Arbitral Insights

Nishant Choudhary of DFDL Myanmar joins Joyce Fong to unpack Myanmar’s arbitration regime, from the legal framework to enforcement. The discussion explores how Myanmar’s arbitration laws interface with international norms, then turns to the strategic considerations that drive the choice of seat for Myanmar-related disputes. The conversation also assesses the Myanmar courts’ approach to arbitration and enforcement, as well as observable trends in Myanmar-related arbitrations.

Host Joyce Fong and Noppadon (Ton) Treephetchara of DFDL Bangkok discuss Thailand’s arbitration framework, highlighting its Model Law basis, cost-effectiveness, and supportive judiciary. They then compare Thailand with regional alternatives, review institutional preferences (THAC and TAI), and examine local court support. The episode outlines enforcement procedures, timelines, and practical tips, and concludes with trends and THAC’s modernization efforts.  

This episode is recorded in Spanish. Francisco Rodriguez and Gilberto Guerrero-Rocca explore how Latin American states have developed sophisticated, long-term strategies to defend against treaty-based claims. The episode examines the unique challenges these sovereign “repeat players” face, such as budget constraints, political pressures, and transparency issues. The discussion highlights the evolving tactics and contradictions in how these states approach international arbitration. 

International arbitration partner Lucy Winnington-Ingram explores the increasingly significant role of tribunal secretaries in international arbitration. Lucy unpacks the legal and procedural challenges that can arise when tribunal secretaries move beyond their traditional administrative functions and become involved in substantive aspects of decision-making. She then offers practical guidance on how to avoid common pitfalls that could jeopardize the integrity of arbitral proceedings. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Welcome to Arbitral Insights, a podcast series brought to you by our International Arbitration Practice lawyers here at Reed Smith. I'm Peter Rosher, Global Head of Reed Smith's International Arbitration Practice. I hope you enjoy the industry commentary, insights and anecdotes we share with you in the course of this series, wherever in the world you are. If you have any questions about any of the topics discussed, please do contact our speakers. And with that, let's get started.  Lucy: Welcome to another episode of Arbitral Insights. I'm Lucy Winnington-Ingram. I'm a partner in Reed Smith's London office in our international arbitration team. I'm going to be running through some very high-level takeaways, discussing challenges based on the misuse of tribunal secretaries in international arbitration. So I think the starting point when thinking about this issue is recognizing that arbitration is a method of dispute resolution, which is premised on the consent of the parties. And the persons determining the dispute, i.e. the tribunal, are typically party appointed. And that's really a central tenet of international arbitration. So it's against that background that challenges to arbitral awards based on the alleged misuse of tribunal secretaries have increased. And this issue really goes to the heart of the legitimacy and enforceability of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism. And it's one that's generated significant academic debate, challenges to awards and institutional reform in recent years. So the arbitrator's mandate is strictly personal, and that means that their decision-making function cannot be delegated. However, as arbitrations have become more complex and document-heavy, the increased use of tribunal secretaries, sometimes called administrative secretaries or assistants, has become widespread, and their intended role is to support the tribunal, primarily with administrative and organizational tasks. But increasingly, there's a growing concern that tribunal secretaries may overstep their intended role, moving from administrative support into substantive decision-making. And this has given rise to the so-called fourth arbitrator problem. And that's a term that was coined as early as 2002 to describe the fear that a tribunal secretary might, in effect, become an unappointed and unauthorized decision-maker in the arbitration. And very understandably, there are concerns this will damage the legitimacy of the arbitral process. So the use and potential misuse of tribunal secretaries has therefore come under increasing scrutiny, both in academic commentary and in the challenges to arbitration awards that we're seeing, and also in terms of challenges to arbitrators themselves. So one of the first known challenges to an award, based at least in part on the actions of a tribunal secretary, was a Paris Court of Appeal case from 1990. And in that case, the appellant, Honeywell, sought to set aside an ICC award, alleging that the tribunal secretary had interfered during the hearing. Now, the Paris Court of Appeal dismissed the challenge, noting that the appointment of a secretary was permitted and that Honeywell had not demonstrated how the secretary would have interfered. So this case sets a sort of early precedent that mere involvement of a secretary without evidence of improper influence would not suffice to overturn an award. The next case we can look at then is Sonatrach and Statoil. And this came over two decades later in 2014. Now, in that case, the parties had expressly agreed that the tribunal secretary's role would be limited to administrative tasks and the Tribunal Secretary would have no right to participate in the decision-making process. Sonatrach later argued that the Secretary had exceeded this remit by preparing substantive notes for the Tribunal and therefore challenged the ICC award under Section 68 of the Arbitration Act. When considering this, the English High Court found no improper delegation emphasizing that the arbitrators had not abdicated their decision-making function as the Secretary's notes had only formed part of the Tribunal's deliberations. In that sense, then, the Tribunal Secretary himself had had no substantive decision-making role. A more fully articulated challenge came not long after this in 2015, and this is perhaps one of the better known challenges, and it arose in the Yukos set-aside proceedings in The Hague. So there, Russia argued that the tribunal's assistant had effectively drafted large portions of the award, and they pointed to the time records in the fee notes that showed that the tribunal secretary's hours were between 40 to 70 percent higher than those of any tribunal member. And Russia actually went so far as to submit a report from a linguistics expert, which concluded that it was extremely likely that the tribunal secretary had written significant sections of the award himself. So when it came to setting aside the awards, these were actually set aside on alternative grounds. And therefore, the relevant district court did not address Russia's complaints relating to the involvement of the tribunal secretary in the proceedings. However, in 2020, the Court of Appeal in The Hague overturned the district court decision and in doing so, it addressed Russia's arguments in relation to the Tribunal Secretary. And there, the Court of Appeal ultimately held that unless the parties had agreed otherwise, a tribunal may use a secretary to assist with drafting parts of an arbitral award as it sees fit, provided that it's the arbitrators themselves who assume responsibility for the final decision. So in effect the finding was that the mere drafting of parts of an award by an Arbitral Secretary did not automatically amount to a violation of the Tribunal's mandate. So whilst the Court of Appeal conceded that the Tribunal had failed to fully inform the parties of the nature and extent of the Tribunal Secretary's work, this did not amount to a major procedural violation. So turning then to the most recent challenge to an arbitral award on the alleged misuse of a tribunal secretary, this was brought before the Belgian Supreme Court in 2023 in Emek and WTE and the European Commission. And there, the applicants alleged that the tribunal secretary had drafted non-factual sections of a partial award. However, the Belgian Supreme Court affirmed that a secretary may draft an award completely or in part as long as the tribunal reviews and validates the work. So the Supreme Court felt that this understanding of the tribunal's mandate aligned with the ICC's guidance, which I'm going to talk about in a little bit more detail later, which explicitly allows for secretaries to prepare notes and memoranda, which could conceivably then form part of any final award. So I think one point to note is that challenges relating to the use of tribunal secretaries are not limited to challenges to arbitral awards. A number of challenges have also been brought in relation to arbitrators themselves. So, for example, in P&Q, a 2017 English High Court case, the claimant there applied for the removal of all three arbitrators appointed in an LCIA arbitration, alleging improper delegation of tasks to the Tribunal Secretary. And there, the claimant relied on time records, again, as in Yukos, and also an email from the chairman seeking the secretary's views on a procedural issue. Now, in that case, the court dismissed the application, again distinguishing between permissible support and impermissible delegation, reaffirming that the core adjudicative function must remain with the arbitrators. The judge did, however, note that whilst receiving input from a secretary does not automatically preclude independent decision-making, best practice is to avoid involving secretaries in anything that could be seen as expressing a view on the substance of the dispute. So taking all of this together then, these cases all reveal a number of key themes. First, the strictly personal nature of an arbitrator's mandate to determine the dispute. So it's clear that an arbitrator's decision-making function is strictly personal and cannot be delegated. And this is closely related to the central feature of arbitration, a party's ability to select its arbitrators. Parties choose their arbitrators for their judgment and expertise, and this is central to the legitimacy of the process. Secondly, in a number of cases, issues arise regarding the proper role of a tribunal secretary in the arbitral process. So there's a spectrum of tasks that secretaries may perform, ranging from purely administrative, so things like organizing hearings, managing documents, etc., to more substantive, conducting research, drafting procedural orders, even drafting sections of what may become the final award. Now, the further a secretary's tasks move towards analysis and decision-making, the greater the risk of challenge. The question then is what tasks and responsibilities can be safely delegated to a tribunal secretary for reasons of procedural efficiency before their role risks trespassing on that of the arbitrators. Third and finally, many challenges arise from a lack of clarity or agreement about the secretary's role. And this links back to what I was just talking about, about what tasks and responsibilities can be delegated. So early and explicit agreement on the scope of the secretary's task is crucial to avoid disputes later on. And par

Joyce Fong welcomes Afriyan Rachmad (Partner, Nusantara DFDL Partnership) to discuss Indonesia’s dispute resolution landscape. They cover interim court measures, enforcement timelines and procedures, seat selection strategy and practical tips for recognizing foreign awards. The episode also touches on the broader legal environment and recent trends shaping Indonesia-related arbitrations. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Welcome to Arbitral Insights, a podcast series brought to you by our international arbitration practice lawyers here at Reed Smith. I'm Peter Rosher, Global Head of Reed Smith's International Arbitration Practice. I hope you enjoy the industry commentary, insights and anecdotes we share with you in the course of this series, wherever in the world you are. If you have any questions about any of the topics discussed, please do contact our speakers. And with that, let's get started.  Joyce: Welcome to the latest episode of our Arbitral Insights podcast series. This is the third in a series of podcasts which I'm doing with DFDL, exploring arbitration across various jurisdictions in South and Southeast Asia. For this episode, I'm delighted to host Afriyan Rachmad, who will share insights from Indonesia. Afriyan is a partner at Nusantara DFDL partnership, an Indonesian law firm, and a DFDL collaborating firm. He is a projects and infrastructure specialist with particular expertise in natural resources and infrastructure projects. Afriyan’s dispute resolution practice includes litigation and arbitration. Selamat siang, Afriyan. Thank you for joining me today on this podcast.  Afriyan: Hi Joyce, thank you for inviting me to this podcast.  Joyce: To kick us off, perhaps you could give us an overview of the dispute resolution landscape in Indonesia. Tell us about the laws which form the legal framework for arbitration in Indonesia. Are they based on the UNCITRAL model law? And does the same law apply to both domestic and foreign arbitration?  Afriyan: Okay, the legal framework for arbitration in Indonesia is under law No. 30 of 1999 concerning arbitration and alternative dispute resolution. While they are not based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, although some provisions are adopting it. Yes, the arbitration law applies for domestic and foreign arbitration, although there are different sections for domestic and foreign arbitration.  Joyce: With these laws in place, would you say that arbitration is commonly used to resolve disputes in Indonesia?  Afriyan: In Indonesia, arbitration is more towards the complex disputes due to the high arbitration fee involved for conducting arbitration proceedings. The arbitration fee is based on percentage of claim value filed by the claimant. From a range of zero point six percent for claim above two trillion rupiah, approximately USD hundred twenty five million, to ten percent for claim less than one billion rupiah approximately USD 62,500. This is according to the BANI Domestic Arbitration Forum. On the other hand, court fees are in the range of USD 100 to 300 depending on the number of parties. Court litigation is however slower as it could take around three years to obtain a final and binding decision from district court to supreme court compared to arbitral award that could be rendered in approximately six months.  Joyce: So from what you've just said, Afriyan, arbitration appears to be faster but more expensive than court litigation. This is not at all surprising and is consistent with global trends. Given the significant cost difference, when do parties tend to choose to arbitrate their disputes?  Afriyan: Generally speaking, parties arbitrate more complicated disputes. For example, in construction disputes where they prefer an arbitrator who has expertise in the subject matter. Court judges just tend to have legal rather than technical knowledge. Parties also tend to choose arbitration where the dispute is between a foreign party and a local party or local company. I've seen in the past that parties tend to select the dispute resolution mechanism which is best suited for their dispute. regardless of the dispute resolution clause in their contract. I have seen cases where parties agree to arbitrate the dispute only after the dispute arises. I have also seen cases where parties agree to court litigation even though the contract has an arbitration clause. This tends to be accommodate parties' circumstances. For example, if one party causes an arbitration fee, Although the arbitration fee will be borne equally by both claimant and defendant, however, in practice, the claimant shall pay full in advance before the arbitration proceeding could be started. This is particularly for cases handled by BANI.  Joyce: So picking up on a point which you've just raised, Afryan, foreign parties often prefer arbitration of a litigation when contracting with a local party. There tends to be concerns with litigating on the local party's home turf, where the foreign party may be unfamiliar with the local court procedure and may also perceive the local party to have an upper hand. I think this is especially the case if the local party is well connected or linked to the government. Based on your experience, when parties agree to arbitrate, do parties tend to choose Indonesian or foreign arbitral seats?  Afriyan: Well, this perception I think can be used by parties. But if the balance of power is equal during the contract negotiation, parties tend to choose international arbitration. for example, seated in Singapore or Paris with SIAC or ICC administrating. The main reason probably international arbitration proceeding is more comfortable for foreign parties compared to domestic arbitration institution. If the local Indonesian party is likely to be the defaulting party under the contract, an Indonesian seat with BANI administrating is popular. Jakarta is often selected as the seat, unless there is another seat which has closer connection to the dispute. For example, the parties may choose Bali or Kalimantan as a seat where the dispute relates to a construction project there. There is a famous case between PT Pertamina and PT Lirik Petroleum, in which the case was handled by BANI. This case was brought appealed to Supreme Court when was requested for enforcement. And Supreme Court at that time made consideration that the case is deemed as foreign arbitral award due to the race element of foreign in the contract, although the parties are Indonesian and it was handled by BANI, particularly BANI Mampang. In end of 2024, a lecturer filed a case to concessional court to review definition of foreign arbitral award under the arbitration law and constitutional court give a decision that a case considered as foreign arbitration proceeding or domestic arbitration proceeding based on territorial principle in which if the case was handled by foreign arbitration institution and seated not within the Indonesian territory then it will be considered as foreign arbitration proceeding. I will also add that there are two different institutions called BANI in Indonesia. It was started in 2016 and for around six years there are duality in BANI, which is BANI Mampang and BANI Sovereign. Both parties were arguing in civil court, state administrative court, and commercial court for trademark violation. In the recent years, BANI Mampang tends to be more popular than the BANI Sovereign, since currently we cannot find BANI Sovereign website or legal domicile address of this BANI Sovereign. Due to this invariability and taking consideration of the amount of the case that is being handled, we will suggest for any dispute that would like to choose local arbitration or domestic arbitration institution to choose BANI Mampang.  Joyce: Thank you for the helpful insight on the two BANIs. It's certainly important to nominate the right BANI if parties intend to select BANIs as an arbitral institution. Otherwise, there is being satellite litigation over which BANI was the parties intended. I also find it quite interesting what you said about all arbitrations in Indonesia being deemed to be domestic, regardless of whether there's a foreign element and which institution administers the arbitration. On that note, is ad hoc arbitration common in Indonesia?  Afriyan: Although ad hoc arbitration is permitted in Indonesia, but it is not common to the best of my experience, Joyce.  Joyce: Okay, okay. Just going back then to the choice of Indonesia as a seat, what are the advantages to parties for seating and arbitration in Indonesia?  Afriyan: According to the arbitration law, it is easier to enforce a domestic award in Indonesia due to the arbitral award in Bahasa Indonesia. The arbitral award can go directly to the local district court to register the award for enforcement. Note that this must be done within 30 days from the date of the award. If it is missed, then the domestic arbitral award could not be requested for enforcement to the district court. The winning party could wait until the counterparty voluntarily do the domestic arbitral award or to file a new case at the district court and the domestic arbitral award will be the primary evidence. For foreign awards, the arbitral award must first go to the Central Jakarta District Court to request for the issuance of execution of the award. Before bringing that word to the local district court who has jurisdiction to conduct execution over the losing party. Note that arbitration law requires few documents to be filed together with the original arbitral award issued by the foreign arbitration institution. There is, however, no time limit for filing this enforcement of foreign arbitral award to the Central Jakarta District Court compared to the domestic arbitral award that I have mentioned previously.  Joyce: My takeaway from what you've just said, Afriyan, is that domestic awards, in other words, awards which are issued in Indonesia-centered arbitrations, lead to quicker and fast reinf

