Accreditation: An extract from GAR’s Construction Arbitration Know-how. The whole publication is available at https://globalarbitrationreview.com/insight/know-how/construction-arbitration.
Troutman Pepper Partners Albert Bates and Zachary Torres-Fowler are published in GAR Insight with their article, “GAR Know How Construction Arbitration: USA (September 2022).” This chapter summarizes issues commonly raised during international construction arbitrations seated in the United States
Originally published on International Bar Association. Republished here with permission.
On 1 March 2021, the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR), the international division of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and a leading provider of dispute resolution services to businesses in matters involving cross-border transactions released the 2021 update to its international arbitration and mediation rules (the ‘2021 ICDR Rules’).1 The 2021 update marks the first time the ICDR’s arbitration rules and mediation rules have been revised since 2014 and 2008, respectively, and is of particular note to the construction industry both in the United States and elsewhere.
Continue Reading Arbitration Update – The 2021 ICDR Arbitration Rules: A Welcome Update for International Construction Arbitration
This article was published in Mealey’s International Arbitration Report – March 2021. Copyright 2021, LexisNexis. All rights reserved. It is reprinted here with permission.
On February 15, 2021, the International Bar Association (IBA) released the long-awaited 2020 update to its highly influential Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration (“IBA Rules”). Known for their flexibility and practical blend of common law and civil law traditions, the IBA Rules have come to reflect the most common practices in international arbitration proceedings over the past two decades. The 2020 update is important because, prior to the 2020 update, the IBA Rules had only been revised once, in 2010, after first being formalized in 1999. As a result, given the prevalence of the IBA Rules, the 2020 update is likely to remain the benchmark standard for international arbitration practice for the next decade.
Continue Reading 2020 Updated to the IBA Rules: Modest Changes for Challenges New and Old
Published in Law360 on February 25, 2021. Reprinted here with permission.
On Feb. 15, the International Bar Association released the long-awaited update, adopted by the IBA Council on Dec. 17, 2020, to the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration.[1]
First formalized in 1999, the IBA rules have become the most widely accepted set of guidelines for international arbitration proceedings. Known for their flexibility, practicality, and blend of common law and civil law practices, the IBA rules are commonly used to fill in the procedural gaps left by arbitral rules and represent basic norms that parties have come to expect from international arbitration.
Continue Reading Int’l Arbitration Rules Revision Reflects Flexible Approach
Albert Bates and Zachary Torres-Fowler were quoted in a Q&A for Mealey’s International Arbitration Report titled, “International Arbitration Experts Discuss the New LCIA Rules.”
Continue Reading International Arbitration Experts Discuss the New LCIA Rules
Mealey’s International Arbitration Report – Nov. 2020
[Editor’s Note: Copyright # 2020, LexisNexis. All rights reserved.]
Commentary by Troutman Pepper Partner Albert Bates, Jr.
Mealey’s International Arbitration Report recently asked industry experts and leaders for their thoughts on what events had an impact on global economy that have led to an increase in filings. We would like to thank the following individuals for sharing their thoughts on this important issue.
As published in Dispute Resolution Magazine, Volume 26, Issue 3, September 2020.
Imagine a complicated engineering and construction project that has lasted years and has already cost hundreds of millions of dollars. During the project, the contractor submitted dozens of claims for additional time and money – all of which the project’s owner has rejected. Amid mounting costs, claims from various subcontractors and suppliers boiling to the surface, and the threat of liquidated damages or even termination of the project, the contractor proceeds without receiving any relief from the owner. Although the parties have tried to resolve their disputes through negotiation and even mediation, they have not been able to reach an acceptable settlement. The contractor says it has incurred significant costs to perform the work and feels it is essentially funding the owner’s changes to the project. The owner, however, says the disputed issues are the contractor’s, not the owner’s risk. Accordingly, without a dispute resolution mechanism in place to resolve these disputes in real time, the costs continue to mount, and the prospect of a lengthy, expensive, and protracted arbitration or litigation looms.
Continue Reading Dispute Boards: An Approach to the Efficient Resolution of Disputes in the Construction Sector
Albert Bates and R. Zachary Torres-Fowler were published in gar insight with their article, “GAR Know How Construction Arbitration.”
This chapter summarizes issues commonly raised during international construction arbitrations seated in the United States or governed by U.S. laws. This chapter should be a useful resource for those seeking to better understand the
Albert Bates, Jr. and Danielle J. Volpe were published in Mealey’s International Arbitration Report with their article, “Zooming Ahead: Challenges and Considerations for Virtual International Arbitration Proceedings in the Wake of COVID-19 Pandemic.”
Danielle Volpe is a former associate of Troutman Pepper who recently became the General Counsel of Posillico Construction.
In the July 2020 edition of Mealey’s International Arbitration Report, Albert Bates Jr., a partner in Troutman Pepper’s Pittsburgh office and head of the firm’s International Construction Projects Practice, offers his thoughts on developments in the field of international arbitration and the question of whether practitioners expect parties to continue to utilize the traditional
