May 17, 2012

Arbitration and Mediation Clauses: Helpful Tools for Managing International Disputes

At a time when companies and individuals find themselves making difficult decisions about how to allocate their legal dollars when a dispute arises, it is important to remember alternatives to traditional litigation, such as arbitration and mediation. This is particularly true when disputes arise in the international context. In our increasingly global economy, U.S. companies face numerous challenges when conducting business abroad, including intellectual property and tax issues, contract enforceability and changing political environments that influence legislation. These issues—and many others—can give rise to international disputes. The important question for U.S. companies is how to level the playing field so as to avoid bias, unfamiliar court procedures and delays in rulings far greater than those we might expect at home. 

One way to level the playing field is to provide for arbitration (and possibly mediation) in all contracts. A key benefit of this approach is that arbitration clauses can be tailored (in the beginning of the relationship) to meet the needs of both parties—including establishing when the arbitration will take place, where it will take place, parameters for discovery and motion practice, and when the arbitration decision must be made.

There are many options when it comes to choosing the appropriate forum for international arbitration. Many of these administrative bodies can also suggest appropriate language for arbitration clauses that can be used in contracts. Here are a few of the most noteworthy:

In addition to an arbitration clause, U.S. companies should consider inserting a mediation clause into their international contracts to provide for a step before arbitration. Such a clause can include (1) which entity, if any, will administer the mediation, (2) where it will take place (ideally somewhere neutral and convenient for both parties) and (3) a time frame within which the mediation must be completed after one party to the dispute makes a written demand for mediation. For any number of reasons, parties to a dispute may need resolution in a much shorter time frame than traditional litigation can provide. Given how long it can take for a dispute to make its way through the court systems in most jurisdictions, the parties simply may not have the time to wait.

The bottom line is that U.S. companies must be prepared in advance for disputes arising out of their international business relationships. Going to court in the United States is difficult enough. Trying to resolve a dispute on foreign soil has additional layers of complications. 

© 2012 Much Shelist, P.C.

About the Author

Principal

Edward D. Shapiro focuses his practice on the efficient prevention, management and resolution of disputes for commercial entities, organizations and individuals. Serving as Chair of the firm's Litigation & Dispute Resolution practice group, Ed advises and represents clients in state and federal court, before administrative agencies, and in mediation and arbitration in a full range of business matters.

312-521-2421

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.