Tag Archives: arbitration

Case of the Day: In re Application of Grupo Unidos Por El Canal

The case of the day is In re Application of Grupo Unidos Por El Canal, S.A. (D. Colo. 2015). The Autoridad del Canal de Panama, the agency in charge of the Panama Canal, is in the course of an expansion of the canal to include a third set of locks. Grupo Unidos Por El Canal, one of the contractors engaged on the project, claims that ACP breached its contract with GUPC “by concealing and withholding critical information regarding the true nature of the existing conditions at the Project and the status of other aspects of the Panama Canal expansion.” GUPC demanded arbitration. As provided in the parties’ contract, the arbitration was held in Miami under the ICC Rules. The parties agreed that the arbitration was governed by the FAA, and they agreed that discovery in the arbitration was governed by the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration.
Continue reading Case of the Day: In re Application of Grupo Unidos Por El Canal

Case of the Day: Lombard-Knight v. Rainstorm Pictures

The case of the day is Lombard-Knight v. Rainstorm Pictures, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). Rainstorm was a California movie production company. It entered into two investment agreements with Fortnom & Co. SA, under which Fortnom was required to provide $300 million upon Rainstorm’s delivery to it of performance bonds. It turned out, according to the court, that “Fortnom was never formed and did not exist as a separate legal entity at the time the agreements were executed.” Oops! Both contracts were signed on Fortnom’s behalf by Anthony Lombard-Knight. Both agreements had arbitration clauses, and both contained the following provisions:
Continue reading Case of the Day: Lombard-Knight v. Rainstorm Pictures

Lago Agrio: The Dissent

Readers, I erroneously reported that one of the three arbitrators, Dr. Horacio A. Grigera Naón, had dissented without an opinion. In fact, he did write a brief note of dissent, which I simply hadn’t seen. I’m not going to review it in depth: in the main, the disagreement concerns how to interpret the earlier Ecuadoran precedents on how to distinguish individual from diffuse environmental claims.