Alternative Dispute Resolution
Samaa A. Haridi, Marguerite C. Walter and Sylvana Q. Sinha of Weil, Gotshal & Manges review a recent decision where the Second Circuit upheld its view that proceedings regarding the confirmation of a foreign arbitral award may be dismissed on grounds of forum non conveniens, and another recent judgment in New York on a pre-award attachment proceeding that has opened the door to the possibility of enforcement where the only nexus to New York is the presence of assets or creditors in New York.
Andrew Zwerling, a partner-director at Garfunkel Wild, writes that the myriad advantages and cost-efficiencies arbitration offers are being lost to litigants. There are several explanations behind this phenomenon, including reliance on boilerplate in arbitration clauses, scorched-earth tactics by some attorneys, and failure to select the appropriate arbitrators. Regardless of the causal factors, there are measures that can be undertaken by the arbitrator that should afford parties the benefits that they hope to secure through arbitration.
Beth Trent, senior vice president for the International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution, and Colin Rule, CEO and cofounder of Modria.com, write that the benefits of dispute resolution match well with the benefits provided by technology, which include cost savings due to reduced travel, and business processes that minimize administrative churn. But technology introduces new capabilities in dispute resolution that go beyond mere improvements in efficiency.
Anderson Kill & Olick's Finley T. Harckham and Peter A. Halprin write that a company requiring large limits of property and liability insurance will probably have to purchase a policy in the London or Bermuda market which contains clauses mandating that all disputes be resolved under arbitration rules and acts of those jurisdictions, and from the selection of arbitrators to the drafting of briefs and the presentation at the hearing, London arbitrations are conducted in their own unique way.