AAA arbitration

AAA arbitration

AAA Commercial Rules

Founded in 1926, the American Arbitration Association (AAA) is a not-for-profit public service organisation providing dispute resolution services. These services include mediation and domestic and international arbitration services. For arbitrations, the AAA has established a number of sets of arbitration rules. The most used are the Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures including the Procedures for Large, Complex Commercial Disputes (Commercial Rules), amended and effective 1 October 2013.

Arbitrations of domestic disputes under the AAA's Commercial Rules are administered by

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

Energy Charter Conference adopts decisions on modernisation of Energy Charter Treaty

The Energy Charter Conference has approved significant decisions to modernise the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). These include amendments to the ECT, modifications to its annexes and changes to related understandings, declarations and decisions. The Energy Charter secretariat will serve as interim depository from 2 February 2025. Provisional application of the amendments is set for 3 September 2025, with an opt-out option available until 3 March 2025. The amendments will fully enter into force after ratification by three-quarters of contracting parties. These changes represent a substantial update to the ECT framework, with potential implications for energy investment and trade relations among participating states.

UKSC and JCPC launch new websites and online Case Management Portal

The UK Supreme Court (UKSC) and Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) have introduced new websites and a new online case management portal. This digital platform enables registered users to submit and manage case information electronically, offering a range of functions including applications for Permission to Appeal, submission of case-related documents and payments, case correspondence, progress monitoring, and direct communication with the Registry.

Ontario Court of Appeal Adopts Objective Standard for Arbitrator Disclosure Obligations and Challenges (Aroma)

Arbitration analysis: In Aroma Franchise Company, Inc v Aroma Espresso Bar Canada Inc 2024 ONCA 839, the Court of Appeal for Ontario (the ‘Court’) clarified the law pertaining to the assessment of arbitrators’ disclosure obligations and to challenges based on reasonable apprehension of bias. The Court held that the test that applies to an arbitrator’s duty to disclose under Ontario’s International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, SO 2017, c 2, Sch 5, which incorporates the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (‘Model Law’) is an objective one. The Court reinstated the arbitral award which had been set aside by the Superior Court based on a subjective approach to disclosure under the IBA Guidelines rather than the Model Law. Written by Philippe Boisvert and Dayeon Min, lawyers at Borden Ladner Gervais.

The English court’s jurisdiction to grant anti-suit injunctions in relation to proceedings against third parties to an arbitration agreement (Renaissance Securities Ltd v ILLC Chlodwig Enterprises)

Arbitration analysis: This decision arises from Renaissance Securities (Cyprus) Ltd’s (Renaissance) application to vary an anti-suit injunction (ASI) previously granted by the English court in November 2023. The ASI had been granted by the English court to prevent the six defendants in the underlying dispute (the defendants) from proceeding against Renaissance in the Russian courts or any other court or tribunal, in breach of parties’ agreement to arbitrate under the rules of the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA). Following the ASI in November 2023, the second and sixth defendants (the Minority Defendants) commenced claims in Russia for damages against certain companies affiliated with Renaissance (the RREs), who were not parties to the arbitration agreement between Renaissance and the defendants. In response, Renaissance filed an application at the English court in which the main issue for determination was whether the court had jurisdiction to grant an ASI preventing the defendants from continuing and/or commencing claims against the RREs before the Russian courts. The English court, applying the English rules of construction and interpretation of contracts, held that the arbitration agreements between Renaissance and the defendants were never intended to apply to claims by or against third parties. The court also held that the Minority Defendants’ claims against the RREs were not vexatious or better suited to an alternative jurisdiction, as to require an order of the English court prohibiting the Minority Defendants from continuing the Russian proceedings against the RREs. Written by Dr Ademola Bamgbose, solicitor advocate and senior associate at Hogan Lovells, London and Adeleresimi Philips-Adeleye, senior associate at ALN Nigeria|Aluko & Oyebode, Nigeria.