Host Gautam Bhattacharyya welcomes Isha Shakir of Henderson Chambers for this episode of Spotlight on… The conversation explores Isha’s decision to enter the legal profession as a barrister, mentors she has benefited from along the way, career highlights to date and what SAHM 2025 means to her. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Welcome to Arbitral Insights, a podcast series brought to you by our international arbitration practice lawyers here at Reed Smith. I'm Peter Rosher, Global Head of Reed Smith's International Arbitration Practice. I hope you enjoy the industry commentary, insights and anecdotes we share with you in the course of this series, wherever in the world you are. If you have any questions about any of the topics discussed, please do contact our speakers. And with that, let's get started.  Gautam: Hello, everyone, and welcome to our latest episode of our Spotlight on podcast series. And this is one of our special mini-series to mark South Asian Heritage Month 2025, the theme of which is Roots to Roots. And I'm really delighted today to have as our guest the wonderful Isha Shakir. Isha is a barrister at Henderson Chambers in London. I've been really looking forward to this discussion with her because she's really one of the real bright stars at the bar. And I know she's got a huge career in front of her. She's already done lots and lots, and I'm going to introduce you to her by saying a few words about her. So Isha, as I mentioned, is a barrister at Henderson Chambers. She has a broad practice, both litigation and arbitration, and inquiries of which she has considerable experience. And interestingly she's involved currently in the Dieselgate group litigation and amongst other things in the post office inquiry. It's a really great experience and amongst her areas also she can include insolvency and various aspects of commercial law practice. So it's really really good to have you on Isha. I'm really looking forward to our discussion. Let me ask you this to get us going then. Tell us a little bit about your background, because this is about heritage. So tell us a little bit about your, well, first of all, maybe your family's background, your own personal background in terms of your journey to where you are today as a, as I say, a bright star at the bar and why you chose to do law and ultimately also why you wanted to become a barrister. Isha: Sure. Well, firstly, it's an honour to be on your podcast, and it's an honour to meet you. In terms of my family's background, so my granddad emigrated here to the UK from Pakistan, and he chose this little town called Bishop Auckland in County Durham to settle down. He had my dad, so my dad is first generation English, and my mum is Pakistani, and that's my background so I grew up in Bishop Auckland which is in County Durham next to Newcastle that's the accent I'm trying to retain my accent in a form of defiance. Gautam: You should be very proud of it you should be very proud of that accent. Isha: I am I'm very proud of it I am and so I guess where I started was you know growing up in Bishop Auckland and it's quite serious from the get-go because I'm the only ethnic minority in my school and also in my town and I'm the only visibly Muslim person there too and as I grow up I realized that during school and you know when I walked to town there is a lot of resistance against who I am and my identity in the form of Islamophobia, racism and it was quite intense growing up because you know I can tell you my first memory of primary school is being called dirty sat on a bench crying and I told the teachers about this and this is like a reoccurring story in my life is that I do tell people and nothing is done and I'm told to have thicker skin I think that was the sort of starting point for me to go internal and to gain this resilience and strength from myself from my faith and to then embrace my identity years later, which was the cause of so much pain growing up. And just moving on to secondary school, it was no better. In fact, it was a lot worse because, I mean, kids at that age are very judgmental. But when incidents happen, like terrorist incidents or whatever, I would be called a terrorist. I'd be told it was my fault. I'd be spat on. One of the main incidents was that a teacher drew the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, on the board. And thought that was okay and a funny thing to do. And this is like, this is the background that I guess created who I am. And another sort of pivotal moment, I think, in my life was a careers advisor. You know, I went to a state school. I'm the first in my family to eventually go to university and the first in my family to have a proper profession in that sense. And I was really motivated growing up to go to uni and I wanted to do that so I told that to my careers advisor and she said to me that I wasn't smart enough to go to university and I should do a beautician course in the local college instead and that was her advice to me without looking at my grades without assessing my aspirations without knowing anything about me I was stereotyped into being a beautician and then even more heartbreaking is when I leave the this meeting this awful meeting and I talk to my school colleagues and they say that they were told the exact opposite that they were told to go to university and to aim high and I just thought that is systematic racism that I've had to come across and it took, it actually devastated me for about a week. And I went home and I was crying and my parents were asking me, you know, what's, what's going on? Come on, tell us. And then I told them, and that is, I think. The support that I received from them is so important in my life because they just said to me, don't let anyone tell you no. You go for it and you try. And it's going to be hard. It's not going to be easy. But if you work hard, if you hold on to your faith, you can accomplish things. And I really internalized that. And I was like, okay, these people are writing me off. They're underestimating me, which still happens to this day. And we'll talk about that. But it doesn't define my capabilities and my potential right I I can do I can change, opinions and I can aspire for great things so I used that incident as well to convince my family to let me go to a six form and outside of my little town in a different town called Darlington and I convinced them to let me travel on the bus for an hour and a half each day to get there. And that place was a bit more, it was more diverse. I didn't feel like the odd one out. And the teachers were really supportive. And I managed to get good grades at A-level and I got into York University. And as I started university, that careers advisor was still in the back of my mind. And I was thinking, I got in, that's great, but am I really smart enough to be here? And I just had to battle against that self out and I just tried really hard. I worked hard. You know, my faith comes into it because I truly believe that I'm protected. There is a plan for me and that all I have to do is try my best and everything else will work out. That's what I believe in. And it did. So with York, I think someone was looking after me and trying to really correct that, in a dialogue that I had with that careers advisor and every single person that told me that I wasn't good enough or that I don't deserve to be here because I ended up getting the highest academic grade three years in a row at York. And I graduated top of my year. and I think that that moment was just the seal on all of that negativity of the past that actually I am smart enough to be here I do deserve to be here and I can accomplish great things at York I was told about well actually I can phase in when becoming a barrister was you know on my radar because growing up I didn't know what a barrister was and there's that that cliche of barrister/barista and I honestly did not know the difference and obviously I knew I knew about lawyers things but I didn't know about the bar and how I came across that was in my first year of university I randomly signed up to become a witness in just this you know the advocacy training process they do for barristers to just refresh their skills like CDP and I was playing this witness who couldn't see very well and I was just acting at this point. And the senior silk who was training the other barristers said to me, you'd be very good at mooting. And I just smiled and nodded and I was like, oh, thank you. And I secretly hoped that mooting was a good thing because I had never heard of it. And I remember afterwards, I came off the stand. And I Googled what is mooting and I realized what it was. And I just threw myself into it because I thought, okay, well, let's give this a chance. Let's try. And as I did that, I discovered more about what being a barrister was because I was actually doing it, these little mock trials and cross-examination pieces and all of those things. And I realized that I really like advocacy. I really like complex legal problems. I was already dealing with that in my degree, sort of the law side of things. But it was the advocacy side of things that really came alive for me. And I felt electric every time I was on my feet. And I felt the idea of representing someone in court and speaking for people and for clients. It was amazing to me and something that I truly believe that I was created to do. I think another part of my passion for advocacy came in a little bit earlier than that because I decided to do something about this Islamophobia problem, to do something about the racism in my little town. I mean, my town has annual marches, which is Bishop Auckland against Islam. And it is a very, very difficult place to grow up in with someone like me to grow up. So I know for a fact that there are more people like me coming into that town and my sister was there, my cousins. And so I wanted to try and make a shift, make a change in the way that I

Reed Smith lawyers Mahmuda Kamalee, Ravi Pattani and Akshay Sevak join host and international arbitration partner, Gautam Bhattacharyya, for a special episode to kick off this year’s SAHM celebrations. In this reflective conversation, our speakers share the inspirations that have shaped their careers and lives, lessons passed down through generations, the best advice they have received (to date!) and what heritage means to them. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Welcome to Arbitral Insights, a podcast series brought to you by our international arbitration practice lawyers here at Reed Smith. I'm Peter Rosher, Global Head of Reed Smith's International Arbitration Practice. I hope you enjoy the industry commentary, insights and anecdotes we share with you in the course of this series, wherever in the world you are. If you have any questions about any of the topics discussed, please do contact our speakers. And with that, let's get started.  Gautam: Hello everyone and welcome to the first of our Reed Smith podcasts to celebrate South Asian Heritage Month 2025. This year the theme of South Asian Heritage Month is Roots for Roots. And I'm delighted to say that for this episode I've got three of my very dear colleagues at Reed Smith as our guests. I'm going to briefly introduce them to you. And then by the end of this podcast, once you've heard them speak to the questions I will be putting to them, you'll realize what fabulous people they are, let alone what brilliant lawyers they are. So first of all, I will introduce Mahmuda Kamalee, Mahmooda is a newly qualified associate in the Global Commercial Disputes Group in London. and she is doing a broad range of work in a number of areas in that practice. Secondly, I will introduce Akshay Sevak, who is another associate in the Global Commercial Disputes Group in London. He too does a broad mix of work and he is, at the time that we're doing this podcast, he's halfway through his Higher Rights of Audience course. So by the time this podcast goes out, I'm sure he'll have a further set of titles to put after his email block when he sends you all emails. Last and definitely not least is my partner, Ravi Pattani, who is a partner in our corporate group doing a broad mix of corporate transactional work and is definitely one of the future leaders of that corporate practice. So delighted to see you all and have you all here. I'm looking forward to our discussion, and I don't want any of you to hold back, okay? So I want you just to let it flow and tell me exactly what you think about the questions I'm going to ask you, because you are some of the shining lights in our practice of South Asian heritage. So let me go straight into it and ask the first question, and I'm going to ask each of you this question. I'm not going to ask you all the same questions, but I'm going to ask you all a few of the same questions. The first thing I think is always interesting, because I know I've been asked this question so many times in the course of my career so far. Why did you choose law as a career? So maybe I start off with Mahmuda on that, please. Mahmuda: Thank you, Gautam, for the lovely introduction. And I'm really pleased to be here with you all today. If I'm very honest, I can't actually remember a particular reason as to why I chose a legal career. And I know as a lawyer, we can shy away from saying that because there should be multiple reasons why we chose it. But I think my earliest memory of wanting to become a lawyer was when I was around 14 or 15 years old. And I recall we had a careers day at school where we were learning of the different roles and jobs in society that we could take on. And I was introduced to the idea of a judge, a solicitor and a barrister. And I just remember leaving curious as to what their roles were and the way in which their roles enabled them to achieve justice in different respects. And then from there on, I decided to research as I grew older into different work experience opportunities at law firms. I attended legal clinics and I attended other events for other jobs to see whether sort of my curiosity in law was shifted at all. And I'm really pleased today to say it wasn't. And all of these experiences enabled me to see how impactful legal work can be, both in a courtroom, but also in everyday lives. So this continued to reaffirm my interest in the field. If I look at it from a more academic perspective, I've always been interested in analytical thinking and subjects which emphasise written skills. So naturally, law stood out to me as a discipline, which combined these elements. And I particularly enjoyed doing a law degree. And like I said, the analytical thinking and the emphasis on written skills was the motivation behind choosing to study law at undergraduate level. And then I proceeded to seek a training contract at Reed Smith, which I was very lucky to get. And now here I am today as part of your wonderful team, having the opportunity to work with yourself. Gautam: Well, thank you, my Mahmuda. Well, you know, I can certainly say that I've been a witness to your analytical skills and your drafting skills. So I'm very glad you made that choice. And I'm very glad that your curiosity was really brought about because we've got you. So thank you. So let me ask that same question to you, Akshay, please. Akshay: Thanks, Gautam, and thanks for having me on this podcast. I don't mean it in any small way when I say it's a real honor and it's a real privilege to be able to share the stage with yourself, Mahmood and Ravi. So I think mine was, my reasons were a lot less structured than Mahmuda’s. I actually, so I grew up in Kenya and my plan, to be honest, when I was 16 was, when I look back at it, I was very much trying to become a professional pianist. I was going to go to music school and And then I decided when I was 16 that I didn't have the maturity to understand music in the way that you needed to do that. Certainly not at that age. And I thought, well, what else do I like doing? And I like talking, which is why I'm here. I liked the analytical subjects like history, English. I liked physics and maths quite a lot, the detail in that. And someone said, well, why don't you consider studying law? And I thought, well, I am coming from abroad. I probably should do something relatively rigorous to justify the endeavor to my family. So I came to law school and I just, I was so great because everyone was so, so smart. The work was really difficult. It was really interesting. And I just didn't appreciate until I started studying it that you really can sort of grasp and really grapple with so many different facets of life through this one medium. So when I was at law school, similar to Mahmoodo, I applied for vacation schemes and training contracts. I was so fortunate to land one at Reed Smith. And even to be honest, as my training contract completed, I really did think that it was time now to go back home. And there was no intention to stay on. And so when the department I'm now in, Gotham, your team, the Global Commercial Disputes team, offered me a job to stay on, And it was just very, very good luck. And so here I am now. Gautam: Well, thank you, Akshay. And I mean, I know you still play the piano very well. But I'm also very glad that you chose law over the piano. And I'm also glad that you made London your home. So that's very good. Thank you. Okay, last but not least, I'd like to ask you, Ravi, the same question. So what brought you into the law in the first place? Ravi: Thanks good to be here I wish I could say that I was like Mahmuda or Akshay and really thought about the career choice I was going to make and thought about my skill set and how that would complement the law but I was probably about 12 or 13 watching TV and seeing all these high-powered lawyers and suits and fancy offices and fancy cities around the world I thought oh that sounds like fun and I kind of just stuck to it and had no imagination to go for anything different to what what I thought I wanted to do back when I was a 12-year-old watching TV. I come from a South Asian heritage, like all of us here, and despite the regular view of your parents want you to be a lawyer or a doctor, my parents were very much against me being a lawyer and wanted me to be either a doctor, a dentist, a pharmacist, anything in the sciences. And so actually when they said, no, don't do law, it was actually almost like a weird rebellion. Given that it's law, It's quite a sensible rebellion, but it was a slight rebellion. And so I kind of just wanted to get into the career. And like Mahmuda and Akshay, and actually I did study law as an undergraduate, I actually didn't enjoy the undergraduate degree, so much so that I kind of didn't really put a lot of effort into thinking about my career and applying for roles and doing the vacation schemes. But thankfully, I had really good friends around me who encouraged me to apply for a vacation scheme. I applied to Reed Smith and the rest, as they say, is history. Gautam: Well, I am very grateful to those friends of yours who gave you that nudge, really. Because in life, we all need a nudge now and again, right? You know, since we all share that South Asian heritage, as you said, it is interesting that point you made about how, you know, we study things, but there's a sort of perception of what we might want to do, what people think we ought to do. And sort of just finding our own way is so important. And I want to pick up on that theme with you all, actually, and ask me the next question. And this, again, is going to be directed to all of you. What's the best bit of advice that someone has given you so far in the course of your career? Is there something you can particularly remember that made a real impact on you that's helped you and guided you to drive forward in what you do. And maybe I can start with Akshay on that one first, please. Akshay: Thanks, Gautam.

