration Act. In reaching such a conclusion, the Supreme Court has ignored the following points:

First, the signature of the parties to an arbitration agreement cannot be regarded as a decisive factor in determining its validity and enforceability. In the past, however, courts and arbitral tribunals strictly interpreted the writing requirement of arbitration agreements. Now, however, the writing requirement is interpreted more liberally by various jurisdictions. The courts in U.S.A, Singapore and even in India have clarified that the mere absence of a signature will not affect the existence of a valid and binding arbitration agreement. [See Seawright v. Am. Gen. Fin., Inc., 2007 U.S. App. (6th Cir. 2007); Malini Ventura v. Knight Capital Pte. Ltd and others [2015] SGHC 225; Govind Rubber Ltd. v. Louids Dreyfus Commodities Asia Ltd. (2015) 13 SCC 477]. Further, both, Option I (on which Section 7 of the Arbitration Act is based upon) and Option II of the 2006 version of Article 7 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration do not have a writing requirement. This removes one of the difficulties faced in arbitration of trust disputes–especially in respect of disputes involving beneficiaries.

Second, in reaching the conclusion that a beneficiary of a trust cannot be regarded as a “party” to the arbitration agreement under the Act, the Supreme Court ignored the intention of the legislature behind the recent amendment to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. As a result of the amendment, Section 8 now provides a reference to arbitration could be sought not only by a party to the arbitration agreement but also by “persons claiming through or under” a party to an arbitration agreement. Thus, the purpose was to bring parties who are not signatories to an arbitration agreement – but whose rights and liabilities are still affected by the underlying agreement – into the ambit of “party” to the arbitration agreement. Beneficiaries of a trust can plausibly be regarded as “persons claiming through or under” the settlor who is a party to an arbitration agreement and, thus, can be bound by an arbitration agreement contained in a trust deed.

Third, the Supreme Court has failed to appreciate the common law doctrine of “Direct Benefits Estoppel or Deemed Acquiescence” the foundation of which is that a party is estopped from avoiding or bound by arbitration if it knowingly seeks the benefits of the agreement containing the arbitration clause. [See McArthur v. McArthur, 224 Cal. App. 4th 651 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. Mar. 11, 2014)], where the court applied the doctrine of direct benefits estoppel and prevented a trust beneficiary who was getting benefits under a trust, from avoiding the arbitration provision of that trust]. Beneficiaries of a trust should not be allowed to cherry-pick from a trust deed, parts which are suitable and avoid the parts which are not suitable and should ideally be bound by the arbitration agreement contained in the trust document if they have derived any benefits from the trust.

Implied bar of exclusion of applicability of the Act under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882

The Indian Trusts Act, 1882 (the “Trusts Act”) is the legislation governing private trusts in India. The Trusts Act encompass provisions about various aspects of trusts, i.e., the creation of trust, duties, and liabilities of trustees, rights and powers of trustees, rights and liabilities of the beneficiary, and so on. The Trusts Act empowers the civil courts in respect of certain legal remedies, but it nowhere provides, however, the civil courts’ exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes arising between the settlor, trustees and beneficiaries. The Supreme Court, while accepting there is no express bar on arbitration of disputes under the Trusts Act, found that there was an implied bar of exclusion of applicability of the Act for deciding trust disputes. By doing so, the Supreme Court has added yet another category of disputes to the list of six well-recognized examples of disputes considered non-arbitrable as identified by the Supreme Court in the case of Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd. & Ors., (2011) 5 SCC 532 (“Booz Allen”). However, the Supreme Court failed to appreciate the general arbitrability test (though not being rigid or inflexible) in Booz Allen. According to that case, “generally and traditionally all disputes relating to rights in personam are considered to be amenable to arbitration; and all disputes relating to rights in rem are required to be adjudicated by courts and public tribunals, being unsuited for private arbitration.” Trust disputes concern rights in personam and, therefore, based on the general arbitrability test laid down under Booz Allen should not have been regarded as non-arbitrable.

Further, a blanket ban on arbitration of disputes arising out of trust deeds would also mean that separate arbitration agreements entered into between the beneficiaries to resolve disputes between themselves are now non-arbitrable, a consequence – which was highly undesirable.

