Enforcing international arbitral awards

Introduction to recognition and enforcement of international arbitral awards

Practice Note: Recognition and enforcement of international arbitral awards—an introduction provides an introduction to some of the key issues for practitioners regarding the recognition and enforcement of international arbitration awards. It discusses: some of the considerations for award creditors post-award; where to seek enforcement, including locating the award debtor’s assets; and, the options for recognition and enforcement before domestic courts (including exequatur).

See also: State immunity and arbitration—overview.

The New York Convention

This Practice Note gives information about the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention), including how to make an application for recognition or enforcement of an arbitral award under the New York Convention and the limited grounds on which such an application to enforce a New York Convention award can be refused. It discusses the reciprocity and commercial reservations to the New York Convention.

For more information, see Practice Note: The New York Convention—the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards—an introduction.

Settlement in arbitration

This Practice Note covers issues surrounding settlement in arbitration,

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