Arbitration analysis: One shareholder (A. Ltd or ‘A’) sued another (B. JSC or ‘B’) for breach of a shareholders’ agreement before the Swiss Arbitration Centre. Soon thereafter, the shareholders’ joint-venture company (C. LLC or ‘C’) sued A in a Latvian court, asserting rights under the shareholders’ agreement, even though it was not a signatory thereto. Shareholder A subsequently requested the tribunal to join C as a party to the arbitration and order it to stop pursuing the Latvian state court proceeding. The arbitral tribunal declined jurisdiction over C and dismissed A’s requests. The Swiss Federal Court confirmed the award. The court considered itself bound by the arbitrators’ factual finding that the two shareholders did not intend non-signatory C to be a third-party beneficiary. The court therefore did not need to address the still unsettled question whether such a beneficiary could be compelled to arbitrate. The court also found that C (even though it had asserted rights under the shareholders’ agreement in a Latvian court) had not manifested an intent to be bound by the arbitration clause. Nor was C bound by the arbitration clause on the basis of an abuse of rights. Written by Mladen Stojiljković, partner at Nater Dallafior, and Laura Pereja Amino, intern at Nater Dallafior.

Arbitration analysis: a party challenged an arbitral award on the ground that the arbitrator had shown an appearance of bias—namely by (i) accepting repeat appointments from the same law firm, (ii) employing a law clerk who was considering subsequent employment at the law firm representing the opposing party, and (iii) making erroneous procedural decisions in favor of the other party. The Swiss Federal Supreme Court (‘Court’) dismissed the challenge and held that the alleged circumstances did not justify an inference of apparent bias. Written by Mladen Stojiljković, partner, and Tobias Thaler, senior associate at Nater Dallafior, Zurich.

Arbitration analysis: In a decision dated 12 July 2023 published on 1 September 2023, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (‘SFSC’) considered whether to refer parties to arbitration pursuant to Article II(3) of the New York Convention (‘NYC’) following the dismissal by the lower state courts of a jurisdictional objection based on an arbitration agreement which provided for institutional arbitration in Russia. Since the Russian arbitral institution referred to in the arbitration agreement had ceasefartd to exist, the central question was whether such agreement could be interpreted as providing for ad hoc arbitration in Moscow, as argued by the defendant. After examining the validity of the arbitration agreement under Russian law, the SFSC upheld the decision of the first instance and superior courts dismissing the arbitration defence. The SFSC first examined the question of the law applicable to the validity of the arbitration clause and held, in line with its earlier case law (SFSC 5C.215/1994 of 21 March 1995 cons 2b; cf also SFSC 4A_279/2010 of 25 October 2010 cons 2) that the question whether an arbitration agreement was "null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed" within the meaning of Article II(3) of NYC had to be determined according to the national law chosen by the parties or the national law at the seat of arbitration, based on an application of Article V(1)(a) of NYC by analogy, and not on the basis of an autonomous interpretation of the NYC nor on the lex fori (in casu Swiss law). The SFSC indeed recalled that Article II(3) of NYC did not provide a substantive rule to assess the validity of the arbitration agreement and that its terms had to be interpreted in light of the law applicable to the arbitration agreement. In the case at hand, since the parties had chosen Moscow as the seat of the arbitration and had not made a choice of law for their arbitration agreement (the parties had agreed on Russian law as the substantive applicable law for the main contract only), the SFSC held that arbitration agreement had to be interpreted, and its validity assessed, in light of Russian law. The SFSC thus upheld the decision of the lower courts which had found, following a detailed analysis of the Russian law provisions and case law, that the arbitration agreement had to be interpreted according to its wording and that, based on such literal interpretation, it was clear that the parties had intended to resort to arbitration before a specific Russian arbitral institution (which however no longer existed) and not to ad hoc arbitration. The SFSC decision is a reminder of the importance of the seat of the arbitration as well as the substantive law (and case law) applicable to the arbitration agreement, since both factors will have significant consequences on the interpretation and validity of an arbitration agreement. Written by Alexandra Johnson, partner at Pestalozzi attorneys at Law and Mery Canella, associate at Pestalozzi Attorneys at Law.

Law360, London: Swiss Re has joined a band of other insurers in fighting an attempt by the world's largest aircraft lessor to force them to pay out US$3.5bn for planes stuck in Russia because of sanctions following the invasion of Ukraine.

Law360, London: Swiss Re, European insurance company, said on 27 February 2025 that it expects losses of less than US$700m from the mass wildfires that swept the Los Angeles (LA) area in January 2025.

Law360: Swiss Re and Chubb have denied that they are liable for aircraft detained in Russia after it invaded Ukraine amid a slew of claims totalling £13bn, telling a London court that their insurance policies do not cover the fallout of war.

