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

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Arbitration News

Drawing the line—court review of arbitral institutions’ administrative decisions in Brazil (Vale v B3 & others)

Arbitration analysis: Reversing a first-instance judgment that had dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction and legal standing, the São Paulo Court of Appeals held that Brazilian courts may review administrative decisions rendered by arbitral institutions prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. The dispute concerned a decision by the President of the Market Arbitration Chamber (CAM) applying Article 3.6 of its Rules to appoint all three arbitrators and to disregard respondent Vale S.A.’s prior appointment of a co-arbitrator. The court held that the provision presupposes both a plurality of parties and an actual ‘absence of consensus’, which was not present in the case at hand, as the multiparty claimants acted jointly and with convergent interests up to that stage of the proceedings. It further held that the statutory right of each party to appoint a co-arbitrator under the Brazilian Arbitration Act cannot be displaced by institutional discretion in such circumstances. The decision reinforces the judicial control over institutional acts that affect fundamental procedural rights in arbitration and clarifies the São Paulo Court of Appeal’s stance on the distinction between jurisdictional and administrative acts in arbitration. Written by Renato Stephan Grion, partner at Pinheiro Neto Advogados, and Thiago Del Pozzo Zanelato, senior associate at Pinheiro Neto Advogados.

View Arbitration by content type :

Popular documents