Enforcement Strategy Starts Early: Choosing the Seat of the Arbitration - WAMR 2014 Vol. 8, No. 4
Author(s):
Mark E. Feldman
Fedelma Claire Smith
Jack J. Coe Jr.
Claudia T. Salomon
Ank A.P.P. Santens
Page Count:
22 pages
Media Description:
1 PDF Download
Published:
February, 2015
Jurisdictions:
Description:
Originally From World Arbitration and Mediation Review (WAMR)
Preview Page
I. MOCK SCENARIO
Baobao East Africa (BEA), a joint venture incorporated in
Talindi, a rapidly developing country in eastern Africa, is
negotiating a concession agreement with Talindi’s Department of
Transportation. Under the agreement, BEA would construct a
new airport terminal in Talindi in exchange for revenues that
would be collected by BEA over a 30-year concession period.
Baobao Inc., based in Beijing, holds a majority interest in the joint
venture.
Baobao Inc.’s in-house counsel and outside counsel are
meeting to discuss options for certain dispute settlement
provisions that will be included in the concession agreement.
Counsel began discussing alternatives for a provision that will
select – in the event a dispute arising from the concession
agreement is submitted to arbitration – the arbitral seat. A
private investigator also participates in the discussion.
The two outside counsel bring different perspectives to the
discussion. One outside counsel recommends selecting London or
Paris as the seat, given that each city has an established track
record as an arbitration-friendly venue. The other outside
counsel would prefer Hong Kong, Singapore or Mauritius, which
combine an arbitration-friendly environment with the
convenience, for the disputing parties, of an Asian or African
location. The investigator notes that, based on prior research,
Talindi-owned enterprises located in Bahrain, India, and Miami
Talindi-owned enterprises located in Bahrain, India, and Miami