Discover the key features of Cambodia's arbitration regime with Joyce Fong and guest speaker Guillaume Massin from DFDL. This episode delves into the practicalities of Cambodia-related arbitrations, including the role of Cambodian courts in supporting arbitral proceedings, the process for enforcing foreign awards, and the most common grounds for challenge. Tune in to hear about the latest trends shaping Cambodia-related arbitrations, along with practical advice for practitioners navigating this dynamic jurisdiction. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Welcome to Arbitral Insights, a podcast series brought to you by our international arbitration practice lawyers here at Reed Smith. I'm Peter Rosher, Global Head of Reed Smith's International Arbitration Practice. I hope you enjoy the industry commentary, insights and anecdotes we share with you in the course of this series, wherever in the world you are. If you have any questions about any of the topics discussed, please do contact our speakers. And with that, let's get started.  Joyce: Welcome to the latest episode of our Arbitral Insights podcast series. I'm delighted to have Guillaume Massin as my guest today to share with us some Arbitral Insights from Cambodia. Guillaume is the head of the European desk of DFDL. He was previously managing director of DFDL's offices in Thailand and Cambodia, and he's currently a partner in the dispute resolution team. Guillaume has been based in Southeast Asia for almost 20 years, and he has extensive experience in facilitating foreign direct investment into the region. Good afternoon, Guillaume. Thank you for joining me on this podcast today.  Guillaume: Thank you, Joyce, and thanks to Reed Smith for organizing this very interesting session. We're really delighted to be part of this podcast program that covers not only Cambodia, but the entire region where we operate. and I'm happy to be in touch with you, and I'll make this as interesting, as informative as possible.  Joyce: Well, I'm looking forward to our discussion already. To kick us off, why don't you give us an overview of the arbitration landscape in Cambodia? Are there separate legislations for domestic and foreign arbitrations?  Guillaume: Sure. Well, everything started in Cambodia in years 2000, 2005. Cambodia has been quite open, tried to be quite open to foreign investment, and as part of that, tried to make arbitration as a way to protect investment in Cambodia. So we have a 2006 law on commercial arbitration, which actually covered the implementation of the New York Convention. We also have the 2007 Code of Civil Procedures, which also provides key, covers the key aspects of the enforcement of arbitral award. So it's basically, for international awards, it would be more the 2006 Law on Commercial Arbitration, and for domestic arbitration, it would be more the 2007 Code of Civil Procedures that would be the key legislation. In terms of the model, Cambodia has been relying on UNCITRAL, so Cambodia is a party to the New York Convention. From 2009, Cambodia has taken steps to create its own arbitration center. And that was modeled, including for the rules of the National Commercial Arbitration Center of Cambodia. It was modeled after the SIAC rules, so directly linked to the UNCITRAL model for that matter.  Joyce: That's really helpful to know. I hadn't realized that the SIAC assisted with drafting the institutional rules for the National Commercial Arbitration Centre. Since arbitration is relatively new in Cambodia, how is it perceived by the local business community? Do you often see arbitration agreements in contracts?  Guillaume: So where are foreign parties involved? Yes, most likely there would be an arbitration agreement. There are still some matters where there could be skepticism from local parties about arbitration, or some matters where enforcement would be more difficult with arbitration, including for enforcement of securities, for instance. But generally, arbitration is well accepted in Cambodia. You're right to say that it's fairly recent. In fact, the arbitration center in Cambodia has been up and running. There have been several intakes and developments with new promotions of arbitrators for the past 10, 15 years. So it's been really part of the picture and really open to the business community, let's say, practically speaking, since 2014, 2015. So we have maybe a 10-year track record, and we see that it's more and more used, including for domestic arbitration.  Joyce: Yeah, what you've just described is consistent with the position in many developing countries, as you know, it takes time and effort to educate not just the lawyers, but and arguably more importantly, the contracting parties and judiciary about arbitration and its benefits. Even what we've just discussed, is it common for parties to nominate Phnom Penh as the state of arbitration? And when might parties do that? And what are the advantages of selecting Phnom Penh over, say, Singapore or Kuala Lumpur?  Guillaume: So, indeed, the arbitration in Cambodia, as we said earlier, is administered by the National Commercial Arbitration Centre. And it is generally perceived as being, again, when a foreign party is involved, depending on the type of transaction, but as being a process that is more straightforward and cost-effective, including compared to cost-related to court proceedings. As for the choice of seat of arbitration, it would also depend on whether there's a local party involved in the proceedings, depending also on whether assets would be located in Cambodia. But of course, as you can expect, domestic arbitration is usually cheaper than the international arbitration. And for that matter, it's quite clear that there could be a preference also for local parties in Cambodia to choose Phnom Penh as the seat of arbitration.  Joyce: For foreign parties, at least, one of the factors which determine C's attractiveness is the local court's willingness to uphold and support the arbitration process. Now, would you describe the Cambodian courts as being generally pro-arbitration?  Guillaume: In practice, courts would tend to be willing to keep the proceedings locally within the courts. But once arbitration proceedings start, or once there's an arbitration agreement that is raised in a dispute, the court would generally favor arbitration. There is still an option if both parties still agree to go to court instead of arbitration, they can still elect to do so even after the dispute has started. But generally, again, the courts would recognize arbitration as a valid process.  Joyce: That's really positive to hear that the Cambodian courts respect the autonomy of parties to enter into arbitration agreements. On a slightly related note, can Cambodian courts issue orders such as injunctions or asset preservation orders in support of both domestic and local arbitrations?  Guillaume: Yes, to be clear, both local courts and our arbitration tribunal can issue injunctions. It could be done also through the local arbitration center. And indeed, it's quite frequent that a case would start with preservative relief being sought locally in Cambodia through court proceedings and then referred to arbitration as a main case. The courts would actually recognize that process. There is always a risk that because you start with the courts in Cambodia, then it can continue with the courts. But if one party really makes clear that the entire dispute should be referred to arbitration, then arbitration will kick in at some point.  Joyce: Okay. Yeah. I think it's really good to understand that the Cambodian courts really respect the party's decision to arbitrate. So if I may, let's now move on to another hot topic, enforcement. How long does it normally take to seek recognition and enforcement of foreign awards in Cambodia, and what might this process look like?  Guillaume: Well, as we said, Cambodia is a party to the New York Convention, so it would enforce arbitral awards within re-examining the merits of the case. In practice, recognition and enforcement could take from six months to, let's say, two or three years. That would be depending whether all legal avenues to potentially appeal have been exhausted. Because once you get in the recognition phase, so you go straight to the recognition enforcement by the Court of Appeal in Cambodia, but then there could be a further appeal. And in certain instances, it could go to retrial, so back and forth between the Appeal Court and the Supreme Court. And this is where it might take longer. That being said, we see that in many instances, awards are voluntarily executed at some stage, and also may involve a settlement.  Joyce: So just to be clear, you mentioned earlier that recognition and enforcement proceedings can take from six months to two or three years if all legal avenues to appeal are exhausted. Are you saying that, assuming that a party who doesn't want to pay attempts to appeal, it takes up to three years, and within three years, parties would get closure on whether or not the award would be enforced, or are you saying that two to three years at the first instance, and then you get more time to appeal to the Supreme Court after that?  Guillaume: No, it would be, in fact, the first instance would be usually about six months as we voted. Then there might be some public order grounds that can be raised, including by a local party. We try to delay the implementation and enforcement of an award. So that's where it might go to the next stage. However, in practice, we've seen that, It is only, in most cases, the local courts will still try to expedite the process for the recognition of the arbitral award because they will not change the outcome of the award.  Joyce: Understood. Understood. You mentioned earlier you referred to delay tactics and public order objections. Are these the types of grounds that parties rely on to challenge recognition and enforcement in Cambodia? ar

Shahwar Jamal Nizam, Partner and Managing Director at DFDL Bangladesh, joins Joyce Fong to provide insight on the arbitration regime in Bangladesh. This episode delves into the availability and enforcement of interim measures in support of arbitration, the procedural steps for enforcing foreign arbitral awards, and the judiciary’s increasingly pro-arbitration approach. Shahwar also examines common grounds for challenging enforcement, providing practical examples and advice for parties navigating the Bangladeshi arbitration landscape, supported by illustrative case studies from recent practice. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Welcome to Arbitral Insights, a podcast series brought to you by our International Arbitration Practice lawyers here at Reed Smith. I'm Peter Rosher, Global Head of Reed Smith's International Arbitration Practice. I hope you enjoy the industry commentary, insights and anecdotes we share with you in the course of this series, wherever in the world you are. If you have any questions about any of the topics discussed, please do contact our speakers. And with that, let's get started.  Joyce: Welcome to the latest edition of our Arbitral Insights podcast series. I am delighted to have Shahwar Nizam as our guest today. Good afternoon, Shahwar. It's a pleasure to be chatting with you this afternoon. Shahwar: Good afternoon, Joyce. The pleasure is all mine. Thanks for inviting me on this series of podcasts. Joyce: For the benefit of our listeners, Shahwar is the Managing Director of DFDL Bangladesh. He is qualified in Bangladesh, England, Wales, and has substantial experience in the energy and infrastructure industries. So while to kick us off, let's perhaps briefly discuss the arbitration landscape in Bangladesh. I believe that Bangladesh is a signatory to the New York Convention. How does the legal framework support the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Bangladesh? Shahwar: So the Bangladesh arbitration landscape is based on the Bangladesh Arbitration Act 2001. And that act is actually based on the UNCITRAL model laws. Bangladesh is a part of the New York Convention, and as part of that, these laws were brought about. So the laws are pretty internationally sort of standardized and quite well drafted. And the implementation of it has also evolved for the betterment of arbitration awards enforcement in Bangladesh over the years. It's basically something that is gaining more and more popularity and it's becoming more and more acceptable. Joyce: Thank you Shahwar, that's really positive to hear. Based on your experience, what are the most common seats for the Foreign Awards which you are seeing coming to be enforced and recognized in Bangladesh? Shahwar: So the most common seat for across the board is actually SISC. Because of the proximity of Singapore and because of the fact that SISC has actually done a lot of outreach programs in Bangladesh, it is commonly perceived to be sort of more usable, user-friendly. So Singapore has done a pretty good job in sort of showcasing itself as a neutral venue. From a cost perspective it's uh you know it's closer to bangladesh than say London or anywhere else and now i mean it's more difficult to get to Hong Kong than Singapore so you know SISC has taken the pole position in terms of the popularity of all the arbitration venues but having said that for a lot of the government contracts we see exit arbitrations you have the trade association arbitrations as well you know like the London Sugar Association for shipping we see a lot of LMA arbitration. We see for cotton and textiles, we see the Liverpool Cotton Association arbitrations. We see the Phosphor arbitrations as well. And also in any event, HKAIC, the Hong Kong Arbitration Centre, historically has been quite prominent as well. So we still see some of that, especially with Chinese parties on the other side. And also ICC Paris, ICC London. I mean, all of these are quite sort of prominent for arbitration need involving Bangladesh. Joyce: All right, that's really interesting. Well, let's now turn to enforcement. As you know, it's common for arbitral tribunals to issue interim awards and orders, for example, to preserve assets and evidence. Are such awards and orders enforceable in Bangladesh under the New York Convention? Shahwar: Yes, they are directly enforceable. By directly enforceable, I mean an arbitration award from a foreign arbitration, as long as it falls under the scope of the Arbitration Act as an international arbitration award, it is given the same legal status as a decree of a court in Bangladesh. So just like enforcement of any decree of a court in Bangladesh, the arbitration award can also be enforced through the courts in Bangladesh. And there are specific courts through which the arbitration awards are sort of enforced. So, you know, there are certain procedural aspects that you have to qualify for in sort of enforcement. But once you go through and file the enforcement proceedings, the arbitration awards can be enforced through those. Joyce: Okay. On a related note, can Bangladeshi courts issue orders such as injunctions or asset preservation orders in support of foreign seated arbitrations? Shahwar: Yes. So for foreign seated arbitrations, while arbitrations are initiated or ongoing, parties in Bangladesh can apply for interim orders, directions, asset preservation orders, or all of those things under a special provision called Section 7A of the Arbitration Act 2001. That gives quite wide discretionary powers to the court, to the high court, to consider applications in support of the arbitration that is taking place outside Bangladesh. And also, if there is an interim order made in the arbitration tribunal itself, while there is a separate section that gives the legal status of those arbitrations as if there are interim orders of the tribunal themselves, to support those directions or orders, parties can also use the Section 7A route to apply to the court to sort of give force to those orders. If they are anticipating a contempt or breach of those interim orders given by the tribunal. Joyce: It's great to hear that the Bangladeshi courts are so supportive of arbitration and the parties arbitrating. So moving on to final awards then, could you please share a brief overview of the process for seeking recognition and enforcement of foreign awards in Bangladesh? How long does this process normally take and is there a deadline for parties to enforce foreign awards in Bangladesh? Shahwar: So usually it takes two to three years. The way it works, as I mentioned, that arbitration awards treat it as if they are decree of the local courts. And the way it works is that the arbitration award has to be received in Bangladesh, you know, notarized and consularized, which means that wherever it is a foreign arbitration, the award has to be taken to the Bangladesh High Commission or the embassy of that country, get it attested by that High Commission and then sent to Bangladesh. And along with other documents submitted to the court, and then the proceedings start. And it usually takes two to three years for the enforcement to take place because Bangladesh has a lot of due process safeguards built in the civil court of civil procedure. So that's why, you know, it usually takes a bit of time. Joyce: I see. And is there a right of appeal to decision of the court to enforce or to not enforce an arbitral award? Shahwar: Yes, I mean, that's actually something that we have to face with, or that's something that creates problems and delays. I mean, while we have seen a lot of the appellate courts or the superior court judgment that gives enforcement of international arbitration awards sort of priority, or they recognize arbitration agreement and arbitration award and gives direction for enforcement, In the lower courts, as I mentioned, because there are a lot of due process safeguards built in in the court of civil procedure. Parties usually file a lot of different types of application challenging the arbitral award themselves or challenge the procedural aspects of it and all these other things that sort of create a lot of delays. But what we have seen is that ultimately the appellate courts usually are quite stern in sort of upholding the sanctity of the arbitration awards and the Arbitration Act. Joyce: And how long would an appeal process typically take? Because you mentioned earlier two to three years for recognition and enforcement. So if you add in an appeal process, how long are we looking at? Shahwar: I mean, that's like a very difficult question to answer because, as I said, you have the high court process to go through. You have the appellate division to go through. And in Bangladesh, already the courts are overburdened with cases. We don't have enough courts or enough judges to look after the cases. So, I mean, it can get dragged up to five to six years. Joyce: Okay. Okay. And just from your experience, do parties tend to fight it all the way to the end or do parties tend to settle or reach an amicable resolution of the issue before? Shahwar: I mean, we have seen both. We have seen in some instances parties going all the way, but in many instances, parties usually try to use these proceedings to settle, to negotiate. Joyce: Just going back then to the challenges which parties can make, What grounds do parties tend to rely on when trying to challenge the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards in Bangladesh? Shahwar: So the Bangladeshi Arbitration Act, as I mentioned, it's based on the UNCITRAL model law. So it has the usual sort of exceptions or grounds under which arbitration award can be challenged. What we see is that in Bangladesh, in some instances, these are interpreted very widely. For example, the public policy or the national interest, right? I mean, these are the two grounds that we see used most commonly. And in certain instances, we see them being interpret

