Is the introduction of international sanctions against a person sufficient to justify a move of the agreed dispute resolution forum to Russia? This has been a hot topic for discussion since June 2020. In JSC Uraltransmash v PESA (case No. А60-36897/2020) the Supreme Court has put an end to this debate.
On 9 December 2021, the Supreme Court issued its judgment where it unequivocally held that if international sanctions are introduced against an entity, the Russian courts will have jurisdiction to hear disputes where such an entity is a party. That will be the case notwithstanding a dispute resolution clause providing for a different forum. It is not necessary for the sanctioned entity to provide any evidence that the agreed dispute resolution clause is unenforceable due to “obstacles to access to justice” caused by sanctions. The mere fact that sanctions have been imposed is deemed sufficient to create obstacles for a sanctioned entity to access to justice: therefore, the sanctioned entity can simply submit to the jurisdiction of the Russian courts…
Read the complete story here.
In this round of Arbitration Tips-N-Tools, Professor Amy Schmitz asks some of the leading arbitration practitioners about executing an arbitration hearing, especially in a digital world and faced with the...
By Stacie Strong, Theo Cheng, Daniel Urbas, George Friedman, DeAndra Roaché, Amy SchmitzThe Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week in two of four cases involving arbitration it will review within a fortnight. We reported in December that the Supreme Court had...
By George FriedmanThis article first appeared on Securities Arbitration Alert, here. Years ago I penned a blog post on Thanksgiving and arbitration. It still rings true. So, without further ado, here’s my...
By George Friedman