This article was originally published in The Dispute Resolver. It is republished here with permission.

On March 22, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would consider the hotly contested issue of whether 28 U.S.C. § 1782 (“Section 1782“) grants parties to international commercial arbitrations seated outside the United States the right to seek U.S.-style discovery from the federal courts. The Supreme Court’s decision in Servotronics, Inc. v. Rolls-Royce PLC will ostensibly put to rest a matter that has roiled the international arbitration community for the last several years and may have profound implications for modern international arbitration practice.

Given the role international arbitration serves in connection with international construction projects, construction practitioners and industry representatives should pay close attention to the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision. The following article seeks to introduce the current debate to construction practitioners and offer some insight into what the Supreme Court’s decision may mean for the field of international construction arbitration.…

Continue Reading Servotronics, Inc. v. Rolls-Royce PLC: What the U.S. Supreme Court’s Upcoming Decision on 28 U.S.C § 1782 Means 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

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