Conclusion

Arbitration could be an effective mean to resolve trust disputes, especially due to its private and confidential nature which is an important consideration in disputes arising in the context of family trusts in India. However, unless reconsidered, Vimal Kishor Shah has clearly made all trust disputes (even those between the beneficiaries) non-arbitrable in India. To cure the harm done by Vimal Kishor Shah, legislative amendments to the pre-independence era’s Trusts Act are desirable. As a suggestion, the Trusts Act could be amended to include a provision that where a written trust instrument provides for any dispute arising between any of the parties (including the beneficiaries) to the trust, would be submitted to arbitration. That provision should have effect as between those parties as if it were an arbitration agreement and as if the parties were parties to that arbitration agreement. Guidance in this regard could be taken from the legislative amendments made in the Florida Probate Code (Section 731.401 of Chapter 731) or Guernsey Trust Law (Section 63) to facilitate arbitration of trust disputes. However, until allowed legislatively, trust disputes remains non-arbitrable in India.

More from our authors:

The post Trust Disputes Non-Arbitrable in India appeared first on Kluwer Arbitration Blog.

Egypt: open to investment - CDR News Magazine

Google International ADR News - 13 hours 48 min ago

Egypt: open to investment
CDR News Magazine
Further, foreign businesses can take comfort from the knowledge that they can always turn to the Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration for alternative dispute resolution should this be a relevant option for them. Egypt's ...

and more »

CDR (Commercial Dispute Resolution) - Egypt: open to investment ... - CDR News Magazine

Google International ADR News - 13 hours 48 min ago

CDR (Commercial Dispute Resolution) - Egypt: open to investment ...
CDR News Magazine
Dr Abou Shoka of Egyptian law firm Abou Shoka Law offers, in this opinion piece, his personal assessment for foreign investors of the prospects of the ...

and more »

Nigeria: Lagos Govt's New Policy Will Destroy Businesses, Worsen Waste Problem - Waste Managers' Consultant - AllAfrica.com

Google International ADR News - 17 hours 45 min ago

Nigeria: Lagos Govt's New Policy Will Destroy Businesses, Worsen Waste Problem - Waste Managers' Consultant
AllAfrica.com
Olalekan: As you are aware, at the last court hearing, the judge ordered us to find alternative dispute resolution which is the meeting where we tried to resolve matters between the government and the association. We have had two meetings to that ...

and more »

Driving public sector change - DAWN.com

Google International ADR News - Sun, 2017-03-26 20:50

Driving public sector change
DAWN.com
At the international level, 100 public sector drivers have been identified for change. ... Alternative Dispute Resolution: The weaknesses and limitations of the judicial process have resulted in the development of Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms.

and more »

Learning from Trump’s Negotiation Failure

ADR Prof Blog - Sun, 2017-03-26 09:11
You may recall that, a year ago, I suggested that if Donald J. Trump was elected president, “we will undoubtedly replace Getting to Yes with Art of the Deal” in our negotiation courses. After his spectacular failure to get to enough “yeses” to enact the Republican health care bill, I’m starting to have second thoughts. … Continue reading Learning from Trump’s Negotiation Failure →

INTERVIEW: Lagos govt's new policy will destroy businesses, worsen waste problem – Waste Managers' Consultant - Premium Times

Google International ADR News - Sun, 2017-03-26 07:02

Premium Times

INTERVIEW: Lagos govt's new policy will destroy businesses, worsen waste problem – Waste Managers' Consultant
Premium Times
Olalekan: As you are aware, at the last court hearing, the judge ordered us to find alternative dispute resolution which is the meeting where we tried to resolve matters between the government and the association. We have had two meetings to that ...

