Unclear if interest should be awarded even if claim for repayment does not constitute prohibited transaction

You are not logged in. If you are a subscriber, please Login to access. If you are not a subscriber, you can contact us for a rate quote at subscribe@iareporter.com. Alternatively, you can sign up to receive free email headlines here.

Court seeks interpretation on whether claims for repayment of advances for undelivered goods constitutes “prohibited transaction”

Consistency between objectives pursued by Regulation 833/2014 and EU external actions’ objectives suggests that the regulation forms part of EU public policy

Court sees no clear answer to question of arbitrability of claims covered by Article 11 of Regulation 844/2014 in existing jurisprudence

Court points to lack of clarity on sanctions required for infringements of Regulation 833/2014

Court examines relevant provisions of Swedish and EU Law

Background: Belgian freight transporter seeks to set aside arbitration award that found that repayment of advances to Russian company for unsupplied goods did not violate EU sanctions

Acquiescence means that rulings are set aside, but costs are still due

Background: Claimant is awarded around 60 million USD in port dispute, but French courts find that tribunal was improperly constituted

First instance judge grants exequatur to Devas’ liquidation judgment, finding that Indian courts had jurisdiction, and no party had alleged fraud or violations of public policy

Background: French courts are faced with parallel proceedings for enforcement of ICC award against Indian state entity and exequatur of forced liquidation of award creditor

Guidance from the CJEU is required to assess scope of prohibition of financial flows that could reach sanctioned entities or individuals

Background: Dispute over enforcement of ICC award favouring Yemen in light of sanctions regime reaches France’s highest court in civil matters

Court fails to find any errors of fact in lower court decision

Court finds that Certificate of delivery constituted prima facie evidence of service

Court agree to rule on tribunal’s jurisdiction for reasons of efficiency, finality, protection from enforcement attempts, and respect of the parties’ agreement to solve disputes with exceptional urgency

Tribunal’s permission to Section 32 application is an effective filter that limits cases where jurisdiction of arbitration tribunal is decided by court

Dismissing Barclays’ application would likely generate significant wasted costs and delays

LCIA tribunal granted permission to Barclays’ Section 32 application

Section 32 rule is an exception to the default rule that arbitration tribunals determine their own jurisdiction

Background: VEB’s efforts to collect monies owed under 1992 ISDA Master Agreement amid sanctions trigger multi-jurisdictional legal spat with British bank

Court refuses to consider arguments introduced for the first time in second round of set-aside submissions

Court sees no violation of right to be heard in tribunal’s failure to consider argument advanced in support of counterclaim when ruling on FGSZ’ claim

Court underlines need to sufficiently substantiate set-aside application and stresses that it cannot review factual findings absent exceptional circumstances

Successful set-aside application may result in remand of the case to the arbitral tribunal

Archives