Isda Master Agreement Arbitration
This is a somewhat controversial area, however, and some quarters continue to be concerned about the application of summary procedures in arbitration proceedings, as arbitrators` obligations to comply with ordinary procedures and the scope for arbitration on the basis of non-compliance with that obligation are called into question. There is a tension between this obligation and the need for arbitrators to use robustly the procedural tools at their disposal to meet the needs of the parties in resolving effective and effective disputes. There are other issues on which the parties in the derivatives market wish to reflect when considering arbitration procedures, including: As explained below, arbitration provides a set of procedural characteristics that may be attractive to parties to derivatives transactions. In addition, some considerations are relevant, particularly with respect to derivatives disputes, which the parties wish to take into account when incorporating a compromise clause into their contractual documents. Under an isda management contract, the parties can decide how to resolve potential disputes. Sometimes the parties choose the speed and privacy of the arbitration. At other times, the parties put in place a comprehensive dispute resolution process prior to the filing of disputes, which requires mutual negotiation and mediation before making an appeal in arbitration proceedings. When there is a dispute related to an ISDA master contract, investors have many opportunities for recovery. Sometimes the relationship between the parties leads to a duty of care or fiduciary loyalty. In other situations, an investor may be able to pursue claims of incapacity, fraud or other business practices in a FINRA arbitration proceeding.
3 In January and November 2011, ISDA consulted with its members in more than 180 countries who use the ISDA masteragrement on the general pros and cons of the arbitration agreement. To date, Section 13 (b) (i) of the 2002 ISDA Masteragrement provides for the exclusive jurisdiction of English or New York state courts, depending on whether the parties have declared that English or New York law is applicable. However, in practice, prior to the 2011 consultation, there were already cases where the parties had accepted the jurisdiction of an international tribunal to resolve disputes under the Captain`s Agreement. The 2013 guide currently contains IsDA arbitration clauses for the International Chamber of Commerce (London, Headquarters in New York and Paris), the London Court of International Arbitration (hereafter LCIA), the American Arbitration Association – International Centre for Disputes (New York Seat), the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (headquarters of Hong Kong Hong Kong), the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (hereinafter SIAC) and the Swiss Arbitration Rules (headquarters in Zurich and Geneva) and the rules of P.R.I.M.E. Finance New York and Hague). Among the current model clauses are the two choices of current New York law or English law.