Call to harness Asean Law Association resources - Borneo Bulletin Online

Google International ADR News - Sat, 2017-03-25 21:38

Call to harness Asean Law Association resources
Borneo Bulletin Online
Touching on the theme for the next ALA General Assembly Meeting, he said, “One vital component of an economy community is an effective dispute settlement mechanism, which includes alternative dispute resolution or ADR.” ... On this note, he spoke on ...

and more »

Come to the Legal Educators’ Colloquium

ADR Prof Blog - Sat, 2017-03-25 14:03
From SFOI Nancy Welsh: Dear Colleagues, The ABA Section of Dispute Resolution’s Spring Conference is now less than a month away – April 19-22 in San Francisco.  Please be sure to register!  And consider forwarding this post to any colleagues in your school who may be interested in learning about innovative experiential teaching methods and substantive … Continue reading Come to the Legal Educators’ Colloquium →

Woman found stranded in the Grand Canyon days after Google Maps led her astray - Blasting News

Google International ADR News - Sat, 2017-03-25 11:00

Blasting News

Woman found stranded in the Grand Canyon days after Google Maps led her astray
Blasting News
She has set up a GoFundMe account to raise fund for her medical expenses, as she returned to her university in Denton to continue studying international business diplomacy with a minor in alternative dispute resolution. At the time of writing, she had ...

Podcast of Comparative Commercial Arbitration Program

ADR Prof Blog - Fri, 2017-03-24 11:13
For those who were not able to attend the AALS Annual Meeting in San Francisco in January, a podcast of the ADR Section’s Program on Comparative Commercial Arbitration is now posted on the AALS website.  (You need a AALS password to access the podcast.)  I moderated the program, and Professors Hiro Aragaki (Loyola-LA), Manuel Gomez … Continue reading Podcast of Comparative Commercial Arbitration Program →

Encroachers on airport lands warned - BusinessGhana

Google International ADR News - Fri, 2017-03-24 02:29

Encroachers on airport lands warned
BusinessGhana
According to the company, the quest to make the airport a hub in the sub-region would not be compromised, adding that “moves to remove the encroachers will involve the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and court action where necessary.” The ...

Student who had to be rescued after surviving for five days in the desert near the Grand Canyon starts a GoFundMe ... - Daily Mail

Google International ADR News - Fri, 2017-03-24 00:44

Daily Mail

Student who had to be rescued after surviving for five days in the desert near the Grand Canyon starts a GoFundMe ...
Daily Mail
A Texas student who survived near the Grand Canyon for five days after she became stranded when her car ran out of gas is now raising money for her medical expenses. Amber VanHecke, 24, was airlifted to a hospital and treated for exposure, dehydration ...

and more »

Has Brazil Made a Unilateral Binding Offer to Arbitrate in the 2016 Investment Partnership Program (PPI)?

Kluwer Arbitration Blog - Thu, 2017-03-23 17:19

Cesar A. Guimarães Pereira and Luísa Quintão

A provision enacted in 2016 seems to have created a revolutionary change in Brazil’s approach to arbitration involving State parties. It is well-known that Brazil is not a party to the Washington Convention of 1965 nor of any ratified BIT (Bilateral Investment Treaty). The country has relied on commercial arbitration to resolve disputes with State parties, mostly based on arbitration clauses included in contracts. Provision Measure (MP) 752, issued by the federal government in November 2016, may dramatically change this scenario. At least with regard to certain existing projects governed by Law 13.334, of 2016 (the federal government’s PPI – Investment Partnership Program).

MP is a form of provisional legislation, issued by the President and subject to confirmation or alteration by Congress in up to 120 days. The sectors comprised by PPI include highways, railways and airports and other fields, under many forms of contractual arrangements. PPI projects may be conducted by the federal government or by local governments based on delegation or association. PPI may include privatizations under Law 9.491, of 1996. These fields give PPI a potential breadth that covers most large-scale infrastructure projects.

MP 752 created additional tools to favor PPI projects. One of them is arbitration under special rules. Articles 1 and 2 of Law 9.307, of 1997, allow governments to include arbitration clauses in contracts or enter into submission agreements. But MP 752 brought about special regulations to govern arbitration in two situations.

The first one deals with termination and re-tendering. If parties wish to terminate and re-tender their current contracts, they shall enter into a submission agreement as part of a specific amendment (Article 15, section III, of MP 752).

The second one comprises disputes arising out of PPI contracts. There are two subcategories. If the conditions set forth in Article 25 are met, the provision functions as a unilateral binding offer to arbitrate from the Federal Government. If those conditions are not met, parties may arbitrate under an existing arbitration clause or one that is added through a contractual amendment (Article 25, paragraph 1). The conditions under Article 25 are as follows:

Article 25. Disputes relating to disposable economic rights arising out of partnership agreements within the sectors governed by this Provisional Measure may be resolved by arbitration or other alternative dispute resolution mechanism after a final decision by the competent authority.