Esha Kamboj, attorney-advisor for Asia-Pacific with the U.S. Department of Commerce's Commercial Law Development Program, joins Rebeca Mosquera to share her professional journey from private legal practice to her current governmental role. She discusses the motivations behind her transition, the skills and experiences that shaped her approach to international arbitration, and the evolving ADR landscape in the Asia-Pacific region. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Welcome to Arbitral Insights, a podcast series brought to you by our International Arbitration Practice lawyers here at Reed Smith. I'm Peter Rosher, Global Head of Reed Smith's International Arbitration Practice. I hope you enjoy the industry commentary, insights and anecdotes we share with you in the course of this series, wherever in the world you are. If you have any questions about any of the topics discussed, please do contact our speakers. And with that, let's get started.  Rebeca: Hello, everyone, and welcome to another episode of Arbitral Insights. Today, I'll be your host. My name is Rebeca Mosquera, and I am an attorney at Reed Smith here in New York. And today, we have the pleasure of speaking with an incredible guest who has made remarkable strides in the world of international arbitration and ADR. Joining me is Esha Kamboj, attorney-advisor for the Asia-Pacific Region Team Commercial Law Development Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Esha, welcome to the podcast.  Esha: Thanks so much for having me, Rebeca. Thank you for the lovely introduction. It's my pleasure to be here today.  Rebeca: Well, let's dive in into things. And to kick things off, Esha, could you share a bit about your background and how you got into international arbitration? What was your practice focus when you first started?  Esha: Yeah, of course. So my background really is in international arbitration and private practice for about seven years before moving over to the U.S. government. And how I got into international arbitration is, I think, an interesting story. I grew up in the Bay Area in California with immigrant parents from India, and I had kind of the pleasure of having a lot of family all over the world. And so each of, you know, whenever we would go on a family trip, it would be to visit a different family member in a different part of the world, whether it was in India or parts of Europe. So I really had the benefit of growing up with a very global experience in terms of meeting different types of people, learning about different cultures, foods, etc. And so I was always very much interested in kind of international policy, international law, and focused my undergrad degree in global studies. And then, you know, shortly thereafter, did the teaching assistant program in France via the French embassy. So I taught English in a high school just outside of Paris for about a year prior to going to law school. And, you know, I didn't really know too much about international arbitration before law school. There aren't a lot of lawyers in my family. But I learned a lot about it when I went to law school and had really focused my curriculum on international law. And it really stuck out to me as something that was incredibly interesting. You know, I wouldn't say a newer area of law, but definitely younger than many other practices. And really pursued firms during on-campus interviews that had dedicated international arbitration practices within the firm. So that kind of led me to Norton Rose Fulbright, where I did my summer internship as well as my first year in their New York office before I moved to Washington, D.C. And over the course of the next six or seven years, I did a lot of international arbitration, including investor state disputes, commercial arbitration, and a lot of large-scale kind of commercial litigation. So that was the private practice part of my career and how I kind of transitioned and got into international arbitration in the first place.  Rebeca: That's fascinating, Esha. I mean, you've basically grown to some of the most, maybe we call it epicenters of where, you know, international arbitration develops today. So you established yourself in private practice, right? But what inspired you to make the transition to your current role? And was there something specific that drew you from private practice or the governmental side of, you know, international arbitration and ADR?  Esha: Yeah. So, you know, as I mentioned, I've always been interested in foreign policy, specifically like public international law. But when I was at the firm, you know, I never really had much thought about transitioning into a government role. I think it really came to a head when I was in my sixth and seventh year when I was kind of a senior associate and I had to decide at that point if I wanted to pursue partnership at the firm, which would entail me starting to build my book of business, doing a lot of networking, doing a lot of training to be able to apply for that role, or if I wanted to kind of transition out of private practice and maybe try something new. I knew I've only ever been in private practice and so I didn't really have a lot of experience as to what other international arbitration adjacent jobs there could be. How I ended up at CLDP is kind of by happenstance, in fact. So while I was going through this, what should I do with my life? Should I move on to partnership in private practice or should I do something else? I was asked to actually be an expert for CLDP. So they asked me to do a short video on how to draft an International Arbitration Clause. And following that, I learned about this division, learned about the great work that they do, and was so interested in it. And that's kind of joined their office from there.  Rebeca: So it all began with an arbitration clause, basically.  Esha: Yep, it did. It sure did, as many things do.  Rebeca: Very good. I mean, that's incredible. I really like hearing that. And obviously, it's always, to me, right, it's very interesting to hear about those pivotal moments in a career. I have done many myself as well. I mean, being an immigrant myself and having worked in-house and then in private practice, I understand how sometimes those pivotal moments just come out of the blue or based on a knowledge that you had. So, you know, it's just really, they shape the person that you are. And maybe sometimes we didn't quite understood certain training or certain things that we were going through until we get to that other position. And we're like, oh, now that's very useful, what I learned back then into the current role I am. And so speaking of transitions, how would you say your practice has evolved, right, from that private practice to the governmental role, especially now with the work that you do in the government focused on ADR?  Esha: Sure. So let me give a brief background as to what my current role is and how ADR fits into that. As I said, I focus my private practice on international arbitration, representing states and the private parties and the private investors in international disputes. And what the Commercial Law Development Program really does is, and we've been around since 1992, just after the fall of the Soviet Union, and the purpose is to ameliorate or improve the commercial environment or legal environment for businesses worldwide. What that means depends on the region that you work in. So as I said, I work in the Asia-Pacific team. We focus on the Asia-Pacific region, and there are various other teams that focus on other regions. We've got the Latin America team. We've got a Middle East, North Africa team, Europe, Eurasia, Sub-Saharan Africa, et cetera. And the focus of what we're doing within each country depends on a multitude of things. One, what the country's needs are, and also what our foreign policy directives are from the State Department. Our whole point is we are a legal office that really helps with infrastructure development, specifically in the Asia-Pacific. So we are looking to really accelerate U.S. business investments in critical infrastructure in Asia and protect those investments, you know, through legal protections. So what we, and the kind of the purpose of this and why we do this in part is because there's a huge infrastructure gap all over the world and specifically in the Asia Pacific. And I'm talking critical infrastructure, port infrastructure, airports, you know, bridges, roads, et cetera. And that infrastructure gap, you know, these host governments are looking to fill very, very rapidly. And so they're seeking investment at a rapid rate. And for the last 10 years or so, the People's Republic of China, the PRC, has been very diligent about filling that investment gap. And so they've. Funneled billions and billions of dollars of financing into large-scale infrastructure projects all over the world via the Belt and Road Initiative. On our end, the U.S. government doesn't do that. We don't funnel billions of state-backed bank money into infrastructure projects in other countries. But what we do at the CLDP is we kind of make it so that private investment from U.S. Businesses can be funneled into these investment projects. And we do that by making sure that the legal landscape in the country that we're working in is conducive to attracting and protecting that investment. Often that takes the form of making sure the project finance mechanisms are in line with international best practices, you know, making sure that there's regulations like a public-private partnership law or, you know, good government contracting processes, again, that are in line with international best practices that will then attract U.S. Investment and also then ensure a return on investment for those U.S. Businesses that are investing in this infrastructure. And how arbitration kind of fits into that? Well, ADR, Alternative Dispute Resolution, is very important for these large infrastructure contracts.

As the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre celebrates its 40th anniversary, Reed Smith’s J.P. Duffy welcomes Secretary-General Joanne Lau to discuss the center’s major milestones, including the launch of its Beijing office and the updated 2024 rules. J.P. and Ms. Lau explore trends in the HKIAC’s caseload, its goals for the next five to 10 years, and its strategies for maintaining its leadership in dispute resolution across the Asia-Pacific Region and beyond. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Hello and welcome to Arbitral Insights, a podcast series brought to you by our international arbitration practice lawyers here at Reed Smith. I'm Peter Rosher, Global Head of Reed Smith's International Arbitration Practice. I hope you enjoy the industry commentary, insights and anecdotes we share with you in the course of this series, wherever in the world you are. If you have any questions about any of the topics discussed, please do contact our speakers. And with that, let's get started.  JP: Welcome back to the next episode of Arbitral Insights, in which we'll discuss recent developments at the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center with Joanne Lau, who is the HKIAC Secretary General. I'm JP Duffy. I'm an international arbitration partner based in New York that acts as both counsel and arbitrator and international arbitration seated around the world under a variety of governing laws and arbitral rules. I'm qualified in New York, England, and Wales, and the DIFC courts in Dubai, where I previously practiced. I routinely represent clients in arbitrations involving China and East Asia, and I also have the good fortune to be listed on the HKIAC Arbitrator panel. With us today is Joanne Lau. Joanne is the HKIAC Secretary General and Principal Officer, which is a role she assumed just about a year ago in February 2024. Prior to becoming the HKIC Secretary General, Joanne was an international arbitration partner at Allen & Ophrey in Hong Kong, where she practiced for over a decade. Joanne brings a wealth of experience with us today and a wealth of information, and we're really lucky and grateful to have her speaking with us. So thank you, Joanne, and welcome. Joanne: Thank you for having me. JP: Great. Well, we're so glad you can join. Let me begin just by setting the table a bit and giving a bit of background information on the HKIAC. While it doesn't need any introduction because it's so well known, there may be listeners in the U.S. Or elsewhere that are less familiar, so I'll just start by giving a bit of background there. Celebrating its 40th anniversary this year, the HKIAC is an independent, not-for-profit arbitral administrator that was established in Hong Kong in 1985 by a group of leading business people to provide dispute resolution services in Asia. It provides a full range of alternative dispute resolution services, including arbitration, mediation, adjudication, and domain name dispute resolution. Joanne will discuss them in greater detail later on, but the HKIAC also has some of the most modern and innovative arbitration rules in the world, having just updated its rules last year that took effect on 1st June 2024. The HKIAC also offers state-of-the-art hearing facilities that were ranked first worldwide for location, value, IT services, and staff helpfulness. To give you an idea of how prominent the HKIAC is globally, the 2021 Queen Mary Survey, which most listeners will know, also found that the HKIAC is the third most preferred used arbitral institution globally. And in 2023, it received more than 281 arbitration cases, with a total amount in controversy of approximately $12.5 billion. Around 90% of the administered cases are international. So clearly, the HKIAC has accomplished amazing things in its first 40 years, and we're really lucky to have Joanne tell us more about it. So with that, let's turn to Joanne so we hear more from her and less from me. And let's start by talking about the HKIAC's caseload a bit. Joanne, the HKIAC is one of the most transparent arbitral organizations in the world, and it publishes detailed case statistics on its website. But I'd like to dig into those statistics a bit more for the audience's benefit. While the HKIAC administered cases involving parties from 45 jurisdictions in 2023, what were the top three jurisdictions in that year? Joanne: Sure. And I might be a bit greedy here talking about more than three jurisdictions. But just to answer your question first, in 2023, our top jurisdictions, first of all, unsurprisingly, is Hong Kong, Hong Kong parties, followed by mainland Chinese parties. Again, I think that one is unsurprising. And then at 3, 4, 5, 6, in that order, BVI, Cayman Islands, Singapore, and the United States. I would say these are pretty consistently featured in our most popular jurisdiction. So 2023 was similar to the previous several years in terms of parties who often submit cases to HKIAC. JP: Joanne, you mentioned the Cayman Islands and the BVI as some of the top five jurisdictions, I think. What's the reason for that? Joanne: For BVI and Cayman Islands, a lot of those entities from those places, they could be investment vehicles. I think quite a lot of them also have Chinese shareholders or Chinese interests, although not exclusively so. So I think that's one of the reasons why BVI and Cayman feature heavily in our caseload. JP: Got it. So it's a function of offshore Chinese investment structures that parties typically use. Is that right? Joanne: Yeah, correct. And I think another reason is to also look at the types of cases that HKIAC gets. So we do have a lot of shareholder disputes or post-M&A disputes. And especially when it comes to, as we discussed earlier, some of the China-related transactions, parties often choose to structure those through offshore vehicles. So hence, you do see BVI and Cayman entities in those transactions and consequently those disputes as well. JP: Yeah, that's really interesting. I've certainly done HKIC arbitrations that have involved that structure, which is why I asked, because I think it's a surprise sometimes to people in the U.S. To see that that is so common. Now, you mentioned as well, I think some of the other jurisdictions you mentioned were the U.S. and Singapore. Let's start with Singapore. How often do you see cases involving parties from Singapore? Joanne: Pretty regularly. And I think if you look at parties from Asia, Singapore is the active economy, large economy in Asia. So it's not surprising that we have lots of cases from Singaporean parties. The other one, I would say, you know, South Korea and Singapore might be the two most common Asian parties that we see in our cases. So yeah, we do see those pretty regularly. JP: That's really interesting, given that both jurisdictions have their own arbitral institutions or arbitral institutions that are associated with them. Is that a function typically of the counterparty to the dispute, do you find? Joanne: I would say sometimes, but not necessarily so. So we, in terms of our case law, I think around 40% of our cases would involve one mainland Chinese party. The remaining 60% don't have any mainland Chinese parties. So I think you're right that in a number of disputes with Singaporean parties or South Korean parties on one side, you might see a mainland Chinese party on the other side. And HKIAC would be a very natural choice of arbitral institution in those cases. But then we also see some cases, say, between a Singaporean party and another, say, Southeast Asian jurisdiction or between South Korean party and a party from elsewhere in the world. So there's a variety, although I think you're also right that in disputes which involve one mainland Chinese party, there may be even more reason for parties to think of Hong Kong and HKIAC. JP: Got it. Got it. Well, that's still a very strong endorsement for the HKIAC as a strong arbitral institution in the region that people would choose. That's a really interesting figure. Now, you also mentioned the U.S. being one of the top five or six parties. Is that a trend that you have seen continue in the years, or is that a trend that's increasing? What's the trend there that you're seeing? Joanne: I would say that's a pretty steady, it's a very steady observation. So US features quite consistently in our top 10 popular jurisdictions throughout the years. There are a lot of US, China investments and transactions going on. And, you know, despite some geopolitical tensions in recent years, I don't see that changing. And that I think, you know, US and China, they will continue to be very active, strong economies. So I do foresee that we'll continue to see US being in our top 10 jurisdictions. If you say whether we've seen any particular changes in parties in our cases, I would say maybe in the past two, three years, we've seen more activity from Middle East. I think that's one. The other one is we've also been seeing some cases with the Latin America connection. And again, going back to the types of cases that HKIC often handles. And by that, I mean, you know, where the Chinese investments are going. I think the reason Middle East and Latin America has come up more may also be a reflection of the fact that there are a lot of Chinese investments going to these parts of the world. JP: That's fascinating. I want to talk in a minute about what industries you're seeing there, but let me focus for just a second on, take those in pieces. Let's start with the Middle East. Are there particular jurisdictions in the Middle East from which you're seeing more cases rather than less? Joanne: UAE, yeah, we've seen, we haven't released our latest statistics yet. But to give you a teaser, I think UAE might be in our top 10 jurisdictions for 2024. JP: Okay, great, great. Yeah, I would suspect that would be the case. You know, it's been a little bit since I've lived in the UAE, but that's a jurisdiction that even when I

