Arbitration in the Americas

Arbitration in the United States of America (USA or US)

Arbitration in the US—Lexology Panoramic guide

This guide, published by Lexology Panoramic, provides an introduction to Arbitration in the United States of America covering such topics as: arbitration agreements, constitution of arbitral tribunal, jurisdiction, arbitral proceedings, interim measures, awards, proceedings subsequent to issuance of award and update and trends. See Practice Note: Arbitration—USA—Q&A guide.

Enforcing a New York Convention award in the USA

This Practice Note sets out how to enforce an arbitral award in the USA, taking into account the Federal Arbitration Act, the criteria set out in the New York Convention and considerations of the local court. It also sets out the practicalities of filing suit, such as where to file and the documents required. See Practice Note: Enforcing a New York Convention award in the USA.

Defences to enforcement of an arbitral award in the USA under the New York Convention

This Practice Note covers defences under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention) to the enforcement of an arbitral award in the USA.

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