Paragraph 1. The contracts that do not have an arbitration clause, including those in force, may be amended for the purposes of the head of this article.

Paragraph 2. The arbitration costs shall be anticipated by the private partner at the commencement of the proceedings and when applicable they will be reimbursed under the terms of a final decision in arbitration.

Paragraph 3. The arbitration shall be in Brazil and in Portuguese language.

Paragraph 4. For the purposes of this Provisional Measure, disposable economic rights are limited to:

I – issues relating to the reestablishment of the economic and financial balance of the contracts;

II – calculation of compensations resulting from the termination or transfer of concession contracts; and

III – non-compliance with contractual terms by any of the parties.
Paragraph 5. The accreditation of arbitral institutions for the purposes of this Provisional Measure shall be governed by an Act of the Executive Power.1)Free translation by the authors. jQuery("#footnote_plugin_tooltip_5335_1").tooltip({ tip: "#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_5335_1", tipClass: "footnote_tooltip", effect: "fade", fadeOutSpeed: 100, predelay: 400, position: "top right", relative: true, offset: [10, 10] });

The main innovation by MP 752 is the introduction in Brazil of a mechanism widely known internationally for the protection of investments. A State may offer its investors the possibility of submitting investment disputes to arbitration. A unilateral offer may be provided for in multilateral investment treaties, BITs or domestic investment laws. Investors may accept the offer and give effect to the consent required for an arbitration agreement by several means, by simply submitting a request for arbitration.2)SALACUSE, Jeswald. The Law of Investment Treaties, 2nd edition. Oxford University Press, 2015. pp. 422-423. jQuery("#footnote_plugin_tooltip_5335_2").tooltip({ tip: "#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_5335_2", tipClass: "footnote_tooltip", effect: "fade", fadeOutSpeed: 100, predelay: 400, position: "top right", relative: true, offset: [10, 10] });

 

MP 752 is indistinctly applicable to Brazilian national and foreign parties. The head of Article 25 provides that “disputes (…) arising out of partnership agreements within the sectors governed by this Provisional Measure may be resolved by arbitration or other alternative dispute resolution mechanism”. Such sectors are those covered by PPI, usually infrastructure projects under concession or PPP agreements.

Article 25 sets forth two requirements. First, it requires a final decision by the competent administrative authority prior to arbitration. In other words, arbitration under the special conditions of Article 25 is only possible after a decision from an administrative authority. Second, the dispute’s subject matter must deal with disposable economic rights referred to in paragraph 4. For the specific purposes of the unilateral offer to arbitrate, the objective arbitrability is limited to the subject-matters specified in such provision. Paragraph 5 of Article 25 deals with accreditation of arbitral institutions, but this is not a condition for the offer under the head of Article 25 to be effective.

Article 25 must be interpreted as a unilateral and irrevocable expression of consent by the Federal Government to submit the dispute to arbitration provided such conditions are met.

Consent by the private party may arise from an amendment to a contract without an arbitration clause or even by filing the request for arbitration or through a unilateral statement. The private party then enters into an arbitration agreement and is entitled to all its effects. The private party may initiate arbitration, including through the system to compel arbitration through national courts set forth by articles 6 and 7 of Law 9.307.

The head of Article 25 does not require the conclusion of the amendment provided for in paragraph 1 for consent to exist.3)A suggestion to that effect can be found in the reasons (Exposição de Motivos) submitted by the Federal Government when it issued MP 752, but such reasons are not binding nor do they supersede the language of the MP 752 provisions. jQuery("#footnote_plugin_tooltip_5335_3").tooltip({ tip: "#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_5335_3", tipClass: "footnote_tooltip", effect: "fade", fadeOutSpeed: 100, predelay: 400, position: "top right", relative: true, offset: [10, 10] }); It would have been simple for MP 752 to provide otherwise, but it has not done so.

The most important and final confirmation of such interpretation of Article 25 arises from reading Article 25 and its paragraph 1 in their context.