The Swiss Rules of International Arbitration as revised on 1 June 2021 (the Swiss Rules), apply—unless otherwise agreed by the parties—to all arbitrations commenced on or after 1 June 2021 on the basis of an arbitration agreement referring either to the Swiss Rules or to the former rules of the chambers or organisations which joined the Swiss Rules or subjected their proceedings to the Swiss Rules. This Practice Note considers appointing the arbitral tribunal under the Swiss Rules. The provisions of the Swiss Rules governing the appointment of the arbitral tribunal are largely similar to those of most of the other widely used arbitration rules, with a few particularities. For guidance on the 2012 Swiss Rules, see: Swiss Rules arbitration—overview. Number of arbitrators Under the Swiss Rules, the parties are free to agree on the number of arbitrators that the arbitral tribunal will be composed of. They can do so either in their arbitration agreement or subsequently. While the parties are free to choose the

The Swiss Rules of International Arbitration as revised on 1 June 2021 (the Swiss Rules), apply—unless otherwise agreed by the parties—to all arbitrations commenced on or after 1 June 2021 on the basis of an arbitration agreement referring either to the Swiss Rules or to the former rules of the chambers or organisations which joined the Swiss Rules or subjected their proceedings to the Swiss Rules. This Practice Note considers the powers of the arbitral tribunal under the Swiss Rules. For guidance on the 2012 Swiss Rules, see: Swiss Rules arbitration—overview. The Swiss Rules grant the arbitral tribunal significant powers and discretion relating to various aspects of the arbitration. In general, the arbitral tribunal may conduct the arbitration in such manner as it considers appropriate, provided that it ensures equal treatment of the parties and their right to be heard (Swiss Rules, art 19.1). This expressly includes the power to adopt measures relating to the efficiency of the arbitration proceedings. Competence-competence The arbitral tribunal

The Swiss Rules of International Arbitration as revised on 1 June 2021 (the Swiss Rules), apply—unless otherwise agreed by the parties—to all arbitrations commenced on or after 1 June 2021 on the basis of an arbitration agreement referring either to the Swiss Rules or to the former rules of the chambers or organisations which joined the Swiss Rules or subjected their proceedings to the Swiss Rules. For guidance on the 2012 Swiss Rules, see: Swiss Rules arbitration—overview. One of the common features of institutional arbitration rules, including the Swiss Rules, concerns the role that the institution plays in determining and administering the costs of arbitration. Under the Swiss Rules, however, arbitral tribunals have greater authority over costs than under some other widely used institutional rules, such as those of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA). This Practice Note considers costs and security for costs under the Swiss Rules. A

The Swiss Rules of International Arbitration as revised on 1 June 2021 (the Swiss Rules), apply—unless otherwise agreed by the parties—to all arbitrations commenced on or after 1 June 2021 on the basis of an arbitration agreement referring either to the Swiss Rules or to the former rules of the chambers or organisations which joined the Swiss Rules or subjected their proceedings to the Swiss Rules. This Practice Note considers matters of evidence under the Swiss Rules. For guidance on the 2012 Swiss Rules, see: Swiss Rules arbitration—overview. General remarks Under the Swiss Rules, the arbitral tribunal shall determine the facts of the case primarily by means of documentary, witness and expert evidence provided by the parties (Swiss Rules, art 26.1). In addition, at any time during the arbitral proceedings, the arbitral tribunal may require the parties to produce documents, exhibits or other evidence (Swiss Rules, art 26.2). As a general rule, the parties must attach to their Statement of

The Swiss Rules of International Arbitration as revised on 1 June 2021 (the Swiss Rules), apply—unless otherwise agreed by the parties—to all arbitrations commenced on or after 1 June 2021 on the basis of an arbitration agreement referring either to the Swiss Rules or to the former rules of the chambers or organisations which joined the Swiss Rules or subjected their proceedings to the Swiss Rules. This Practice Note considers some of the key features of the Swiss Rules and their administration by the Swiss Arbitration Centre (SAC). Further guidance on many of these features can be found in related Practice Notes located in the ‘Related documents’. For guidance on the 2012 Swiss Rules, see: Swiss Rules arbitration—overview. Limited involvement of institution in proceedings Compared to some other institutional arbitration rules, the administration under the Swiss Rules is a ‘light administration’ where the role and intervention of the institutional body is limited. Responsible for the administration of arbitration

The Swiss Rules of International Arbitration as revised on 1 June 2021 (the Swiss Rules), apply—unless otherwise agreed by the parties—to all arbitrations commenced on or after 1 June 2021 on the basis of an arbitration agreement referring either to the Swiss Rules or to the former rules of the chambers or organisations which joined the Swiss Rules or subjected their proceedings to the Swiss Rules. This Practice Note considers matters of arbitral procedure under the Swiss Rules. For guidance on the 2012 Swiss Rules, see: Swiss Rules arbitration—overview. General remarks The Swiss Rules allow the arbitral tribunal a wide margin of discretion in the conduct of the arbitral proceedings. The arbitrators may conduct the proceedings in a manner they deem appropriate, provided that they ensure the equal treatment of the parties and their right to be heard (Swiss Rules, art 19.1). Above all, it is important that all parties to the proceedings use their best endeavours to ensure that