The enforcement of arbitral awards is a very important last step that follows the arbitration proceedings. The arbitral awards, which are not complied with through the free will of the parties, would eventually be subject to recognition and enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, the failure to enforce the award may render the arbitration proceedings entirely useless and ineffective. At this point, the grounds for refusal of enforcement should be reviewed carefully, in order to avoid unpleasantries at the end of an enforcement proceeding.
The question as to whether an arbitral award set aside at the seat of arbitration may be enforced or not is quite important, and is analyzed in this article.
The Expedited Procedure, which provides a more expeditious dispute resolution with regard to certain disputes, has been adopted with the amendments to the ICC Arbitration Rules (“Rules”), effective as of March, 2017. Provisions pertaining to the Expedited Procedure are laid down under Article 30 of the Rules, as well as Appendix VI to the Rules (collectively referred to as “Provisions”).
Additionally, very useful information pertaining to the application of the Provisions, and to the Expedited Procedure, in general, may be found under the ICC Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of the Arbitration under the ICC Rules of Arbitration (“Notes”), which shall be analyzed in this Newsletter article.
Author: Tilbe Birengel
The International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) Commission Report on Financial Institutions and International Arbitration (“Report”) was released on November 9th, 2016. The Report focuses on the view and expectations of financial institutions in the field of international arbitration. In this manner, the Commission’s Task Force worked on arbitral awards, doctrine, and policies, in addition to the surveys made on banking counsel and financial institutions and, hence, developed significant findings and recommendations. The Report covers an assessment on a wide range of banking and financial activities that could be subject to international arbitration, which will be covered in this article.
Author: Fatih Isik
The ICSID tribunal, comprised of Veijo Heiskanen (president), Carolyn B. Lamm (appointed by the Claimant), and Phillippe Sands, QC (appointed by the Respondent), has dismissed the USD 570 million claim of İçkale İnşaat Limited Şirketi (a Turkish construction company, which will be referred to as “Ickale”) against Turkmenistan, through the award rendered on March 8, 2016, where the claims are found to be without merit. Carolyn B. Lamm and Philippe Sands issued partially dissenting opinions on the decision.
Ickale has requested supplementary decision, and rectification of the award on April 6, 2016, and these requests were denied, with some minor exceptions, on October 4, 2016.
Author: Patrick G. Murphy
Indiana Code § 32-21-7-1 provides a party claiming title through adverse possession must demonstrate that he or she paid taxes on the disputed land.Wetherald v. Jackson, 855 N.E.2d 624, 641 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). There is an exception if the adverse possessor believes payment was made, but the belief must be reasonable. Fraley v. Minger, 829 N.E.2d 476, 493 (Ind. 2005).
In Fraley, the Supreme Court reiterated that Indiana law requires that a claimant comply with the adverse possession tax statute. It is not enough to demonstrate all the common law elements of adverse possession (control, intent, notice, duration). Moreover, the party attempting to claim adverse possession must demonstrate the elements by the heightened “clear and convincing evidence” standard, not the typical “preponderance of the evidence” standard, usually applicable to civil cases. In Fraley, the parties claiming adverse possession had met all of the elements but had not demonstrated that they had paid taxes on the disputed parcel.