A Practice Note outlining key procedural and strategic considerations for a party defending a construction arbitration. This Note addresses the crucial initial steps a respondent should take on receiving a demand for arbitration, including reviewing the arbitration agreement for potential jurisdictional challenges and assessing the procedural framework established by the relevant institutional rules, such as those of the American Arbitration Association (AAA), JAMS, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), or the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR). It explores important tactical decisions, such as whether to file a detailed answering statement, assert counterclaims, or seek joinder of third parties or consolidation with other proceedings. This Note also provides guidance on developing defenses, managing pre-hearing procedures like disclosure and dispositive motions, and evaluating the use of expedited arbitration. It examines various hearing strategies designed to streamline proceedings and effectively present a defense, including the use of a chess clock, witness conferencing (hot tubbing), and different approaches to expert testimony.

Troutman Pepper Locke Partners Albert Bates, Zachary Torres-Fowler, and David E. Harrell published an article titled “Contractor’s Claims, Remedies and Reliefs” in Global Arbitration Review. 

Earlier this year[1] the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals joined the Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and D.C. circuits in the much-anticipated en banc decision of Corporacion AIC, SA v. Hidroelectrica Santa Rita S.A., where it held that the grounds for vacatur under Chapter 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) may also apply to nondomestic arbitration awards (e.g., arbitration awards rendered in the U.S. but involving a non-U.S. party).[2] The court’s decision overruled two of its prior cases, holding that Article V of the New York Convention and Chapter 2 of the FAA provided the exclusive grounds for challenging the enforcement of a nondomestic arbitration award.[3] The decision is of significance because it brings the Eleventh Circuit — which encompasses the increasingly popular arbitration seats of Atlanta and Miami — in line with other circuit courts that have considered this issue.[4]