International Arbitration: The Wild West of Ethics? : International Business Law Advisor

International Arbitration has made great advances in the past several decades in becoming the mechanism of choice to resolve international disputes. Give me any court system in the world and nothing approaches the dynamic pragmatism of international arbitration. The relative costs, speed and predictability of this dispute resolution regime are unbeatable.

While international arbitration does it best to bridge the cultural, legal and even ideological gap among parties from opposite sides of the globe, there’s still a lot of work to be done to address conflicting national ethical rules.

At least that’s the argument raised in a compelling book chapter I just read, The Ethics of Advocacy in International Arbitration by Catherine A. Rogers, Professor of Law at Penn State University, & Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi, Milan, Italy.

via International Arbitration: The Wild West of Ethics? : International Business Law Advisor.

Digi CFO Subramanian Krishnan resigns; investigation launched | StarTribune.com

The chief financial officer of Minnetonka-based Digi International Inc. has resigned amid a corporate investigation into possible violations of its gifts, travel and entertainment policy overseas.

Subramanian Krishnan, Digi International’s senior vice president, chief financial officer and treasurer, resigned Friday, the company disclosed Tuesday in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In its quarterly report, filed Monday, the company disclosed that its audit committee is investigating allegations “regarding possible violations of our gifts, travel and entertainment policy in the Asia-Pacific region by a few employees.”

It said it’s examining internal control issues, “including any possible violations of law, such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act” and that it has informed the U.S. Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) about the ongoing probe.

Brenda Mueller, Digi International’s corporate controller, will act as chief financial officer while the company looks for a new one.

via Digi CFO Subramanian Krishnan resigns; investigation launched | StarTribune.com.

eDiscovery Creeps into Arbitration. – BandL Weblog

Arbitration is supposed to be a quicker and more economical way to settle disputes than litigation, but the introduction of electronic discovery (eDiscovery) into the process could take away its appeal to businesses.

How to handle requests for electronic information in arbitration proceedings is being addressed by a number of organizations.

The International Centre for Dispute Resolution, which is the multinational arm of the American Arbitration Association, in its “Guidelines for Information Exchanges in International Arbitration” recommends that requests for electronic documents should be narrowly focused and structured to make searching them as economical as possible.

In its “Protocol for E-Disclosure in Arbitration,” the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators stresses that if electronic disclosure is going to be used in a case, all parties should be notified early in the process.

Another arbitration organization, the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution, in its “Protocol on Disclosure of Documents and Presentation of Witnesses in Commercial Arbitration” advises that in making rulings on disclosure, an arbitration panel should carefully consider the high cost and burdens associated with compliance with eDiscovery requests.

Some groups, like the International Chamber of Commerce, are taking the “nothing new under the sun” approach to eDiscovery. Its Task Force on Production of Electronic Documents in Arbitration, which is preparing a final report on the subject, is expected to find that e-discovery is in principle no different from traditional paper discovery and may be generally governed by the same specificity rules governing requests for exchange of information.

via eDiscovery Creeps into Arbitration. – BandL Weblog.

E-Discovery Threatens to ‘Litigize’ Arbitration | The Recorder

In December 2008, the International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution issued its “Protocol on Disclosure of Documents and Presentation of Witnesses in Commercial Arbitration.” It is intended to operate in conjunction with its domestic and international non-administered arbitration rules. The institute articulates the general principle of e-discovery as follows:

In making rulings on disclosure, the tribunal should bear in mind the high cost and burdens associated with compliance with requests for the disclosure of electronic information. … E-mail and other electronically created documents found in the active or archived files of key witnesses or in shared drives used in connection with the matter at issue are more readily accessible and less burdensome to produce when sought pursuant to reasonably specific requests. Production of electronic materials from a wide range of users or custodians tends to be costly and burdensome and should be granted only upon a showing of extraordinary need. Requests for back-up tapes, or fragmented or deleted files should only be granted if the requesting party can demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that files were deliberately destroyed or altered by a party in anticipation of litigation or arbitration and outside of that party's document-retention policies operated in good faith.

The term “extraordinary need” is not defined in the institute's protocol.

The protocol does address various “modes” of electronic disclosure, ranging from minimal to extensive, and directs the parties to meet and confer as to an agreed “mode” prior to the first scheduling conference, and to take up the matter with the panel at that conference.

In August 2008, the International Chamber of Commerce‘s International Chamber of Commerce’s Task Force on Production of Electronic Documents in Arbitration began its work. It was tasked to study the effects of e-discovery in international arbitration and to make recommendations on the subject of production of electronically stored information in such proceedings. A recently issued draft report suggests addressing e-discovery in arbitration as early as possible. Among other questions, the report suggests parties ask whether there will be e-discovery, how electronic documents will be preserved, where they will be pursued and what procedures parties will follow in requesting and responding to discovery requests. In addition, parties should determine in what form the documents will be produced and whether any privilege and waiver agreements will apply during the process.