Reed Smith partner Gautam Bhattacharyya sits down with Professor Yarik Kryvoi, Senior Research Fellow in International Economic Law and Director of the Investment Treaty Forum at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law. Yarik reflects on his career journey, highlighting the mentors who influenced his path. The duo then discuss the interplay between corruption and arbitration, the evolving role of public international law in the global legal landscape, and the intricacies of sanctions regimes and their impact on arbitration, before turning to the challenges arbitrators face when navigating these complex issues – and Yarik's love of judo. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Hello and welcome to Arbitral Insights, a podcast series brought to you by our international arbitration practice lawyers here at Reed Smith. I'm Peter Rosher, Global Head of Reed Smith's International Arbitration Practice. I hope you enjoy the industry commentary, insights and anecdotes we share with you in the course of this series, wherever in the world you are. If you have any questions about any of the topics discussed, please do contact our speakers. And with that, let's get started.  Gautam: Hello, everyone, and welcome back to our Spotlight On podcast series. And I'm delighted that our spotlight today is on Professor Yarik Kryvoi. Hello, Yarik.  Yarik: Hi, Gautam.  Gautam: It's really nice to see you. Yarik is a senior fellow at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, and he's also a director at the Investment Treaty Forum and a very well-noted and well-regarded academic in the areas of public international law and associated areas. So it's a real pleasure to be doing this podcast with you, Yarik, and I look forward to our discussion. There's going to be a number of things that we're going to talk about, which I know our listeners will find very, very interesting, given your very, very interesting background and your areas of specialism. So thank you again for joining me, Yarik.  Yarik: My pleasure.  Gautam: So let me first of all ask you about your background and if you could tell our listeners a little bit about your background and what drew you to the areas of international arbitration and public law, which of course you specialize in and which you teach.  Yarik: Yes, happy to talk about that So I've been in London for around 15 years of my life, so the last 15 years. And I first came here to work as an associate at one London-based law firm And prior to that I was based in Washington, D.C. where I also worked for another law firm doing primarily international arbitration work and going back prior to that Immediately prior to that I did an LLM at Harvard Law School, and prior to that, I was based in my home country, which is Belarus. So I was born in Belarus, I grew up there, but I did my first law degree actually in Russia. And after that, I also did degrees in England, in the Netherlands, and in the United States. So my path towards international arbitration was not very straightforward, because initially I was more interested in public international law, in international labor law, so more public side of public international law, if I may say so. But then I understood that there is not that much work for people who do just purely PIL. And if you want to work with international law issues, then you need to be a bit more of a generalist and be flexible and do commercial arbitration. And at some point, I discovered the area of investor-state arbitration, which is somewhere on the border between public international law and domestic law. So you have an interaction of domestic legal systems and public international law, important public policy issues are also decided in this context. And that was intellectually challenging, and that was also something quite sophisticated and quite new at that time. Even though I was in Washington, D.C., at that time, the area of ISDS was not as well-developed and as fancy as it is today. So that was sort of my reasoning why I wanted to explore more this area. And just before joining a law firm in Washington, D.C., I did a short clerkship. I worked as an extern law clerk for a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which is quite an important court in the United States because it has jurisdiction over many disputes which involve public international law issues. And sometimes you hear about annulment proceedings or Guantanamo cases or whatever. So a very important case, a very important court, and I had a chance to work on some of PIL cases also within the context of domestic courts. And now I've been in London, as I mentioned, for a few years already, for, well, soon it will be two decades, and here I combine academic work, practical work, as well as other activities. I will be happy to discuss those later today.  Gautam: Thank you very much, Yarik. Now, that's a very, very interesting background. You certainly studied in many countries. You worked in many countries. And, you know, I suppose this explains why you are so international in your outlook, in what you teach, and in your academic interests of research. And we'll come to that. And I'll certainly be following up with you on some of the points that you spoke about there, because I know they'll be of interest to our listeners, and they're certainly going to be of interest to me. So so let me ask you this next in the course of your journey so far which we've obviously ascertained is a very interesting one and a very international one who along that journey have been your biggest inspirations and who've given you your biggest guidance and your biggest mentorship to make you the person you are today,  Yarik: Yeah, it's a good question. Because I started arbitration and investor state arbitration work fairly late in my career, so after I did my first PhD, the influence of people also so when I was doing my first law degree, I was not particularly focused on one area. So it was more generally international law and domestic law. But then once my focus has become more clear, I think already when I was doing my LLM at Harvard, at that time, arbitration was not even taught there. But there were some other areas of law which were very well taught. And for example, I was quite interested in law and economics classes. And it was possible to attend joint seminars of the Department of Economics of Harvard University and Harvard Law School, where they brought together students, or mostly LLM students and PhD students from Harvard and from these two departments of Harvard. And we discussed various areas and how to use law to regulate particular issues, a variety of topics, from damages to most efficient dispute resolution mechanisms. So this way of thinking about law as an instrument to deal with real-life issues, I think that was quite inspiring. And, for example, Andrei Schleifer, professor of economics, was there. And Louis Kaplow, who is professor of law and economics at Harvard Law School. So they certainly impacted me. Then when I worked for Judge Stephen Williams in Washington, D.C., the common law approach, the approach of judges to common law issues, understanding law, interpreting law, including public international law, had also great influence on me. I remember working on one case which involved. An archive of one Jewish group, which was confiscated by Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. And then this Jewish group was trying to sue the Russian Federation to get those documents back from Russian archives, and they relied on various international law concepts. And so it was possible to see how international law works in practice and how closely it's linked with politics and with history and Judge Williams at that time and he was a great mentor, unfortunately he passed away a few years ago and then i found my first job and partners who worked there Mark Bravin for example he used to work on the with the cases on the Iran-U.S. claims tribunals in early years of this tribunal and we had a case uh representing government of Romania in Roussalis vs Romania and I was in charge of preparing arguments on counterclaims. And it was still very novel at that time. Nothing has been written on counterclaims. So I had to come up with my own arguments. And then I published the first ever article on counterclaims in investor state issue settlement. And then when I moved to London, well, London is great when it comes to human capital and the number of people who are great experts in the area, particularly when I joined the British Institute of International and comparative law. We have a great advisory board. But actually, even before I joined, when I was interviewed for my job, I was interviewed by the then director of the institute, Robert McCorquodale, but also by Johnny Vida and by Audley Sheppard. Unfortunately, Johnny Vida passed away as well a few years ago, but I still remain in contact with Audley Sheppard, with other people on the advisory board, for example, Professor Andrea Bjorklund, with Robert Volterra and others. So we regularly were in touch to discuss events, discuss projects and so i feel very privileged to be able to work with with people of this sort of expertise and reputation  Gautam: Well there's some great names there and some really big names there who you've mentioned and you know and you know no doubt been huge inspirations to you and you know and i think this is an area of law i can remember Yarik when i was a young law student many years ago, and it was many, many years ago. Of public international law wasn't really that well-known at all. And I'm thinking back to my first degree that I began in 1987, and I graduated in 1990. It really wasn't that well-known at all. And it's been amazing how over the years, it's become such a popular area, and there's so much academic research and study in these areas, and also the practice of ISDS arbitration, which of course w

J.P. Duffy is joined by Jeff Zaino, vice president of the AAA-ICDR's Commercial Division, to discuss the AAA's upcoming centenary and its enduring reputation as a trusted choice for resolving commercial conflicts across industries. The conversation delves into the AAA's significant milestones and accomplishments, highlighting its commitment to innovation, including its approach to AI and the recent appointment of Bridget McCormack as president and CEO. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Hello and welcome to Arbitral Insights, a podcast series brought to you by our international arbitration practice lawyers here at Reed Smith. I'm Peter Rosher, Global Head of Reed Smith's International Arbitration Practice. I hope you enjoy the industry commentary, insights and anecdotes we share with you in the course of this series, wherever in the world you are. If you have any questions about any of the topics discussed, please do contact our speakers. And with that, let's get started.  J.P.: Welcome back to the next episode of Arbitral Insights, in which we'll discuss the American Arbitration Association with Jeff Zaino, who's the vice president of the AAA's commercial division. I'm J.P. Duffy. I'm an international arbitration partner based in New York that acts as both counsel and arbitrator in international arbitration seated around the world under a variety of governing laws and arbitral rules. I'm qualified in New York, England, and Wales in the DIFC courts in Dubai, where I previously lived and practiced. I routinely represent clients and arbitrations involving a range of issues and frequently sit as an arbitrator in commercial disputes as well. I also have the good fortune to be a member of the AAA's commercial division arbitrator roster, the ICDR panel, and I'm a member of the AAA-ICDR Life Sciences Steering Committee and a member of the ICDR Publications Committee as well. So I get to do a lot with the AAA, which is really a wonderful organization. As I mentioned, with me today is Jeff Zaino, who's the vice president of the commercial division of the AAA in New York. He oversees administration of the large, complex commercial caseload, user outreach, and panel of commercial neutrals in New York. He joined the association in 1990, and Mr. Zaino is dedicated to promoting ADR methods and services. He's also written and published extensively on the topics of electronic reform and ADR, including several podcasts with the ABA, talks on law, and corporate counsel business. And he's appeared on CNN, MSNBC, and Bloomberg to discuss national election reform efforts and the Help America Vote Act. He was deemed a 2018 Alternative Dispute Resolution Champion by the National Law Journal and received awards for his ADR work from the National Academy of Arbitrators, Region 2 and Long Island Labor and Employment Relations Association. In 2022, Jeff received the Alicott Lieber Younger Committee of the Year Award for the New York State Bar Association Commercial and Federal Litigation Section. And in 2023, the Chairman's Award, NYSBA Dispute Resolution Section. So as you can tell, Jeff is a highly experienced, highly lauded arbitration expert, but we're really lucky to have his valuable insights today. So before we begin with some of the substance, let me just give a little bit of background on the AAA and the commercial division so that those that are less familiar have a little bit of information about what we're going to discuss today. The AAA is a non-profit alternative dispute resolution service provider headquartered in New York that administers arbitrations, mediations, and other forms of dispute resolution, such as ombudsperson and dispute avoidance training. It was founded in 1926 to provide an alternative to civil court proceedings, and that makes the AAA one of the oldest arbitral institutions in the world, as well as one of the largest, having administered over 11,553 business-to-business cases in 2023 alone, with a total value of over $19.1 billion. So that should give you a pretty good idea of the scope of what the AAA does. Notably, the AAA has several divisions that offer users substantial subject matter expertise. For instance, the commercial division, which Jeff heads, specializes in business-to-business disputes of all sizes, but has a particular expertise with large complex cases across a variety of industries, including accounting, communications, energy, entertainment, financial services, franchise, hospitality, insurance and reinsurance, life sciences, sports, and technology. There are also separate AAA divisions that focus exclusively on construction issues, consumer disputes, employment matters, government issues, healthcare, and labor disputes. Lastly, as many of our listeners will know, the AAA has a well-known international division, the International Center for Dispute Resolution, or what's colloquially known as the ICDR, that focuses on disputes that have an international component. Before we get into some of our recent developments, Jeff, if you could tell us a bit about what makes the AAA different than other arbitral administrators, I'm sure our audience would love to hear that.  Jeff: Sure. Hey, thanks so much, J.P., for having me today, and thanks for the kind words at the beginning. It's great to be here today. Well, you mentioned it. The AAA is the largest and oldest ADR provider in the world. We have over 700 staff worldwide and 28 offices, including one in Singapore. And we have a huge panel, and you're on that panel. We have 6,000 arbitrators on our panel, and we consider them experts in the industry. And we're really proud of our panel. And like you mentioned, we're hitting our 100th anniversary in 2026. And since then, when I started, I started in the 90s, like you mentioned, 1990. From 1926, when we were founded, to 1990, we did a million cases, one million cases. And then, since then, from 1990 until now, 2024, we hit 8 million, 8 million cases. So it's growing. And I feel that's because of AAA, AAA-ICDR. Again, we've been around for almost 100 years, and we keep on growing. And I feel that we took the A out of ADR. I mean, everyone says alternative dispute resolution, but I really think now it's, and you'll probably agree with me, J.P., that it's dispute resolution. It's something in our toolbox and it's not alternative any longer. And then another thing about us, a huge difference about AAA-ICDR is we're not for profit. That makes us unique in this space. Profit-based companies are a little bit different than what we are. We're not criticizing them, but we're unique in the sense that we work directly for the parties, not for the arbitrators.  J.P.: That's a really interesting stat, Jeff. Let me unpack some of that because I think, first off, if I understood that correctly, you said up until 1990, there were 1 million cases administered. Is that right?  Jeff: That's correct. We did 1 million cases from our founding, 1926, a year after the Federal Arbitration Act in 1925. So we did 1 million when I came on board in 1990. And then from 1990 until now, we've done a total of 8 million. So we doubled that, or tripled it. It's been amazing how the growth that we've seen. And also during a pandemic, we saw a huge growth at AAA-ICDR.  J.P.: And Jeff, one thing that I think you're obviously very involved with the New York State Bar, and I've done quite a bit with the New York State Bar myself over the years. One thing that I noticed, and you just reminded me of this, was an uptick in submission agreements during the pandemic, by which I mean parties taking existing disputes for which there was no arbitration clause, drafting an arbitration clause for it to submit it and move it into arbitration. And I think some of that was a function of the recognition that disputes would founder if the courts were closed and that parties needed things done. Did you see that kind of growth during the pandemic of submission agreements as well?  Jeff: Absolutely. The courts were shut down, like you mentioned, for three to four months worldwide. And the ADR providers, like the AAA-ICDR, did not shut down. And we did have submissions, more submissions than we've ever seen. And usually it's only about, I would say, 2%, 3% of our caseload is submissions, but we saw the court systems. And I had, personally, I had over a billion dollar case, a bankruptcy case that came to us from Texas and it was mediated. We had two mediators, one in Connecticut and one in Texas. We had six parties, 40 people showed up on the Zoom, J.P., it was amazing. And that was a submission to AAA through the court system. The judge talked to the parties and said, listen, we're shut down. This is an important matter. Why don't you go to AAA? And so, yes, we did see submissions during the pandemic. I'm not sure if that's going to continue on. Most of our disputes are features of contract, as you know.  J.P.: Yeah. I mean, that's always going to be the case in arbitration, right? That the vast majority of cases will be subject to a pre-dispute arbitration clause. But I think it's really interesting when you see submission agreements like that, because I think it's a clear recognition that one, arbitration is a really valuable tool. And two, it's a real plus for the AAA and a real nod of confidence that those are submitted to AAA because that's parties taking something they know has to be figured out and saying, all right, AAA is the guy to do. I wanted to pick up, too, on that exponential growth of 8 million cases between 1990 and the present versus 1 million over the first, you know, what is that, 70-something years or 60-plus years?  Jeff: 60-plus years, absolutely, yeah. J.P.: Are there particular industries that you've seen significant growth in since the 1990 period that you were discussing, like between 1990 and the present? Are there particular industries that you are seeing more growth in or that you think there could be more growth in? Just be

Mehak Oberoi, Legal Head/General Counsel for GE Vernova, Hydro Power, joins Niyati Ahuja to discuss the importance of lawyers understanding business needs and the intricacies of construction disputes, emphasizing the importance of claim avoidance and the challenge of finding the right arbitrators for a case. The conversation covers top tips for minimizing risks during the construction phase, including detailed briefings and early involvement of project managers, before discussing the impact of technology on dispute resolution. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Hello and welcome to Arbitral Insights, a podcast series brought to you by our international arbitration practice lawyers here at Reed Smith. I'm Peter Rosher, Global Head of Reed Smith's International Arbitration Practice. I hope you enjoy the industry commentary, insights and anecdotes we share with you in the course of this series, wherever in the world you are. If you have any questions about any of the topics discussed, please do contact our speakers. And with that, let's get started.  Niyati: Welcome to today's episode of our Arbitral Insights podcast. I am Niyati Ahuja, a senior associate in the International Arbitration and Global Commercial Disputes Group in Reed Smith New York. I'm duly qualified in New York and India. My work involves both commercial and investor state arbitration, white collar investigations and litigation proceedings in New York. I'm delighted to have Mehak Oberoi with us today. Mehak is currently the legal head and general counsel for General Electrics for NOVA in Asia Hydropower, APAC. She has over 17 years of experience during which he has helped businesses develop and implement legal strategies for the renewables business on a wide array of legal issues facilitating seamless business operations and commercial transactions, deal negotiations, and offering critical legal insights to the board, ensuring an alignment with organizational objectives and compliance. Welcome, Mehek. We'll start very quickly with learning more about your career path. Could you just spend a few minutes telling us about what your career has looked like so far? Mehak: So I finished law school in 2008. I worked with a couple of law firms in India for about seven years. And that's when I moved to General Electric. And I hopped around various businesses of GE. So I've seen a lot of businesses being bought and sold and acquired. So all of that. And now for the last five years have been with the renewable piece of GE. Niyati: That's very interesting. Thank you. One thing that I love to ask and understand about is who has been your inspiration in your personal or professional life or somebody like a mentor? Who would you think is that one person or two or three, as you wish? Mehak: So I'm actually a first generation lawyer so I wouldn't I mean as far as my field is concerned I don't think I really have a role model from my within my family but when I was in third year law college I interned with Pepsi and at that time the the VP of legal was Mr. V.R Shankar. So I think he is the one who really started grooming me and helped me understand that this is something that I would possibly like to do. So yeah, so he was, I think, my first mentor. Then I think once I moved into GE, I had a couple of them over here because in-house legal work was very new to me. I think for all people who work in a law firm would understand that work in a law firm versus work in-house is very different the way the way it is structured whether it's process or just general day-to-day work is very different so I think I needed some hand holding in the beginning so I had some good people at that time also to help me out. Niyati: Well that's that's really nice to hear that there were people helping because it's sometimes hard to find just people who help you when you need hand holding so that's that's nice to hear. Mehak, can you tell us a little bit more about so you said you started with law firm working at law firms so what pushed you or what made you choose to move in-house because you have been in-house for several years now so what made you think oh yeah maybe I want to as you mentioned there's a difference what made you think maybe I could do in-house? Mehak: The very honest answer, I think life took me on that path because I just had my first daughter. I couldn't manage the commute because I stay in a particular place and my office was about an hour and a half one way. So I used to not see my daughter in the morning. She was sleeping when I used to leave and she was asleep again by the time I used to come back. So I decided I had to shift my job closer to home. and at that time when I took it on I think there were there was this myth that you know it'll be probably a slightly more relaxed and time effective job to have in terms of raising children. So that's how I took it on and very frankly at that time also it was very difficult for me to make the switch because I don't know I was stuck in that phase in terms of not having too much to be a legal head but having you know I was stuck somewhere in the middle so when I got GE actually I really really took a leap of faith because the person who interviewed me actually told me that I'm overqualified for the job I know it's it's really it's really like that because you know you will be shocked if you even hear what I was actually doing I was reviewing non-disclosure agreements globally for oil and gas business that's all that i was hired to do after seven years of experience so I was told but I was so yeah so I was so desperate to get that job I said no I will do it and maybe somewhere I think I had that faith that I'll be able to climb up the ladder and I think three months in I grabbed on the role to start reviewing their global sourcing agreements as well and slowly I climbed the ladder and, nine years later, here I am, but it was a true leap of faith. Niyati: That's been a very successful leap of faith, I will tell you that. It's also inspiring to hear that you were hired first to do something so basic and you're doing such an excellent job now. Well, that is very inspiring. So what is one thing, and this is actually feedback for people like me who are working inside law firms. What is one thing that you wish outside counsel did that they don't currently do? So is there like any feedback or like have you seen in your experience that you wish, oh, this law firm that I'm working with or I worked with at some point, I wish they did something differently? Mehak: So I think what typically happens is that law firms work in a slightly more theoretical manner. And I don't think it's any fault of theirs. It's just that they're not so in tune with the business needs as I would be as a company counsel. So I think possibly they need to walk a couple of miles more and try to show a little more interest in the business perspective of things. And when I say business perspective, the first ground rule is to try to understand what the business is. What do they really do? If there's a construction dispute, for example, I need the law firm to be able to show me interest as to what that project really was. How was it constructed? Why is there a dispute? You know, so maybe slight engineering nuances, which even I'm not really comfortable with. There's a lot of technical jargon, just some interest to be able to appreciate the nuances. And I think that helps them become better lawyers also, because then they can help me make those commercial calls which are compliant legally. Niyati: Yeah, no, I completely, completely agree with that. In my experience, I try to understand what their business objective is, especially as a dispute resolution counsel. The business goal is not to get into a dispute. It is to avoid a dispute. So if we can catch it at an earlier stage or try to find an amicable resolution, I think all clients appreciate that because they want to keep functioning. They don't want to get into a dispute and get busy with that dispute. So I completely understand what you're saying. And I think I agree with you that it's not for a fault of law firms that they sometimes don't get into what the business goals are or what the business is actually doing, because they're handling several clients at the same time. So maybe they are not as in tune with the business goals as an in-house counsel. But that's why it's really, really important to have open communication channels between the in-house counsel as well as the law firm. So that's a really good point. Mehak: And I think it's also a perspective that for a law firm, you have thousands of clients, clientele. My only client is my company. So I'm watching out for one single interest, whereas you're looking out for multiple. So I guess that also creates that shift of focus. Niyati: Yeah, no, I completely understand. And as you said, your one client is the company that you're working for. Can you share what your day-to-day looks like? Because a lot of people on the outside are curious, what does an in-house counsel really do? Can you share just like what? Because you do a lot of things. I'm sure like the stresses that you deal with are very different from somebody at a law firm. So I'd love to know like what does your day-to-day look like? Mehak: Oh, chaotic. I think that's the best way to describe it. I think the moment you open your eyes, the first thing is that you check your phone and you just need to know that no bomb has exploded overnight. And that could be, you know, it could be an injury on site. It could be a flood on a site. It could be an accident. It could be some criminal complaint that has been filed. And so, you know, or your bank guarantee has gotten invoked. So all of those kind of things you're kind of watching out for something not happen overnight. Plus, I work with different time zones. So a lot of the times that urgent factor comes in overnight when I'm just about opening my eyes. S

