|Table of Contents:|
Stephen R. Bond, General Editor
The Future of Manifest Disregard
Christopher R. Drahozal
The SNF v. International Chamber of Commerce Case and the Obligation to Conduct Arbitration Proceedings with “Expected Dispatch”
Award on Preliminary Objections Rendered in 2009 in SCC Case No. Arbitration V (024/2007), Renta 4 S.V.S.A. and Others v. The Russian Federation
Whether the arbitral tribunal has subject-matter jurisdiction under Articles 10 and 5 of the Spain/Russia BIT, whether it has personal jurisdiction over the seven claimants, whether the claimants had made investments and, if so, whether their claims are admissible:
(i) Whether Article 10 of the Spain/Russia BIT, which creates arbitral jurisdiction over any “dispute between one Party and an investor of the other Party relating to the amount or method of payment of the compensation due under article 6 of this Agreement” includes the jurisdiction to decide on matters other than quantum for established expropriation?
(ii) Whether Article 5 of the Spain/Russia BIT, which provides most favoured nation guarantees of fair and equitable treatment, permits the expansion of jurisdiction under Article 10 of the Spain/Russia BIT.
(iii) Whether certain Claimants qualified as “investors” under Article 1 of the Spain/Russia BIT?
(iv) Whether American Depository Receipts qualified as “investments” under Article 1 of the Spain/Russia BIT?
(v) Whether the Claimants had sufficiently demonstrated ownership over their investments?
(vi) Whether the claims were admissible?
Yukos and Some of Its Progeny
Observations by Lucia Raimanova
Final Arbitral Award Rendered in December 2007 in SCC Case No. 30/2003
Issue of jurisdiction. Did Clamant and Respondent sign the arbitration agreements and their capacity as agents under United Arab Emirates law?
Observations by Ania Farren
Separate Award Rendered in December 2008 in SCC case No. 33/2007
Observations by Therese Isaksson and Natalie Holm
Observations by Niklas Åstenius and Lisa Björk
COURT DECISIONS ON ARBITRATION
Alberta Court of Appeal Decision in Case no: 0701-0230-AC on August 5, 2008
“Yugraneft Corporation vs. Rexx Management Corporation”
Limitation period governing application seeking the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award.
Musings on the Yugraneft Decision and the Limitation Period for Recognition and Enforcement Proceedings
Observations by Gerald W. Ghikas, Q.C.
Canada and Germany
Court of Appeal of Quebec Decision in Case No: 500-09-016097-057 on March 11, 2008 “Smart Systems Technologies Inc. vs. Domotique Secant Inc.”
Whether a foreign award should be denied recognition and enforcement on the grounds that it was unreasoned, that the arbitrators exceeded their jurisdiction and that one of the arbitrators improper communicated with one of the parties. Whether the respondent is estopped from resisting the application on the ground that it failed to challenge the award before the courts of the seat of arbitration.
Federal Court of Justice Order on April 17th, 2008 in Proceedings for the Declaration of Enforceability of an Arbitral Award in Case No: III ZB 97/06
Circumstances under which a party may be estopped from invoking one of the defenses set out in Article V of the New York Convention—Whether the respondent is estopped from resisting an application seeking the recognition and enforcement of a foreign award on the ground that it failed to challenge the award before the courts of the seat of arbitration.
The Principle of Good Faith in Enforcement of Foreign Awards – the Taming of Another “Unruly Horse” in German Law
Observations by Dr. Stefan Kröll & Dmitry Marenkov
Decision of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal Rendered on April 28 2009 in Case No. 200.005.269/01 “Yukos Capital S.A.R.L. vs. OAO Rosneft”
Application seeking the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards made in Moscow under the rules of the International Court of Commercial Arbitration at the Chamber of Trade and Industry the Russian Federation—Awards subsequently annulled by Russian Courts—Whether awards can nevertheless be recognized and enforced in the Netherlands.
Zombie Awards: Annulled But Not Dead
Observations by Eric A. Schwartz
Supreme Court (Hoge Raad), The Netherlands Decision On 5 December 2008 in Case No. C07/166HR (LJN: BF3799; NJ 2009, 6)
Annulment of an arbitral award made in the Netherlands due to defective signature. The award was signed only by two of the three arbitrators, while the declaration that the third arbitrator had refused to sign the award, was not signed by these two arbitrators.
Dutch Courts Uphold Signature Requirements
Observations by Diederik de Groot
NOTES & INFORMATION
SCC Strengthens Its Arbitration Rules: By Making Interim Measures Available When Needed
Recent Amendments to Ukraine’s Arbitration Law
Markiyan Kliuchkovskyi and Olga Glukhovska
BOOK REVIEW - Handbook of ICC Arbitration,
Michael W. Bühler and Thomas H. Webster, 2nd ed. (2008)
Reviewed by Matthew Secomb
BOOK REVIEW – Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce: A Handbook with Commentary on Arbitration Rules (Stockholms Handelskammares Skiljedomsinstitut: en handbok och regelkommentar för skiljeförfaranden)
Reviewed by Claes Zettermarck