Law prior to MP 752 already provides for arbitration agreements for disputes involving disposable economic rights between the Federal Government and its private partners or concessionaires. There would be no point in MP 752 simply repeating such provisions. It has gone beyond that.

The possibility of conclusion of arbitration agreements has been expressly provided by Law 11.079 (PPPs Act) and Law 8.987 (Public Concessions Act), since 2004 and 2005. Several sectorial laws had provided for arbitration since the mid-1990s. Such possibility was reaffirmed by the 2015 amendments to the Brazilian Arbitration Act (Law 9.307) introduced by Law 13.129. One can assume that MP 752 has not merely repeated what had already been historically built and consolidated through several acts that led to the legislative reform in 2015.

Most importantly, this interpretation gives sense to the provision that arbitration is possible “after a final decision by the competent authority” (Article 25). Such requirement has created perplexity among specialists. The discussion relates to whether the provision causes a restriction to access to jurisdiction.

The interpretation of the Article 25 condition is clear and simple if one understands such administrative decision is one of the conditions for the unilateral offer to arbitrate. Once an administrative decision exists, the dispute shall be submitted to arbitration under Article 25, depending only on the private party’s expression of consent. If such decision does not exist, the special mechanism introduced by Article 25 does not apply.

The notion of “final decision by the competent authority” requires clarification. Article 25 merely requires some administrative decision before any party can resort to arbitration. For the unilateral offer to arbitrate to be effective, the subject matter of the dispute must have been previously resolved by an administrative decision. This is not the general rule. If there is an arbitration agreement, a private party may commence arbitration without having to wait for an administrative decision, provided there is a dispute and the party has standing to arbitrate.

The condition of a “final decision” does not require a decision by the highest possible authority nor exhaustion of all available administrative appeals. An express or implied waiver of the administrative discussions suffices to give the challenged administrative decision a final character.

Article 25 of MP 752 brings an important innovation to the Brazilian legal system concerning arbitration involving State entities. It creates a unilateral and binding offer from the government to arbitrate certain categories of disputes arising from PPI (infrastructure) contracts in which a competent authority has already rendered a final decision. A private party may conclude the arbitration agreement by a formal submission agreement with the government or by submitting the dispute to arbitration after a final administrative decision or a waiver of subsequent administrative appeals.

References   [ + ]

1. ↑ Free translation by the authors. 2. ↑ SALACUSE, Jeswald. The Law of Investment Treaties, 2nd edition. Oxford University Press, 2015. pp. 422-423. 3. ↑ A suggestion to that effect can be found in the reasons (Exposição de Motivos) submitted by the Federal Government when it issued MP 752, but such reasons are not binding nor do they supersede the language of the MP 752 provisions. function footnote_expand_reference_container() { jQuery("#footnote_references_container").show(); jQuery("#footnote_reference_container_collapse_button").text("-"); } function footnote_collapse_reference_container() { jQuery("#footnote_references_container").hide(); jQuery("#footnote_reference_container_collapse_button").text("+"); } function footnote_expand_collapse_reference_container() { if (jQuery("#footnote_references_container").is(":hidden")) { footnote_expand_reference_container(); } else { footnote_collapse_reference_container(); } } function footnote_moveToAnchor(p_str_TargetID) { footnote_expand_reference_container(); var l_obj_Target = jQuery("#" + p_str_TargetID); if(l_obj_Target.length) { jQuery('html, body').animate({ scrollTop: l_obj_Target.offset().top - window.innerHeight/2 }, 1000); } }More from our authors:

The post Has Brazil Made a Unilateral Binding Offer to Arbitrate in the 2016 Investment Partnership Program (PPI)? appeared first on Kluwer Arbitration Blog.

DIFC specialist technology and construction division would be positive step for UAE - Out-Law.com

Google International ADR News - Thu, 2017-03-23 07:42

DIFC specialist technology and construction division would be positive step for UAE
Out-Law.com
In this regard the establishment of the TCD may affect the number of litigants using the local UAE courts, the proceedings of which are in Arabic only, and the conduct of arbitration in the UAE, in particular at the Dubai International Arbitration ...

Syndicate content