J.P. Duffy welcomes Luis Martinez, vice president of the ICDR, and Thara Gopalan, director of arbitration and ADR for the Asia-Pacific region, to discuss the organization and its strategic plans for expansion in Asia. Together, they explore the ICDR’s role in the global arbitration landscape, the opportunities and challenges that lie ahead in this dynamic region, and the potential impact of these developments on the global arbitration community. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Hello and welcome to Arbitral Insights, a podcast series brought to you by our international arbitration practice lawyers here at Reed Smith. I'm Peter Rosher, Global Head of Reed Smith's International Arbitration Practice. I hope you enjoy the industry commentary, insights, and anecdotes we share with you in the course of this series, wherever in the world you are. If you have any questions about any of the topics discussed, please do contact our speakers. And with that, let's get started.  J.P.: Welcome back to the next episode of Arbitral Insights, in which we will discuss the ICDR and its Asia initiatives with Luis Martinez and Thara Gopalan, who are both vice presidents of the International Center for Dispute Resolution, or ICDR. I'm J.P. Duffy. I'm an international arbitration partner with Reed Smith, based in New York, that acts as both counsel and arbitrator in international arbitration seated around the world under a variety of governing laws and arbitral rules. I'm qualified in New York, England, and Wales, and the DIFC courts in Dubai where I previously practiced. I also have the good fortune to be listed on the ICDR arbitrator roster and to regularly sit as an arbitrator in ICDR Matters, as well as acting as counsel in arbitration governed by the ICDR rules. We're very fortunate to have with us today a repeat guest, Luis Martinez. Luis is the vice president for the ICDR, which is the international division of the American Arbitration Association. Luis is responsible for their business development covering the East Coast of the United States, Latin America, the Caribbean, the EU, and the UK. He's co-chair of the ABA's International Arbitration Committee and an honorary president of the Inter-American Commercial Arbitration Commission. He's admitted to practice in New York and New Jersey and is a dual citizen of Spain and the United States. And our third guest today is Thara Gopalan. Thara leads the ICDR in Asia and is based in the organization's Asian headquarters in Singapore. Thara brings extensive experience in commercial disputes to the table. Prior to joining the ICDR, she was a commercial disputes attorney, representing clients in international arbitrations and at all levels of the Singapore courts. Her expertise spans a wide range of industries, and she has a proven track record of successfully navigating complex legal issues, including high stakes to bet the company disputes. So as you can see, we have excellent guests today, and Luis and Thara will be able to tell us not just about the ICDR's ongoing initiatives around the world, but in Asia in particular. So we're really looking forward to hearing their insights. Let me just set the table a bit by talking for a moment about the ICDR for those that aren't as familiar with it. The ICDR was established in 1996 and is the international division of the AAA, which was itself founded in 1926. The ICDR provides dispute resolution services to businesses and organizations around the world in cross-border matters and administers all arbitrations filed with the AAA that have an international component. While it's based in New York, the ICDR has offices in Houston, Miami, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Singapore. And it also maintains a separate group called ICDR Canada for Canadian disputes. The ICDR has some of the most modern rules in the world, which it last revised in 2021. And you can learn more about those innovations in a podcast I recorded with Luis in April 2021 that's available on iTunes, PodBean, and the Reed Smith website. Now, to give you a sense of the scope of the ICDR's caseload, it administered 848 new claims in 2023 with an amount in controversy of 5 billion. So as you can see, they're one of the largest and most active arbitral administrators in the world. And we're really fortunate to have Luis and Thara here today to talk about that. Now, let's jump right in on that caseload and those caseload statistics for a minute. Luis, of the 848 new cases filed in 2023, what were the top three industries represented?  Luis: Well, thanks, J.P. And it's a real pleasure to join you again on this podcast series and to be here with my colleague from our Asia Case Management Center. To touch base, our statistics are available on our infographics, which we do put one together each year to give some summaries and highlights of our particular caseload. You can find them on our website at icdr.org. But the top three caseloads came in using international arbitration, the ICDR system in the technology sector, the international construction sector, and international financial services. Those are the top three groupings we saw last year in 2023.  J.P.: Now, Luis, that's interesting to me. I think the third category you mentioned was international financial services. Can you expand on that a bit? Because that's an area that I think is underrepresented in most institutions in the international arbitration space.  Luis: Sure. They cover a range of different subtypes in the financial sector. There could be cases involving the financing of infrastructure projects. There could be cases involving financial documents in M&A agreements or shareholder agreements. It is an interesting cross-section, and it is an area that we are focusing on, not only in the international sector, but also working with our colleagues in the domestic divisions. So I think that with the construction and the technology caseloads are areas of focus for us.  J.P.: That's great to hear. Now, Luis, tell me a bit more, too, about the technology sector and the types of cases you're seeing there.  Luis: Sure. And that has been an expanding caseload for us in the last several years. The largest subtypes of these cases, they include, for example, software system developments. We have cases in related to that with partnership and joint ventures. You could have subcontracting agreements with independent contractors and, of course, licensing disputes. An interesting fact that goes with that is that over two-thirds of these technology cases, they actually settle prior to an award hearing and 28% prior to incurring any arbitrator compensation at all. As you know, we do a great deal at the outset to try to explore any procedural efficiencies. As we covered in the rules, the mediation step is actually obligatory with us unless the parties opt out. We will be amenable, of course, especially if the case falls within the appropriate range, use the expedited rules. So whatever the institution can do to bring the parties together and try to get these things settled at the earliest possible step is something that we try to explore.  J.P.: That's really interesting. And I guess it's unsurprising to me that the technology sector would be so highly represented in the case statistics, because we really are seeing a lot more cross-border technology transactions, both in software, hardware. I mean, I think all the different facets of the technology sector, which is really, really broad. So that's pretty interesting. What are some of the other industries, Luis, that you're seeing cases come from?  Luis: The other top leaders that use our rules are the real estate. We have entertainment cases. We actually are the administrators for the International Film and Television Alliance that also has opted to use our rules. Insurance, energy is very important. We have subgroups, by the way, that we've created joint teams internally, combining international and our commercial colleagues to focus on various sectors. So energy, construction, life sciences, financial services are all areas where we're pooling our resources and studying the market and seeing how best to position our domestic and international services. Energy is very important. And I think, you know, the subtopic of that, of course, obviously the upstream and downstream types of disputes, but certainly the ESG-related claims that we're going to be seeing and we're forecasting that that's going to be on the rise, Cases brought to mandate perhaps climate change-related policy or conduct. Cases brought to seek financial redress for damages associated with climate change, etc. And I think the energy sector is going to see a surge on that and probably some other sectors too because it's not limited only to the energy sector.  J.P.: That's really interesting. And just to circle back on one of the earlier industries you mentioned, it's kind of fascinating to me. I've had the opportunity to sit as an arbitrator and to act as counsel in a few entertainment cases. And that's a sector globally that I think gets overlooked on occasion. People tend to not realize how broad that industry is and how much cross-border activity there is in that industry. So pretty fascinating.  Luis: It also plays a large part in our history. I mean, as you mentioned, the ICDR was started in ’96, but going far back as 1927, we had a foreign division. And in the 50s, we also worked with the motion picture industry, which really helped us establish offices throughout the country because they wanted to have local offices in many locations where they have theaters. And that really led to our national infrastructure to provide ADR services in the United States.  J.P.: Interesting. I was not aware of that history, but that makes an awful lot of sense. Now, let's turn to Thara for a minute, just to sort of talk about that caseload as well. Thara, how many of those cases had an Asian component to them?  Thara: So we're seeing about 351

Gautam Bhattacharyya welcomes Rebeca Mosquera, Reed Smith senior associate and the President of ArbitralWomen. Rebeca shares her career journey, detailing her path from Panama to Alaska, and then to New York, the mentors who have shaped her path, and the inspirations that fuel her future. The conversation then discusses the significance of ArbitralWomen, its notable achievements to date, and Rebeca's vision for the association's future reach and impact. ----more---- Transcript:  Intro: Hello and welcome to Arbitral Insights, a podcast series brought to you by our international arbitration practice lawyers here at Reed Smith. I'm Peter Rosher, Global Head of Reed Smith's International Arbitration Practice. I hope you enjoy the industry commentary, insights and anecdotes we share with you in the course of this series, wherever in the world you are. If you have any questions about any of the topics discussed, please do contact our speakers. And with that, let's get started. Gautam: Hello, everyone, and welcome to our latest edition of our Spotlight On podcast series. And I'm delighted today to have as my guest, the fabulous Rebeca Mosquera, who is not only one of my colleagues at Reed Smith, based in our New York office, but is also the president of ArbitralWomen and does a wonderful role in that position and is a real champion for women in the world of international arbitration. In all its various forms. Hello, Rebeca. Rebeca: Hello, Gautam. Thank you for the introduction and for the invitation. I don't know if you know this, but I have been following Spotlight On for a while now. And so it's exciting to finally be on the other side of the microphone today. Gautam: Well, it's fabulous to have you. And I'm looking forward to our discussion, not least because we're going to be covering some topics I know of very much mutual interest and ones on which you are perfectly qualified to give us your thoughts. One of the things that I think is always wonderful is someone's background, how they got to where they are now. And I know because I know you well, Rebeca, that you've got a very interesting background to how you are where you are now as a senior attorney at Reed Smith in our New York office. It's a fascinating background and I wonder if we could begin with that and I could hand over to you to tell our listeners about your background, your journey to where you've got to where you are today. Rebeca: Absolutely, Gautam. So as you know, I was born and raised in Panama, where my legal career started, mainly focusing on corporate transactions and domestic disputes. But, you know, life took a surprising turn when I moved to Alaska to work with Shell Oil. At Shell, I was involved in upstream and exploration work, which was an extraordinary experience. It truly gave me a deeper understanding of the business side of a large corporation. And I think that is something crucial for any attorney who wants to be well-rounded. After my time with Shell, I moved back into private practice, and that's when I had my first exposure to investor state arbitration, which is what I do now. It was a construction dispute, and I found myself learning everything about asphalt viscosity because the case centered on the rehabilitation of a major road network, part of the Pan American Highway that stretches across the Americas. And at that time, I had just finished my master's of science in project management. So that became real handy. And it was fascinating. And that's when I realized I wanted to dive deeper into this area of law. And that led me to further my studies at NYU, get dual qualified in New York. I was already qualified in Panama since 2004, 2005. And from there, I've had the opportunity to work on many international disputes, which has been both challenging and incredibly rewarding. Gautam: Yeah, it's a real fascinating story you've got there, Rebeca, because, you know, you know, you're a native Spanish speaker. You had to learn English as a second language, which is not as easy as some people might think it is. And you've lived in many different countries. You've been exposed to many different cultures and ways of life. And now you're in New York. And did you come to New York because of your studies to do your master's? Was that the primary reason why you landed up in New York? Rebeca: Yes, that was the primary reason why I landed in New York. But I'll be honest, Gautam, I never thought I would end up living in New York or Alaska for that matter. I studied law because I had no intention of leaving home, which is Panama. But here I am almost 20 years later. And something that you will appreciate, you know Manhattan well. So I lived at the NYU Law School campus in Greenwich Village. That's on 4th Street. And I remember at the beginning of my studies walking up to 14th Street, which is Union Square. And I'll tell myself, okay, this is as far as I will go today. I will not there go beyond 14th Street. I was completely overwhelmed by the sheer scale of the city. You will think after Alaska, I'll be ready for anything. But New York is its own kind of challenge. The energy here pulls you in and can take everything from you. But if you embrace it, the city gives back tenfold. Now, I am an avid walker, which has earned me the nickname of Juanita La Caminadora, kind of like Johnny Walker, but in the feminine version. Gautam: That's very good. Now, I didn't know that, Rebeca. I didn't know you had that nickname ah now you i've learned something new! Rebeca: Yes no I love walking and and honestly I did the same when i visited london for for the first time in in June 2021 obviously there was no much like no many people on the streets but and I walked everywhere and I feel it's the best way to discover you know those hidden gems that make each city so unique. Gautam: Absolutely. No, no, that's, I couldn't agree more. And, you know, one of the other things that I know from your background, which is, which I think is, is fascinating, and which I think our listeners will be very interested in, as we deal with this particular segment is that you started out life in Panama as a corporate lawyer. And you know naturally because Panama is well known for being the hub for corporate transactions so not surprising then and then as you said you moved to the US to Alaska and you worked in the energy sector and then your practice gradually evolved into dispute resolution so tell us a little bit about sort of whether you still do any corporate work and how your corporate background has helped your dispute resolution work. Rebeca: No, absolutely. You know, when you graduate in Panama, which is a civil law jurisdiction, you kind of do everything. But my focus was primarily on corporate. And, you know, I went from being a corporate attorney in Panama to focusing on disputes in the United States. That has helped me a lot because I've found a real niche in bringing or assessing disputes related to Latin America, not only in international arbitration, but cross-border litigation as well. So it really has been a way of building a wholesome practice. And while international arbitration and cross-border disputes are the core of my work, something, as you mentioned, many people might not know is that I have also developed a niche practice focused on luxury brands in Latin America. I often collaborate with our Paris office on these matters. It is a highly sophisticated area of law. It blends commercial, intellectual property, and contractual elements. And it is really fascinating. So, you know, for me, just having gone full circle from corporate to disputes and then somewhat back into corporate in a more niche area. It just makes my practice very interesting, dynamic. And now on top of that, I've become deeply invested in technology, particularly the role of AI in arbitration. And I think this is a shared interest, as you might know with my husband, Ben Malik, who shares the Silicon Valley Arbitration and Mediation Center Task Force on the guidelines for using AI in arbitration. I think AI, it's really transforming how we approach everything in the legal field. And, you know, it's making processes far more efficient and dynamic. So, you know, like I said, although disputes are at the core of my work, I tend very, in an almost daily basis, to also do other types of things, mostly in the luxury field and in technical and tech disputes. Gautam: Fabulous. Thank you, Rebeca. Yeah, I mean, see, the thing is, I know a lot about this, but I think our listeners will be fascinated by the many facets to your background, your practice and your interests. So thank you for sharing all of those great points with us. Now, let me ask a slightly different question. Given that you grew up in Panama, you practiced in Panama, then you went to Alaska, then you came to New York, along the way, you must have had a number of people who were very instrumental in making you who you are today. Some people who inspired you, who gave you incredible encouragement and who really helped you get to where you are today. I wonder whether you could share with our listeners some of those people who've been really important to you as you've made this progression through your life. Rebeca: No, absolutely. I mean, there were, there've been, you know, a few key figures that immediately come to my mind. And I think that we'll be here a long time if I mention all of them by name. But, you know, of course, you'll be too humble, Gautam, but you have been one of those tremendous influences, the same as John Fellas, who you know well. Your leadership, championship, you know, and guidance have played a big role in shaping how I approach my work. You know, I grew up in a family where we celebrate women. So I'll have to say that my late mother has been a constant source of inspiration for me. She was an extraordinary lady and someone ahead of her time in so many aspects, especially when it came to taking space as a prof

