Arbitration Agreement Bank

At the surface level, it may seem that the apparent choice is to retain your right to participate in class actions, regardless of the circumstances. But new Jersey lawyer Martin P. Schrama Erbantskanzlei Stark-Stark says it is not always cut and dried, and that sometimes a particular situation, perhaps a dispute between a cardholder and a bank over a relatively small amount of money, may be the most appropriate for arbitration. In addition, for a number of reasons, arbitration tends to cost less than traditional long-term litigation. For example, even if the parties to the arbitration proceedings come to the table with their own legal representation, the cost of that representation tends to be lower than that of an average remedy in a relatively short proceeding. Arbitration clauses have become more and more frequent – which are everywhere, from credit card contracts to employment contracts. The concern for the ability of the courts to deal with complex disputes has led to the creation of an international financial conflict centre: P.R.I.M.E. Finance.4 This headquarters in The Hague was launched on 16 January 2012. The Centre provides mediation, arbitration and other dispute resolution services to the financial sector and has its own arbitration rules that have been tailored to the needs of financial markets. It also has its own jury of experts and arbitrators – which includes representatives of mature and developing markets, traders and end-users, legal experts and market experts. Experts are available to resolve disputes or provide expertise for the good of arbitrators and judges in other forums. There are drawbacks in choosing DerSchieds and an awareness is needed to make a fully informed choice.

What types of bank disputes are appropriate for arbitration? Banks are increasingly faced with counterparties in emerging countries and public institutions. These parties may not be happy that the disputes are referred to the English or New York courts, but they may require dispute resolution to take place in places that are more comfortable for them – and the banks may not want the disputes to be referred to the local courts of the counter-enterprise. International arbitration offers neutrality because it allows the parties to choose a neutral “seat” or place of arbitration (see below for a discussion of this concept of law) and the parties can also ensure that the composition of the tribunal is neutral. With respect to the concern that many national courts may not have the expertise to deal with complex financial products, conciliation also has the advantage of allowing the parties to choose arbitrators and, if they wish, to choose an arbitrator with industry experience and knowledge or financial product. Another advantage, particularly for economically sensitive sectors such as advice and work in the area of AM, is the confidentiality and confidentiality of arbitration procedures. Unlike court proceedings, arbitration is not public and the parties may agree that the award and documents presented in the arbitration proceedings must be confidential (if the rules of procedure or applicable laws on this matter remain silent). Other perceived benefits are the procedural flexibility offered by arbitration; the ability to adapt procedures to the needs of the parties is attractive.


Comments are closed.