The draft report identifies techniques for managing ESI production, including limiting the scope and source of production, excluding metadata or data embedded in documents, restricting dates, using specific search terms and data sampling, and disclosing and inspecting electronic sources. In addition, it suggests using independent electronic document experts. It also suggests shifting costs, so that discovery is shared more equally by the parties.

via E-Discovery Threatens to ‘Litigize’ Arbitration.

International Arbitration Loses Its Grip – Magazine – ABA Journal

Arbitration was supposed to be the solution for international companies seeking to resolve disputes without expensive and drawn-out court battles. But it is starting to look more like the problem.

Once a swift, cost-efficient method of resolving international commercial disputes, the process is now often bogged down in long and costly legal proceedings.

“It now takes longer, costs more and has many more steps in the procedures,” says Joseph R. Profaizer, of counsel to Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker in Washington, D.C. “There is now broader discovery, larger damages requests, longer briefing schedules, much bigger briefs, far greater reliance on experts and their testimony, and more procedural challenges to the arbitration.”

If that sounds suspiciously like U.S.-style litigation, well, that is exactly the problem. Arbitration of international commercial disputes has taken on many of the characteristics of litigation in U.S. courts. And this has upset many companies that rely on arbitration to resolve cross-border business disputes.

“There’s been an increasing chorus of voices that international arbitration is getting too expensive, mostly because it is taking too long,” says Richard W. Naimark, senior vice president of the American Arbitration Association’s International Center for Dispute Resolution.

A growing number of businesses appear to be turning away from arbitration and resolving their international commercial disputes the old-fashioned way—in the courts.

In a targeted survey of corporate counsel published in 2006 by the School of International Arbitration at Queen Mary, University of London, only 11 percent of in-house counsel said they preferred litigation to settle international disputes. In a follow-up survey conducted two years later, that figure rose to 41 percent—only slightly less than the number who prefer international arbitration.

Many businesses, attorneys and international arbitral organizations lament an Americanization of international arbitration. But they are often themselves to blame.

“It’s the parties who are causing the problem,” says one expert who spoke on the condition that he not be identified. “They’re the ones picking counsel and deciding how the arbitration is to be run. They’re asking the arbitral associations to stop the parties from bringing the problems on themselves.”

Profaizer agrees. “If arbitration is to commit suicide, it will do so of its own choosing, because the parties have chosen to make it more expensive, time-consuming and more like litigation.”

via International Arbitration Loses Its Grip – Magazine – ABA Journal.

Drafting International Arbitration Clauses – IBA Draft Guidelines Published | Kluwer Arbitration Blog

Given that the arbitration clause is often relegated to the status of boiler-plate during contractual negotiations, it will come as no surprise that arbitration clauses may be inadequately drafted. While not every clause will be so deficient as to be ‘pathological’, many readers of this blog will have first-hand experience of dealing with the fall-out from an arbitration clause which has suffered from ambiguities in drafting or a lack of comprehensiveness of thought.

The ‘IBA Guidelines for Drafting International Arbitration Clauses’, recently published in draft form (at http://www.ibanet.org/LPD/Dispute_Resolution_Section/Arbitration/Default.aspx) will surely improve appreciation of the complexities surrounding this indispensible clause. The draft Guidelines are the IBA’s latest addition in their growing, influential contribution to international arbitration, already comprising the ‘Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration’, the ‘Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration’ and ‘Rules of Ethics for International Arbitrators. The draft Guidelines are now open for comment from the wider international arbitration community.

The Guidelines comprise a series of rules or ‘guidelines’, followed by model clauses which put into practice the advice given in relation to each of the Guidelines. The Guidelines are wide-reaching in scope and not only offer advice in relation to generic arbitration clauses, but also deal with more specific clauses and situations, including multi-tier dispute resolution clauses, arbitration clauses for multi-party contracts, and arbitration clauses in the multi-contract context.

One recurring theme is the need for certainty and to agree on as many elements in the arbitration clause as possible in advance, rather than waiting for a dispute to materialise when agreement between the parties on such matters may be less forthcoming. The greater degree of certainty embodied in a comprehensive arbitration clause allows the parties to consider the strategy to adopt in resolving disputes and, in theory at least, a more efficient means to obtaining a final and binding decision.

via Kluwer Arbitration Blog » Blog Archive » Drafting International Arbitration Clauses – IBA Draft Guidelines Published.

Group Works to Reform International Arbitration Process

The global recession has led to a spike in cross-border commercial disputes, which in turn has led to a rise in international arbitration.