J.P. Duffy welcomes Serena Lee, the new President and CEO of the International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution (CPR), for an engaging discussion about CPR's foundational principles, its unique origin as an organization dedicated to helping corporations, and the influential role it plays in the global arbitration community. Serena explains CPR’s inner workings, delves into recent case statistics, and shares her vision for CPR’s future. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Hello and welcome to Arbitral Insights, a podcast series brought to you by our international arbitration practice lawyers here at Reed Smith. I'm Peter Rosher, Global Head of Reed Smith's International Arbitration Practice. I hope you enjoy the industry commentary, insights and anecdotes we share with you in the course of this series, wherever in the world you are. If you have any questions about any of the topics discussed, please do contact our speakers. And with that, let's get started.  J.P.: Welcome back to the next episode of Arbitral Insights, in which we'll discuss the International Institute for Conflict Resolution, known in the legal community as CPR, with Serena Lee, who's CPR's new president and CEO. I'm J.P. Duffy. I'm an international arbitration partner based in New York that acts as both counsel and arbitrator and international arbitration seated around the world under a variety of governing laws and arbitral rules. I'm qualified in New York, England, and Wales, and the DIFC courts in Dubai, where I previously practiced. I also have the good fortune to be listed on the CPR arbitrator roster, which is called the Panel of Distinguished Neutrals. With me today, as I mentioned, is Serena K. Lee. Serena is a lawyer qualified in New York who previously practiced on the West Coast. Before joining CPR, Serena served as the Vice President of Operations for JAMS in San Francisco, where she managed three resolution centers, San Francisco, Santa Rosa, and Seattle, and oversaw approximately 85 neutrals. And before that, Serena was vice president with the AAA in the construction and commercial divisions, first in Seattle and then San Francisco. So as you can tell, Serena brings a wealth of experience and perspective to her new role and to the audience. And we're thrilled to have her because she's a very recent addition to CPR. She's going to give us some updates on everything that CPR has been up to and what she plans for CPR to do. Before we begin, let me just give some brief background information about CPR itself for those that aren't as familiar with it. CPR was established in 1977 in New York by James F. Henry to help businesses find better ways to resolve commercial disputes. CPR does this through the CPR Institute, which acts as a think tank and a thought leader, and through the CPR Institute's subsidiary, CPR Dispute Resolution Services, which provides dispute resolution and prevention services to users, including the administration of CPR's arbitration rules. CPR has a unique origin because it was established by in-house counsel from Fortune 100 companies to bring together corporate counsel and their law firm clients to collaborate on ways to reduce dispute resolution costs by finding alternatives to court litigation. Today, CPR has a membership community that comprises corporate counsel, law firms, academics, and neutrals. Over the decades, this unique membership community has produced a variety of thought leadership pieces, and innovative yet practical rules for arbitration and mediation, as well as the CPR pledge, which more than 4,000 companies and 1,500 law firms have signed to show their commitment to considering ADR for the speed resolution. So as you can tell, CPR, while it is an arbitral administrator, does a lot more and is relatively unique in the space in the way that it operates. So with that, let's turn to Serena a bit, because I want to hear from her about everything that CPR has been up to. Serena, welcome.  Serena: Thank you so much, JP. Pleasure to be here. Good. J.P.: Well, we're so glad you could join us. And I think, you know, one of the first things that our listeners would love to know is, how many cases did CPR administer in 2023?  Serena: Well, thanks for the questions, J.P., and you're right. I think often people are interested in the number of cases CPR administered. So CPR Dispute Resolution, our arbitral provider subsidiary, administers cases, including complex commercial arbitrations, and offers a number of related services such as mediation, fund holding, appointment services, and others. Our first rule set ever published was actually a non-administered arbitration, and we offer services to help parties through those ad hoc processes. So there's really not a straightforward answer to your question because it depends on how we dissect the data. Oftentimes, parties don't tell us if they are using CPR for their ad hoc arbitrations. Sometimes the parties will come to us for only parts of the services they're seeking, such as for fund holding or for appointment or for conflicts checks. So I don't have a specific number of how many cases CPR has administered based on the data I just shared with you. But I can tell you that CPR dispute resolution handles fewer cases each year than the AAA or JAMS. But because we're smaller, our team is oftentimes very high contact and responsive to questions. So I guess it's all good.  J.P.: That's a great answer. Now, it highlights a point, too, that I think is pretty interesting. What year, if I remember correctly, CPR introduced administered rules in sometime around 2010. Is that correct?  Serena: Close. 2013 was when our first set of administered arbitration weeks were located.  J.P.: Okay, so Serena, so the administer rules got introduced in 2013, and if I've understood you correctly, CPR still gets used relatively frequently by parties, or the CPR rules do, for non-administered cases.  Serena: Correct.  J.P.: What's the breakdown for administered cases between domestic and international cases?  Serena: The majority of the cases that we are aware of were domestic, but we also have received international cases. They're devoted to certain regions, such as in Canada and in Brazil, being maybe our two most prominent areas where we have received international matters.  J.P.: Interesting. And are there particular industries that feature more prominently in the cases than others?  Serena: Well, from the industries that we've seen in the past few years, that they are, as many providers also experience, they come from a wide variety of industries and sectors. Employment, healthcare and life sciences, energy, oil and gas, accounting and financial service are some of our largest caseloads. We also see franchise, insurance, technology, sports law, construction, professional fees. I'm rattling off some of the ones that come to mind. Of course, straight commercial matters as well. And we do see sometimes unfair competition matters come in as well.  J.P.: Interesting. So it's really a pretty broad range of disputes that CPR helps administer.  Serena: Correct.  J.P.: That's great. Now, how much of that is driven by CPR's membership? And it may be worth it when you answer that just to give a little bit of background on that and to explain how the CPR membership process works and maybe talk a bit about who some of the CPR members are. So to probably take this time to distinguish between the CPR Institute, which I'm going to refer to as the Institute, and CPR Dispute Services. So the Institute, of course, as you had mentioned, J.P., was started in 1977. And that is the think tank or the thought leadership portion of CPR and essentially why we exist. Now, CPR dispute resolution was created some three years ago to help parties who were interested in administered arbitrations or other ADR services to help administer those. So they were created as a subsidiary under the Institute to do so. There is a division between the Institute and the work that the Institute does and administration and dispute resolution services that CPR Dispute Resolution provides. Those who are interested in coming into the Institute as members of the thought leadership portion of CPR join as members and they can join as individuals, they can join as firms or as corporations. We have some of the largest organizations to the smallest companies in America who are interested in joining CPR Institute because they're interested in being part of the dialogue and workshopping ideas and solutions to issues they're seeing out in their business landscape. And law firms who also join as well as academics who want to contribute and also listen to what the businesses are asking for and what they're trying to resolve to make sure that the processes are efficient, that they're fair, that they are practical in a business context, and so forth. So I make mention of that because the Institute has very little to do with the case management. The only thing that the institute provides for CPR dispute resolution are the rules and the protocols are promulgated within the institute are then pushed over to the DR or the Dispute Services to issue out and to use. So those who file cases with dispute resolution services have no real interaction with the members. I hope that's clear.  J.P.: It is clear. Yeah. And I think there's a lot to unpack there that's really fascinating and different than a lot of other institutions. So let me just take that in pieces if I could. So the Institute has, that's what has the 4,000 members and the 1,500 law firm members. Is that right?  Serena: Yes.  J.P.: Okay. What are some examples of say fortune 500 companies, if you don't mind sharing that are members of the Institute?  Serena: Certainly, I mean, I can't name all 4,000, but if you actually just jump onto our website on the CPR Institute Board of Directors, you'll see some of the board members come from prominent companies such as Microsoft, Amgen,

Gautam Bhattacharyya welcomes Eunice Shang-Simpson (arbitrator, mediator, and lecturer-practitioner) to discuss her career journey, including key roles as a prosecutor, policy advisor, and practitioner. They explore her career highlights, transformational moments, and inspirations, before discussing the challenges and opportunities for improving parity and access in the legal profession, and how the industry can evolve to support future legal professionals. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Hello and welcome to Arbitral Insights, a podcast series brought to you by our International Arbitration Practice lawyers here at Reed Smith. I'm Peter Rosher, Global Head of Reed Smith's International Arbitration Practice. I hope you enjoy the industry commentary, insights and anecdotes we share with you in the course of this series, wherever in the world you are. If you have any questions about any of the topics discussed, please do contact our speakers. And with that, let's get started. Gautam: Hello everyone and welcome back to our latest edition of our Spotlight on Arbitral Insights podcast series and I'm delighted to have with us today as my guest the fabulous Eunice Shang-Simpson. Hello Eunice. Eunice: Hello Gautam, thank you very much for that. Gautam: It's really good to see you and I'm going to introduce you like I always do and in these things my challenge with introducing you, is to try to keep it to a manageable amount because you're such an illustrious person. But I'm going to try and do this as summarily as I can. So for our listeners, Eunice, apart from being a great friend, is an international arbitrator, mediator, and speaker. Eunice was formerly a council member of the Law Society of England and Wales. She is currently a lecturer practitioner at Canterbury Christ Church University in England and has recently achieved her PhD. Many congratulations again on that, Eunice. A superb achievement. And we'll touch upon your PhD thesis in the course of our podcast. She focuses in terms of her practice in international trade and investment arbitration, including investor state dispute resolution. Eunice is a member of the Ghana Bar, as well as being a solicitor advocate here in England and Wales. And she truly is, as I said in the course of my introduction a while ago, very illustrious. She also has experience of being a Crown Prosecutor and advising on policy. She, as I mentioned, is also an academic and we'll touch upon that in the course of our podcast. One other thing, and the great thing about doing these podcasts is we get constant updates. And just on this morning of this podcast, just before we were about to record this, I noted the wonderful news that Eunice has been made a Freeman, but I'd like to say a Freewoman or a free person of the Worshipful Company of Arbitrators. And that was further to a ceremony last week in London at the Mansion House that's a really wonderful accolade Eunice and that really is it's just so well deserved. I saw the photographs and uh and you know and I must say your outfit was absolutely stunning I've got to tell you, you wore traditional clothes. Absolutely you were looking wonderful I've got to tell you. So thanks again for being on and I'm much looking forward to our podcast, Eunice. Eunice: Thank you, Gautam. That's amazing. Thank you for that introduction. It's such an honor. Thank you very much for inviting me. Gautam: No, thank you. Now, let's start with how you found law or how law found you. So why don't you tell our listeners what first drew you to the law? Eunice: Well, I've always been insatiably curious, I must say, since I was a child, always asking why, why not, and stuff like that. I'm the eldest of three with two younger brothers. I grew up with a close family and spent lots of holidays at my grandparents' home in Ghana in Cape Coast with several cousins. And I always seemed to be the one prepared to negotiate, you know, later bedtime hours, extra treats for everyone. Why not this trip? Why not that trip? So after a while, the grown-up started to say, well, I bet she'll be a lawyer. She's always arguing. And it kind of became a backdrop to my thinking without my being conscious of it, actually. The only lawyer I knew growing up was my grand-uncle, lawyer Sakiskek, who was a lawyer and a politician in Ghana. He was always very encouraging and supportive of me. So I guess I wanted to be like him when I grew up. And that's how it all started. Gautam: That's amazing. Thank you. you and you know I’ve got to tell you you know looking back to when i was a student many years ago it just reminds me one of my most impactful lecturers that I ever had was a lawyer who also became a QC as it then was here but who was from Ghana and he was a lawyer too his name was Frank Panford and and Frank he taught us well he taught me the law taught but he also taught conflicts of law. And he was a brilliant legal mind. And I remember as a much younger man in my teens, this is back in my late teens when he was teaching me, I just remember how impactful he was. And so that just came to mind. I mean, it just shows these podcasts are not scripted, they flow. But look, thank you for that. And so in the course of your wonderful career so far, who who have been your career mentors and your biggest inspirations? Eunice: Oh my gosh so many because where do I start? Shout out so I warn you there's so many and I've been incredibly incredibly fortunate in having so many mentors and inspirational people in my life my career I must say so first of all I shout out to Willaim Fugar who's the founding member, Fugo & Co. in Ghana, my first ever boss straight out of law school. And then also Elizabeth Howe, who was my first Chief Crown Prosecutor, who’s now a dear friend. Mike Kennedy, who was president of Eurojust when I was working at our European and International Policy Division, CPS headquarters in London. And Lord Peter Goldsmith KC, who we used to brief on policy matters when I worked at EID in London, when he was Attorney General. He was hugely inspirational. He managed to understand our brief so quickly and get to the bottom of it you know when you brief somebody and they just cut straight to the chase and you think oh my gosh he totally got this and he's been on a flight from the U.S. when we sent that by email I'm thinking he's actually taken all this on board so does he not sleep you know it was that kind of inspirational person. And then also the first chair of my supervisory team Professor Chris, Chris Beighton, he believed in me from the very first time I spoke to him about my PhD topic. We were on a panel in Arusha in Tanzania and he asked me, what are you doing? And I said, well, I just finished my LLM and I'm thinking of doing my PhD, asking my topic. And he's been really inspirational to me. Also the late Stephen Denyer, who was Director of Strategic Relationships at the Law Society, another hugely inspirational person in my role as Chair of the International National Committee and Chair of the Arbitration Working Group for the Law Society, it was always very encouraging to me. And most recently, my Dean and Pro-Vice-Chancellor at the University of Canterbury Christ Church, Professor Mohamed Abdel-Maguid. He's been incredibly supportive and inspirational in the short year that he's been my boss. So yeah, quite a few people. Each of them has definitely, in their own way, been an inspiration and also been a mentor. kind of, you know, when people... Sometimes I describe this to people as when you think there's a wall and actually there's a door, you don't even know there's a door that needs to be opened and people are there to open that door. I've just been incredibly, incredibly fortunate and I'm so thankful for that. Gautam: Well, that's an incredible list in itself. And I completely agree with you, Eunice, that we're all the product of people who've been there for us, who've supported us and been generous with their time, their mentorship, their knowledge, and who've just believed in us. And I liked what you just said a moment ago, that you might be there and you might think there's a wall, but actually there's not a wall, there's only a door. And that's a very nice way of putting it. It's very good. That in itself would be something that I'm sure our listeners will take as one of the nuggets from this podcast. Eunice: I hope so. Gautam: Well, they will definitely. Now, one of the things I mentioned in my introduction is that you are an arbitrator as well as being an arbitration practitioner. So what, first of all, got you interested in the field of arbitration? Eunice: Well, that's another interesting story. So after I left the CPS, I applied to study international law and international relations at the University of Kent. Now, a couple of weeks into the term, I was informed that the international relations aspect of the course that I'd started was no longer available. There had been a mix-up of some sort in the curriculum, and I was offered international commercial law. I think about this, I'd been doing criminal practice all my life, and I had no idea, except College of Law, Belford back in the day, about international commercial law. I was not happy. But there seemed to be no other choice, so reluctantly I agreed. And one of my modules was WTO law. Shout out to Professor Donatella Alessandrini. Who was my lecturer then. And another module was international arbitration, taught by Professor Gwengo Duntun. It was he who suggested to me that I seemed to have an aptitude for the subject. So he suggested that I contact the Charter Institute of Arbitrators, become a student member, and then find out if I could be offered some exemptions on the membership route due to my previous working experience. So I thought, okay, why not just listen to him? So I did, and the rest is history, as they say. For another shout-out, I must go to Jonathan Wood, who before he was president of the

