New Conventions, New Problems?: A Pair of Recently Announced International Conventions Aim to Replicate the Success of the New York Convention

torresr_thumb
Zachary Torres-Fowler

As many owners and contractors involved in the international construction industry are aware, international arbitration is a popular dispute resolution device for international construction disputes because, in part, international arbitration awards are, broadly speaking, enforceable in practically every jurisdiction in the world. This facet of international arbitration has been set out in the U.N. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention) — a multilateral convention that requires the courts of the contracting states to recognize and enforce arbitration awards made by tribunals seated in other contracting states. Now, with 160 signatory states and the increasing popularity of international arbitration around the world, the New York Convention is widely viewed as one of the most successful international conventions ever.

Continue reading “New Conventions, New Problems?: A Pair of Recently Announced International Conventions Aim to Replicate the Success of the New York Convention”

The Prague Rules: What U.S. Practitioners Need to Know About the Civil Law World’s Answer to the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration

Published in The Construction Lawyer, Volume 39, Number 1 Winter 2019. © 2019 American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.

torresr_thumb
Zachary Torres-Fowler

EXCERPT:

This article attempts to introduce the Prague Rules to U.S.-based practitioners, including practitioners operating within the construction field, by highlighting how the Prague Rules compare to procedures that common law practitioners are more familiar with, and what considerations parties should keep in mind when assessing the costs and benefits of applying the Prague Rules to their disputes. This piece consists of three parts. First, this article introduces some of the more commonly accepted practices seen in international arbitrations concerning the taking of evidence, including the practices set out in the IBA Rules. Second, this article compares and contrasts the IBA Rules and the Prague Rules. Third, this article sets out the considerations U.S.-based firms should keep in mind when assessing how the Prague Rules could impact their international arbitration disputes.

A PDF of the full article is available here.

Boring Through the Details: U.S. District Court Declares Boring Company Dispute Not Covered by Insurance Policies

Maxum Indemnity Co. v. Robbins Co., P.C., No. 1:17-CV-01968, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57729 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 28, 2018)

torresr_thumb
R. Zachary Torres-Fowler

On March 21, 2018, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of Maxum Indemnity Co. and declared that Maxum has no duty to defend or indemnify The Robbins Company in an international arbitration initiated by a third-party, JCM Northlink, LLC.

Robbins is a designer, manufacturer, and supplier of tunnel-boring machines (“TBMs”) and was engaged by JCM to supply a TBM for Seattle’s Northgate Link Extension project to add additional light rail lines to the city’s existing public transportation system.  Maxum insured Robbins under two commercial general liability policies in connection with the Northgate Link Extension project.

Continue reading “Boring Through the Details: U.S. District Court Declares Boring Company Dispute Not Covered by Insurance Policies”