But even as more companies turn to arbitration, many in-house lawyers complain that the process, at its worst, can be as costly and time-consuming as litigation. Now an advocacy organization called the Corporate Counsel International Arbitration Group is highlighting the problems in order to encourage reform.

Though CCIAG was launched three years ago, it’s just beginning to make its influence felt. The Paris-based group is composed of 50 large multinationals, including General Electric Company, Exxon Mobil Corp. and Siemens AG.

Roland Schroeder, a member of CCIAG’s steering committee, said that no one he knows who uses arbitration regularly is happy with it. A senior counsel in General Electric’s Connecticut headquarters, Schroeder coordinates GE’s international arbitration policy. And the dissatisfaction he hears from other in-house lawyers goes well beyond the common complaint that arbitrators resolve disputes by splitting the baby.

Schroeder said that in his own experience, one of every ten arbitrations may be excellent, and another one or two pretty good, but the rest are generally unsatisfactory. Some disappointing results may technically be “victories,” after which an arbitrator will demand: “How can you be unhappy? You won!” To which Schroeder counters: “Yeah, but it took six years. And it should have been two. Or six months.”

The problem with an interminable arbitration isn’t just that it costs more, Schroeder explained. A dispute may revolve around language also used in other contracts. And until the dispute is resolved, the business doesn’t know whether it needs to change the language.

Nevertheless, most major institutions that administer international arbitrations report that their caseloads in 2008 (the most recent year for which data is available) increased over 2007. The jump at the London Court of International Arbitration was 55 percent; at the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, 28 percent; and at the American Arbitration Association's International Centre for Dispute Resolution, 13 percent.

via Group Works to Reform International Arbitration Process.

OECD Recommendation: Further Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions

Convention on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development – Working Group on Bribery in International Business Transactions :

• Ensure companies cannot avoid sanctions by using agents and intermediaries to bribe for them;

• Periodically review policies and approach on small facilitation payments. These are legal in some countries if the payment is made to a government employee to speed up an administrative process;

• Improve co-operation between countries on foreign bribery investigations and the seizure, confiscation and recovery of the proceeds of transnational bribery;

• Provide effective channels for reporting foreign bribery to law enforcement authorities and for protecting whistleblowers from retaliation; and

• Working more closely with the private sector to adopt more stringent internal controls, ethics and compliance programmes and measures to prevent and detect bribery.

Australia’s position as an International arbitration centre to be enhanced – Deacons

The Australian position in relation to international arbitration has always been complicated by virtue of its federal system of laws which allows parties to choose to resolve their dispute “under arbitral laws other than in accordance with the internationally accepted Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).” This creates confusion and not insignificant legal difficulties concerning the interaction of different laws. Additionally, the finality sought by parties to an international arbitration is not always certain by virtue of the appeal/review powers contained in the State and Territory Commercial Arbitration Acts.  As well, there has been in recent years a general concern about the trends surrounding the nature of international arbitration with the widespread view that arbitration has become too litigious with proceedings increasingly resembling those of a court. Such complications and trends had led many to believe that Australia was unlikely to establish itself as a major player in the field of international arbitrations. In light of a new Bill currently before Parliament, all of this could now change.

In an effort to counter such trends, overcome the difficulties with Australia's federal system and in a bid to promote Australia as a centre for international arbitration and dispute resolution, the International Arbitration Amendment Bill 2009 was introduced into Parliament on 25 November 2009, following the Commonwealth Government's year long review of international commercial arbitration in Australia.

via Legal update: Australia’s position as an International arbitration centre to be enhanced – Deacons.

Lawyers gear up for new rules on arbitration – The New Lawyer

AUSTRALIA’S arbitration bodies and lawyers are gearing up for changes in the litigation climate, with new laws now set to be passed.

The Australian Centre for Commercial International Arbitration (ACICA), the Institute of Arbitrators & Mediators Australia (IAMA) and the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Australia (CIArb) have signed a memorandum of co-operation in which they plan to promote the use and education of arbitration in the Asia-Pacific region.

The agreement was struck following amendments to the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) introduced into Parliament by Attorney General, the Hon Robert McClelland.

Australian Centre for Commercial International Arbitration president Douglas Jones told The New Lawyer the reform is long overdue.

He said new legislation would encourage both Australian and non-Australian parties to have their international arbitrations held in Australia.

“We as a country have got significant advantages I think, with a well developed legal system and very competent practitioners to take advantage of that,” he said.

“Arbitration is a multi-billion industry in other places – in SIngapore, Hong Kong, London, all of them see that it adds huge value to the local economy in a range of areas,” said Jones.

The global financial crisis has seen an increase of commercial disputes but because

international investors want to avoid the uncertainty of litigation in a foreign court

system, the ACICA said.

via Lawyers gear up for new rules on arbitration – The New Lawyer.