“Drastic changes arising from Brexit are a given,” according to Roger Alford of the University of Notre Dame Law School. A year after the 2016 referendum, we report an event in London on whether investment treaty claims against the UK over its withdrawal from the European Union would succeed.
The scenario is without precedent, though “legitimate expectation” cases against Argentina, Spain and Cyprus may provide guidance. Is the chance of success greater where the government has given specific legal assurances that the investor’s business will not be affected by the “great divorce”? Or are claims stymied because of the general, non-discriminatory nature of Brexit which will hit domestic investors too?
The fall-out from Brexit is not the only major political change sending waves through the international arbitration community. On 1 June, President Donald Trump announced that the US will withdraw from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Practitioners such as Wendy Miles QC and Catherine Amirfar of Debevoise & Plimpton have told GAR that Trump’s decision – like Brexit – could trigger treaty claims against the US as well as a reduction in the country’s soft power on the international stage.
Change of course also brings opportunity. As parties increasingly rely on third-party funding for arbitration, Peter Griffin of Slaney Advisors, Pierre Pic and Raphaël Kaminsky of Teynier Pic and independent practitioner Aurelie Huet see scope for a new line of business. Already, they say there is demand for specialised lawyers who are as familiar with finance law as with international arbitration to advise on funding arrangements and connected issues and help parties avoid pitfalls.
M&A arbitration is another practice area that is ripe with opportunity. Following a worldwide resurgence in M&A deals in 2016, we report on a conference in Warsaw where Stephen Jagusch QC, head of international arbitration at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, explained why this is a “sexy” area for specialism.
Finally, we include coverage of a recent GAR Live in Stockholm, where delegates discussed problems associated with opening statements, how to create certainty around legal privilege, and the benefits and dangers of a new summary dismissal procedure introduced by the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce.
In this magazine:
- Could Brexit trigger investment claims?
- America first, environment second
- Dawn of a new legal specialism: Financial investment in arbitration
- Cauldrons of mistrust
- The sexy world of M&A arbitration
GAR Live Stockholm
- Making the most of opening statements
- White & Case partner calls for privilege rethink
- “Bonkers” or necessary? The summary dismissal debate
- Dark and light mood music in investor-state arbitration
- Is it time to end confidentiality by default?
- Double recovery discussed at Columbia
- Blair’s two-step test for illegally obtained evidence
- Vienna event looks at how to take wind from critics’ sails
- UNCITRAL follows leader to Cameroon for 50th anniversary