Arbitration news round-up to 15 June 2016 | Practical Law

Arbitration news round-up to 15 June 2016 | Practical Law

Developments that may be of interest to arbitration practitioners for the week to 15 June 2016.

Arbitration news round-up to 15 June 2016

Practical Law UK Legal Update 7-629-7317 (Approx. 3 pages)

Arbitration news round-up to 15 June 2016

Published on 15 Jun 2016International, Sweden, USA (National/Federal)
Developments that may be of interest to arbitration practitioners for the week to 15 June 2016.
We report in brief below on other developments that may be of interest to arbitration practitioners:
  • In Virtualpoint, Inc. v Poarch Band of Creek Indians and the National Arbitration Forum, Inc., No. SACV 15-02025-CJC, (C.D. Cal. Jun. 6, 2016), the US District Court for the Central District of California adhered to well-established law holding that sponsoring arbitration institutions have immunity for conduct in connection with an arbitration. Virtualpoint alleged that the institution was biased toward a particular law firm which had participated in many arbitrations before it. The court noted that Virtualpoint produced no precedent for denying arbitral immunity based on analogous allegations.
  • On 13 June 2016, the Commonwealth of the Bahamas became a member state of the 1907 Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, having placed its accession instrument with the depository (the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the The Netherlands) on 14 April 2016 (The Bahamas is the 120th Member State of the Permanent Court of Arbitration). On the same day, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) Administrative Council decided to withdraw its previous decision to keep Kosovo's membership under review, as a result of which Kosovo became a member state of the PCA as of 5 January 2016, bringing the number of PCA member states to 121.
  • In Cortec Mining Kenya Limited and others v Republic of Kenya (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/29), an ICSID tribunal gave short shrift to the claimants' failure to comply with a previous procedural order directing the claimants to submit both factual and expert evidence with their memorial. The claimants did not file any expert evidence with respect to the quantification of their alleged loss and did not seek an amendment of the previous order to permit them to proceed as they did. The tribunal stated it was not open to the claimants unilaterally to "reserve their rights to make further submissions and file further evidence (expert and lay) on quantum, and seek the Tribunal's indulgence in this regard." Agreeing with the respondent's request, the tribunal ordered that a separate phase be held after the hearing on the merits with regard to quantum in the event such a determination becomes necessary.
  • The School of International Arbitration at Queen Mary University of London, together with Pinsent Masons LLP, has launched its seventh major empirical International Dispute Resolution Survey. The 2016 survey aims to reveal common practices for resolving technology, media and telecoms (TMT) disputes, and seeks to solicit the aspects of arbitration that make it particularly attractive for resolving such disputes and the aspects that users would like to see changed. The 30 question survey will seek to predict efficient solutions to challenges that surround TMT disputes.
  • The Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) reports that the SCC Rules Revision Committee held an open hearing to present and discuss the draft rules along with the comments that were received during the consultation period. Novelties that were discussed include joinder, multi-contract provisions, provisions to regulate tribunal secretaries and the introduction of a summary procedure. The possibility of introducing security for costs is also reported to have been the subject of lively debate. The new rules will enter into force in January 2017.
  • In BSG Resources Limited, BSG Resources (Guinea) Limited and BSG Resources (Guinea) SÀRL v. Republic of Guinea, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/22, an ICSID tribunal has issued Procedural Order No 6 (only published now) in response to the respondent's request for protection under Article 7(2)(c) of the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency (Rules). The tribunal, in accordance with Article 1(4) of the Rules, took into account the public interest in transparency as well as the parties' interest in a fair and efficient resolution of the dispute to determine which materials before the tribunal should be redacted and which should not be published at all. In accordance with Article 1(6) of the Rules it also sought to ensure that the transparency objectives prevailed. For details of the tribunal's original order on transparency see, Legal update, ICSID tribunal applies UNCITRAL Transparency Rules.