José Astigarraga hosts Jason File, Director of Legal Affairs and General Counsel at the United States Council for International Business (USCIB), to discuss global arbitration trends, the future of international arbitration, and AI's impact on the field. They go on to explore Jason’s role at the USCIB, his career trajectory, and the distinctions in advocacy before international criminal, civil, and common law tribunals. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Hello and welcome to Arbitral Insights, a podcast series brought to you by our International Arbitration Practice lawyers here at Reed Smith. I'm Peter Rosher, Global Head of Reed Smith's International Arbitration Practice. I hope you enjoy the industry commentary, insights and anecdotes we share with you in the course of this series, wherever in the world you are. If you have any questions about any of the topics discussed, please do contact our speakers. And with that, let's get started.  José: Well, welcome, everyone. I am José Astigarraga , and I'm delighted to share this program with you. Very, very pleased to tell you that today we have Jason File, who, as I have the pleasure of sharing with you, is the new general counsel and representative of the USCIB in the United States. And I think we're going to have a really, really interesting conversation with Jason today. Let me tell you a little bit about Jason. He is currently the director of legal affairs for the U.S. Council for International Business in New York. He's a licensed attorney, has a very interesting background. He's licensed in New York, District of Columbia, England, and Wales as well. He's a graduate of Yale University as well as the University of Oxford and Yale Law School and is bilingual. He speaks English and French. He's had a very interesting career. Jason worked as a trial attorney in public and private international law since about 2005, and he began his career with WilmerHale, of course, the top of the top firms in international commercial and investor state arbitrations in a very wide range of cases that he had. Then as well, he worked with Cooley Firm in New York, again, working international commercial arbitrations in investor state, and as well did some court litigation related to the federal arbitration and the New York Convention. And I'll call it arbitration-related litigation. One very, very interesting aspect of Jason's career that I hope we'll have a chance to discuss is that he served as a war crimes prosecutor at a United Nations International Criminal Tribunal, and we'll hear about that. To top it off as well, Jason has taught international law in Europe and has spoken all over the world. So, Jason, welcome. I'm just so pleased that you've made time for us to be able to speak. Perhaps the most logical place to start might be to ask you about, can you tell us about your new position?  Jason: Absolutely. And thank you, José, for inviting me to be a guest on this. And thanks to Reed Smith for hosting. I think it's a great program that you guys have. Getting the word out about arbitration across the world and in the United States is one of the main focuses actually of my new position. I've been in the job now for about four months, Director of Legal Affairs. We have USCIB is a wide ranging business organization that represents the interests interests of our members in many different international organizations, UN, OECD, IOE, and the ICC. And one of our many components of certain policy areas and issue areas is arbitration. We serve as the U.S. National Committee for Arbitration at the ICC. We constitute and we lead the U.S. delegation to the ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR. We have a nominations Nations Commission, which responds to requests from the Secretariat of the ICC when there is a need for an institutional appointment for arbitrators in pending ICC cases. They come to us with requests to end arbitrators in cases where there's a connection to the U.S. They're either looking for a U.S. National arbitrator or a U.S.-based arbitrator. We also intervene as as amicus curiae in pending litigation in the United States when there is an important arbitration-related issue, often related to either the Federal Arbitration Act or the New York Convention. Sometimes it's about evidence and discovery, those sorts of things. So it's a really fantastic opportunity that I've just started to enjoy, especially in terms of getting a little bit out of the trenches of litigation and arbitration, which is what I was doing for many years, and to have more of a kind of overview opportunity to be able to interact in a thought leadership way and a professional relations way with many of the practitioners in our field. And so it's been a really rewarding few months and I can't wait to continue in it over the coming months and years.  José: I did not realize the whole range of activities of the USCIB. I mean, there's so much that we could talk about. And I want to go back for a second. So I understand the response. And we're going to talk about arbitration and the USCIB's role in arbitration and so on and its vision. But I wanted to ask you in particular. What does your job entail? In other words, what is the responsibilities that you have?  Jason: So as director of legal affairs and general counsel, I am essentially the director of the arbitration committee, which I was just referring to. And I work side by side with Peter Sherwin, who is the chair of our arbitration committee. And we have, I think now 18 different subcommittees within this committee that it's a lot of plates to keep spinning. We have co-chairs from law firms around the United States and sole practitioners as well that run these various subcommittees that involve programming for events across the United States as well as abroad by our expat subcommittee, as well as looking at issue areas. J.P. Duffy from Reed Smith actually is one of the co-chairs of our new life sciences task force. And so we have a lot of different issue areas that we're tackling as a committee, and it's my job to help guide and direct that process across the different committees. I'm also the contact person when we receive these nominations requests, and also responsible for organizing the ICC commission on arbitration. But I have other issue areas that I I handle as well beyond arbitration. I serve as general counsel, so I do those types of general counsel tasks that one would expect in any organization. And I also handle the intellectual property portfolio. So we have member organizations and member businesses who are very focused on international intellectual property policy. And so that's also an area that I have responsibility for.  José: In other words, your responsibility includes not just arbitration, but all of the other aspects of international business that would be of concern to the business community?  Jason: That's right. That's right. We have another good example is within our trade portfolio, we have a focus on investor state issues. And so there is an aspect to that where we're working with UNIDOI and the ICC World Business Institute for a project that they're handling on international investment contracts. That's another area of current study. I think as bilateral and multilateral investment treaties begin to reduce the opportunities or narrow the opportunities to bring claims directly against states, it doesn't mean those disputes are going to go away. They're just going to probably happen in some other format. And I think that international investment contracts will probably be more often the recourse that we begin to see in cases where an investment has gone in a direction that was unexpected.  José: Very, very interesting. That could be a topic of a podcast in and of itself.  Jason: Absolutely.  José: But we'll keep this one sort of at a more macro level. Jason, what is your, if there's a difference, I'll ask you about the USCIB perspective and your personal perspective, but they have the sense that they're likely as overlap. What is your sense of international arbitration, of course, looking towards the future? I mean, how do you see this? It's a very general question, but there's just so many aspects of, well, and you've given us a perfect example, investor state arbitration, gee, is it going to evolve and so on, or how is it evolving? On that sort of macro level, if you had to say, what are you know, what are the three most important trends or developments that you see headed towards a future international arbitration from the perspective of the business community? What do you think they would be?  Jason: Well, I think there is certainly an expansion in specific subject matter areas and industries. I think we're seeing much more frequent use of international arbitration in the technology sector, which wasn't really the case 10 or 15 years ago. And I think that is certainly going to expand. There's a lot more energy, I think, coming from the arbitration community in California, where a lot of multinational technology companies are based and also where they are incubated in garages from the beginning. And so I think that, you know, leading up to the, you know, maybe within the past 10 years, it was more common to see companies, especially larger companies, using local courts and federal courts as their dispute resolution provisions because they had the negotiating leveraging contracts, international contracts, and they would push for that. And I think that sometimes, at some point, there was a dawning realization that winning in court on your home turf in an international case can be a bit of a pyrrhic victory because then you have to go and force that judgment. And if there aren't assets or very many assets here in the US, it starts to to get complicated and the U.S. doesn't have any arrangements or treaties with other countries to enforce those judgments abroad. So I think there's been a growing realization that. International ar

Andrew Tetley welcomes Prof. Dr. Eckart Brödermann, Managing Partner of Brödermann Jahn (Hamburg), to discuss the UNIDROIT Principles. The conversation delves into Eckart’s long-standing connection with these Principles, his authoritative commentary on them, and his practical experience applying them in business and arbitration. The discussion also touches on the benefits of the Principles and offers a glimpse into Eckart’s life beyond the law. ----more---- Transcript:  Intro: Hello and welcome to Arbitral Insights, a podcast series brought to you by our International Arbitration Practice lawyers here at Reed Smith. I'm Peter Rosher, Global Head of Reed Smith's International Arbitration Practice. I hope you enjoy the industry commentary, insights and anecdotes we share with you in the course of this series, wherever in the world you are. If you have any questions about any of the topics discussed, please do contact our speakers. And with that, let's get started. Andrew: Good morning. I'm Andrew Tetley, a partner at Reed Smith in the Paris office. Welcome back to Arbitral Insights. I'm joined today by Eckart Brödermann, who is a professor in Hamburg, long-time involvement in arbitration, and founding partner of his law firm in Hamburg, Brödermann Jahn. The subject that we will be touching on in some depth is the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts, but also hopefully getting to know a little bit more about Eckart for those Music. of you who know him, learning something new, and for those of you who don't, learning about him from scratch. So welcome, Eckart, and thank you for giving your time over for this podcast. Eckart: Thank you so much. Good morning. Andrew: Let's start with a short introduction. So tell us a little bit about your background and your association with the UNIDROIT principles of international commercial contracts. Eckart: My background, in a nutshell, at age 18, I left Germany. I spent four years in your beautiful city of Paris. DEUG, licence, maitrise fully studied in Paris, then moved on to Harvard. At that time, Germany wouldn't recognize any title from Paris. And Harvard said, I don't care whether you studied in Germany or in Paris. So I spent my time there where I started focusing on Chinese law, East Asian Legal Studies program. Thereafter, took the New York Bar, worked in a large law firm in Washington, D.C., Steptoe & Johnson. At age 24, decided what to do at age 40. I don't have any education in my home country, so I went back and started studying for the third time. Since my second studies, I financed everything myself, including loans to finance Harvard, and I always worked part-time in the legal business to finance all that. And ever since, I'm working, I'm loving the law, and I'm giving full speed. But, of course, I learned that the same thing you learn in one country happens to be wrong in the other country. You also learn that the problems of the people and of the companies are all over similar. In the end, we want to realize our dreams, we want to build business, we want to realize business plans, and for that we need tools. And I always have been both on the contracting side and on the arbitration side. Arbitration, I got to grow with the Iran Claims Tribunal in the early 80s and the UNCITRAL Rules. So, with that said, how did I bump into the UNIDROIT principles? In the beginning, I was, as many possibly in the audience have never heard about that, it starts with the word UNIDROIT. UNIDROIT is an abbreviation. It's a French abbreviation for the international organization called International Institute for the Unification of Private Law. And that in French, Institut pour l'Université de Droit, Privé, c'est Unidroit. So in 2001, I was in an arbitration in Switzerland. Huge stuff about orbital slots, relationship to several countries. I kind of also fell into that case as second counsel in the beginning. The case was fired out of Asia, and somewhere on a plane ride from the Caribbean back to Europe, I convinced the later client that it would be good to have not only a criminal lawyer from the Philippines, but maybe also an arbitration expert to join that arbitration. We had a great arbitration. I told him how many millions he would be likely to get. We got that in the end. But we argued under English law, because his company was from Anguilla, and the contract said something to English law, and I think we could have won it. The other side, though, the other side decided to argue in favor of Swiss law, arguing it would be also neutral, which of course is probably nonsense, because having been neutral in World War II has nothing to do with whether the law itself is neutral. And so we had those two argumentation lines and the pathological, so sick, choice of law clause. And it was the arbitrator, the arbitration tribunal, who came forward and said, why under these circumstances don't you consider to agree on the UNIDROIT principles with something really neutral? And that is something which happened to me over my lifetime more than once. And I've heard that anecdote also from a number of colleagues. Andrew: You mean tribunals and tribunals suggesting the UNIDROIT principles over clashes of applicable law. Eckart: Absolutely. Andrew: This has happened to you on more than one occasion then. Eckart: Yeah. And to join on neutral ground, in one instance, it was in an arbitration before the Chinese European Arbitration Center. You know, that's something I set up between 2004 and 2008, along with many colleagues in the Hamburg Bar. Today it's called the Asian European Arbitration Center here in Hamburg, focusing on arbitration with Asia. There in Article 35 we even explicitly foresee the option to either choose the state law or the UNIDROIT principles, of course, the CSG. And people decided, yeah, and under those circumstances, we decided to actually agree on the UNIDROIT principles. In the third arbitration I was even the other party, I was counsel and the defendant proposed the UNIDROIT principles instead of the chosen Chinese law. And we said, okay, okay, we agree it's not so much at stake, not so huge figures. So basically, everybody wanted to resolve this efficiently. And from an ex-post perspective today, I know today, which I didn't know then, that about 47.6% or so, according to some statistics of Chinese contract law, is based on the UNIDROIT principles. So basically, in a nutshell, the UNIDROIT principles are general principles of law and really neutral, and this is why we found out we could agree. We had three days in Switzerland. They gave us three days. I had, of course, an English solicitor on the team, who is today a well-known barrister in London, and we analyzed from the civil and common law perspective, and really, in the end, it's not the law that matters. In the end, in that case, it was a case of damages. It's more about quantum, how you convince the arbitrator. It's the facts that count. No llaw gives you any amount. In the English approach, you have this Harley versus Baxendale approach. Is it too remote? That's a test. In French, the test is, is it foreseeable? And from a German perspective, is it adequate? Yeah, the link between the causation and the harm. So whatever it is, you need to convince the arbitrators. So we decided to accept that offer from the Arbitral Tribunal. Andrew: Excellent. Well, I mean, obviously, this was your first experience or exposure to the principles. And this was some 20, 25 years ago. Tell us a little bit more about what you've been doing. I mean, you've remained engaged with these principles, literally, ever since. And you're known in this space for that and written commentary on it and a very readable book that's in its second edition now. What keeps you interested in the principles? I mean, how much time do you spend in the principles in your day-to-day these days, as opposed to working on either German law or other applicable laws? I mean, how much time do you spend and how much in the arbitration, how much in transactions? How is it in your daily practice? Eckart: It has always been there. Since 2004, we won this arbitration and the Asian client was so happy that we reinvested all the money which he earned from a foreign state who was on the other side. And we settled in the end and got part in cash and part in satellite rights. So I made a lot of transponder lease contracts under the UNIDROIT principles in different countries, in East Europe, in France, in Germany, in Asia, in the Caribbean. So I got to start working with them. And it's easy. I mean, they are not longer than a normal complex English contract, I think 26 pages or so, if you read all the 211 principles, they're an easy read, they're deliberately written as general rules, and in English, including famous professors like Professor Farnsworth from America, Roy Goode from England, so a number of famous brains, and brains around the globe, but they're easy to read, easy to understand. Andrew: They certainly are. I mean, I was lucky to be in Hamburg, as you know, your invitation for the 30th anniversary of the principles this year. And the sort of roundtables that we were doing was illustrating that they're easy to understand, easy to get hold of. And, you know, they are being used. Maybe you could tell us a little bit more about who's using them, the reasons for using them, for those who may be listening who might have heard of the UNIDROIT principles but have never actually had any practical experience of them. Eckart: Before I do so, may I tell you this episode from Rome. When I wrote this commentary, which you meant, an article-by-article commentary on the UNIDROIT principles, when it was written, the manuscript, I gave it to a friend from Harvard to read, a businessman. He said, I want you to once read it. Is it really understandable to help out whether it's fine? And he came back. He read on the long-distance flight to Hong Kong and back and s