This article presents a study of the so-called 'unilateral' ('optional', 'hybrid') jurisdiction clauses combining arbitration and choice of court options, which business tends to favour as such clauses seek to designate a method of dispute resolution that provides a more favourable position for one of the parties to an agreement and ensure better enforcement against a debtor's assets. However, there are a growing number of jurisdictions where courts have issued decisions that declare such clauses either invalid or as having a significant defect. This study makes a review of both common law and continental jurisdictions and focuses particularly on a number of decisions issued recently in continental jurisdictions making an assessment of the arguments that are typically employed by courts in order to find that a unilateral clause is invalid. Finally, this study proposes a method of interpretation of unilateral jurisdiction clauses which favours their validity or, where there is a significant defect, proposes partial invalidity and severance instead of invalidity of the entire clause.
Situations in which the respondent in international arbitral proceedings is declared insolvent in its jurisdiction of incorporation while the arbitration is still pending are not uncommon. They raise a number of choice of law issues both in terms of substantive and procedural law. While the roots of arbitration lie in party autonomy, insolvency laws are often comprised of mandatory rules protecting the interests of different classes of stakeholders. This article attempts to devise an abstract model of the various choice of law and characterzation problems regarding the cross-border effect of the insolvency and provide reasoned options and solutions for the arbitral tribunal faced with the interaction between insolvency and pending arbitration proceedings. It is suggested that it is part of the arbitrators’ duty to render an enforceable award to consider cautiously the effects of insolvency, especially if there is a risk of a clash with the mandatory framework of insolvency either at the seat of the arbitration or the likely place of enforcement of the award. The arguments are tested against recent case law of various national courts having reviewed the conflicts between arbitration and insolvency.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.