Finance arbitration

Finance arbitration

P.R.I.M.E. Finance

These Practice Notes reflect the current edition of the Panel of Recognised International Market Experts in Finance (P.R.I.M.E.) Rules that came into force on 1 January 2022.

P.R.I.M.E. Finance—background, structure and purpose

This Practice Note gives some background to the P.R.I.M.E. Finance Arbitration Rules to assist practitioners to understand the context and use of the rules. For more information, see Practice Note: P.R.I.M.E. Finance—background, structure and purpose.

P.R.I.M.E. Finance—commencing an arbitration

This Practice Note sets out how to commence an arbitration under the P.R.I.M.E. Finance Arbitration Rules by issuing a Notice of Arbitration. For more information, see Practice Note: P.R.I.M.E. Finance (2022)—commencing an arbitration.

P.R.I.M.E. Finance—responding to a Notice of Arbitration

This Practice Note sets out how to respond to a Notice of Arbitration issued under the P.R.I.M.E. Finance Arbitration Rules. For more information, see Practice Note: P.R.I.M.E. Finance (2022)—response to the notice of arbitration.

P.R.I.M.E. Finance—appointing, challenging and replacing the tribunal

This Practice Note sets out how the tribunal is appointed in an arbitration under the P.R.I.M.E. Finance Arbitration Rules. It also explains how to bring a challenge to an arbitrator.

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Arbitration News

Brazilian Court sets scope of arbitrator disclosure duty (U. R. V. Ltda v C. de P. de C.)

Arbitration analysis: The São Paulo State Appellate Court vacated an arbitral award on the grounds of lack of sufficient disclosure by one of the arbitrators. The decision presents multiple topics, but the discussion on the effects of lack of disclosure will probably produce more immediate impact on Brazilian practice. It held that an arbitrator's failure to disclose ongoing and significant professional relationships with counsel of one party undermined confidence in impartiality, warranting nullification of the award. This decision underscores the delicate balance between ensuring transparency and avoiding disclosure overload. The case prompts consideration on whether Brazil's arbitration regime requires additional legislative intervention or refined institutional practices to guide arbitrators and parties. Written by Martim Della Valle (partner at Marchini, Botelho, Caselta, Della Valle Advogados) and Felipe Sartório de Melo (arbitration counsel at Marchini, Botelho, Caselta, Della Valle Advogados).

CRCICA announces leadership transition: Director's tenure extended and successor elected

The Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (CRCICA) has announced a significant leadership transition. In a Board of Trustees meeting on 11 December 2024, Dr. Ismail Selim's tenure as Director was extended by one year, concluding on 31 December 2025. Concurrently, Dr. Dalia Hussein was elected as his successor, set to assume the role on 1 January 2026 for a four-year term. Dr. Hussein, with over two decades of experience in international arbitration and dispute resolution, including ten years at CRCICA, has been recognised for her impartiality, strategic vision, and commitment to excellence.

ILC publishes report on Compliance with Investment Treaty Arbitration Awards

The International Law Compliance (ILC) has published the report on Compliance with Investment Treaty Arbitration Awards 2024 3rd edition. The report includes the latest data from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) which reveals a significant increase in investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) cases, with 1,332 known treaty-based arbitrations to date. Of the 958 concluded cases, 37.7% were decided in favour of respondent states. The report highlights Spain's position as the world leader in unpaid arbitration awards, with 24 outstanding, surpassing Venezuela and Russia. Spain also tops the list of Energy Charter Treaty disputes with 52 initiated cases.

English court declares Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear dispute (Barclays Bank plc v VEB)

Arbitration analysis: In the first of two separate judgments, the London Circuit Commercial Court (LCCC) found that it was able to determine whether an arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction to hear a dispute under an arbitration agreement, under section 32(2) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). In the second judgment, the court granted a declaration sought by Barclays Bank plc (Barclays) that an arbitral tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear a claim brought by VEB.RF (VEB) under a currency swap agreement. This declaration was made in circumstances where Barclays had validly served a notice on VEB pursuant to the terms of an arbitration agreement, requiring VEB's claim to be heard by the English courts. Written by Tatiana Minaeva, partner, and Ana Margetts, associate, at Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP.