June 15th, 2009
MIAS Chairman Burt Landy at MIAS Reception
On Thursday, June 11th, the Miami International Arbitration Society held its One Year Anniversary Cocktail Reception at the offices of the American Arbitration Association in downtown Miami. Besides celebrating a major milestone for MIAS, it was also an opportunity for members to network and mingle with each other, as well as a showcase for potential members to see what the Society is all about. The reception was a major success – 52 members and guests were treated to drinks and hors d’oevres. Among the developments announced were the MIAS Blog’s successful launch, as well as an upcoming Spanish translation of the website.
Tags: Events, MIAS, Reception
Posted in MIAS | No Comments »
June 11th, 2009
by Marc J. Goldstein
Does Chapter 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act – the “domestic FAA” – provide the legal standards applicable to a motion to vacate an international arbitration award made in the United States? Just when many arbitration practitioners may have thought the settled answer was “yes,” along has come a new federal district court decision in Virginia taking the opposite view. RZS Holdings AVV v. PDVSA Petroleos, S.A., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47126 (E.D. Va. Feb. 5, 2009). The Court in RZS held that the Chapter 1, Section 10 standards to vacate an award do not apply to a motion to vacate a Convention award because they are “in conflict with” the standards for refusing enforcement of an award under Article V of the New York Convention. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Arbitration | 2 Comments »
June 11th, 2009
by Marc J. Goldstein
The following commentary has been prepared for publication in Canada and will shortly be published there in both English and French. However, the discussion of U.S. law in this commentary is certainly not limited to enforcement of awards involving Canadian parties. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Arbitration, Legislation | 1 Comment »
June 3rd, 2009
by Marc. J. Goldstein
Courts continue to struggle with the question of how to allocate, between judges and arbitrators, power to decide questions of arbitrability (including the existence, vel non, of a valid agreement to arbitrate). The difficulty is acute in international arbitration cases where recognition and enforcement are sought under the New York Convention and its statutory implementing legislation in the U. S. , Chapter Two of the Federal Arbitration Act. Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: Arbitration, Four Seasons
Posted in Arbitration, Legislation | No Comments »
June 3rd, 2009
UNITED STATES COUNCIL FOR INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS (USCIB)
POSITION TITLE: USCIB Arbitration & ADR Committee Intern
LOCATION: USCIB, 1212 Avenue of the Americas, 21st Floor, New York, NY 10036
DATES: TBD
JOB DESCRIPTION: The Intern will conduct various research and writing projects, including drafting an article for publication. Other projects and opportunities may arise.
Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: Arbitration, Internship
Posted in Arbitration | No Comments »
May 30th, 2009
Recently, we have looked both at the current status of the Arbitration Fairness Act and the criticism surrounding the Act. These prior posts have illustrated a few helpful principles: the congress members introducing the Act and the issues it intends to remedy are domestic in nature, and the Act is concerned with its effect on existing law. Based on the remedies proposed, it is safe to argue that the Act does not intend to harm international arbitration. Yet the possibility for harm still exists. This harm hinges on the Act’s effect on key underlying principles of international law. In order to prevent unintended consequences, it is helpful to understand those consequences and how they fit with the Act’s concern for existing law. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Arbitration | No Comments »
May 27th, 2009
While much of the debate surrounding President Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor will likely focus on hot button issues like abortion, gay rights, and “judicial activism,” another aspect lingers, her position on issues important to arbitration. Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: Arbitration, Sotomayor, Supreme Court
Posted in Arbitration | No Comments »
May 20th, 2009
The Arbitration Fairness Act has generated no small amount of criticism. In fact, some consumer groups have come together to form lobbies directed specifically at passing the Act (for example, here). While this criticism is interesting, there is a notable exception to the debate: international arbitration. Whether this is an oversight of the competing groups or not, it deserves mention in the debate. Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: Arbitration, arbitration fairness act, feingold, International Arbitration
Posted in Arbitration, Legislation | No Comments »
May 14th, 2009
Bills have recently been introduced in both the United States House of Representatives and Senate seeking to reform arbitration and the arbitration process. While there are a number of such bills, the one receiving the most attention is the Arbitration Fairness Act. This Act would dramatically reshape arbitration in the United States and might even have a broader impact throughout the world. Because MIAS is a member of both the United States and international arbitration community, it is important that we both follow and participate in the development of the Act. In this spirit, over the coming weeks and months I will be posting on the Act and providing updates on both the Act and related topics. Read the rest of this entry »
Tags: Arbitration, arbitration fairness act, federal arbitration act, judiciary committee
Posted in Arbitration, Legislation | No Comments »
May 10th, 2009
By Mark Kantor
In case you have been following the controversy in the US about the widely circulated draft “Best Practices for Meeting Disclosure Requirements Under the RUAA and Similar Arbitrator Disclosure Standards” proposed by a subcommittee of the American Bar Association, on April 15 the Section Council of the ABA Dispute Resolution Section refused to approve those draft Guidelines. You may recall that the draft Guidelines had originally been proposed in January 2008 by a subcommittee of the DR Section’s Arbitration Committee, revised in January 2009 and then again in April 2009.
The final draft had made no significant changes to the scope of recommended arbitrator investigation and disclosure obligations, despite criticisms that the proposals were seriously overbroad. That draft did, however, seek to sidestep international critics by limiting the Guidelines’ coverage solely to US domestic commercial arbitration and excluding international arbitration. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Arbitration | No Comments »