Romania: Stock standard
A new arbitration system will radically overhaul the way the capital markets in Romania are regulated The Bucharest Stock Exchange (BSE), the operator of the regulated securities market, has set up the Arbitration Court of the Bucharest Stock Exchange (BSEAC). It is governed by the 2006 procedure rules, which are approved by the regulatory authority, the National Securities Commission.
September 24, 2008 at 09:04 PM
5 minute read
A new arbitration system will radically overhaul the way the capital markets in Romania are regulated
The Bucharest Stock Exchange (BSE), the operator of the regulated securities market, has set up the Arbitration Court of the Bucharest Stock Exchange (BSEAC).
It is governed by the 2006 procedure rules, which are approved by the regulatory authority, the National Securities Commission.
Competence of the BSEAC
The BSEAC is a permanent arbitration body for the settlement of disputes resulting from operations carried out on the regulated markets and the alternative trading system operated by the BSE.
They arbitrate when such disputes arise between:
- participants of the BSE trading system and issuers of financial instruments admitted to trading on the regulated markets operated by the BSE;
- issuers of financial instruments admitted to trading on the regulated markets operated by BSE;
- intermediaries, their agents, their clients and employers, resulting from BSE market operations or operations on different markets.
The competence of the BSEAC is not exclusive. The Court of International Commercial Arbitration, which is attached to the Court of Commerce and Industry of Romania, is a well-known alternative.
Arbitration agreement
The parties to a dispute may submit a claim to the BSEAC for arbitration if there is an arbitration clause agreed under the contract existing between such parties; or the parties agree to arbitrate once the dispute has occurred.
The agreement to arbitrate (either in the form of an arbitration clause or a separate agreement) has to be in writing as a condition of validity.
The validity of the arbitration clause is independent of the validity of the contract in which the arbitration clause is included.
Arbitral tribunal
The arbitral tribunal has the authority to rule on its own competence to decide the case.
Should there be no contrary provision in the arbitration clause or in the agreement to arbitrate, it is deemed that the parties will accept the procedure rules applicable to the arbitration by the BSEAC.
Disputes submitted to arbitration by the BSEAC are to be heard and decided by a panel of three arbitrators, or by a sole arbitrator, if the parties so agree.
In the case of a three-member panel, each party shall nominate one member of the panel and one replacement from among the persons recorded on the published list of arbitrators of the BSEAC. The two members nominated by the parties shall nominate the third arbitrator, who will also chair the arbitration panel.
Should one of the parties fail to nominate an arbitrator, or the two arbitrators fail to agree on the person to chair the panel, the claimant may request the chairman of the BSE Arbitral court to proceed with the nomination.
The arbitrator may be recused if their independence or impartiality is called into question.
The party that nominated the respective arbitrator may request their recusal only for causes subsequent to their nomination.
Arbitration proceedings
The request for arbitration has to be filed in writing, identifying the parties, indicating the arbitration clause or agreement, the subject matter and claimed value. De facto and de jure grounds for each of the claims must also be submitted, along with documents and evidence in support, and details of the nominated arbitrator.
The respondent has a 30-day term to submit a statement of defence. Any counter-claims may be filed either with the statement of defence or separately, up until the first hearing of the case.
Once the arbitral tribunal is constituted, the file shall be transmitted to the tribunal (or the sole arbitrator).
Any motion regarding the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement, the constitution of the tribunal, the limits of the arbitrators' competence or the proceedings, may be raised until the first hearing, unless a shorter term has been set by the tribunal. In addition, any written evidence must be submitted by the date of the hearing.
Arbitral decision
The arbitral tribunal has to pass its decision within five months of being selected, unless the parties involved have agreed otherwise.
The tribunal's decision should be based on the main contract, the relevant legal provision, and the prevailing commercial practice. Should the parties expressly agree, the arbitral tribunal may resolve the dispute on the basis of ex aequo et bono – in other words, what is fair and equitable in the case at hand.
The arbitral decision communicated to the parties has the effect of a final court judgment.
The decision may be challenged in court on the basis of several grounds strictly provided by the law. These grounds include scenarios in which the dispute should not have been resolved through arbitration (only private law matters may be submitted to arbitration), and where the arbitral tribunal has decided on the case in the absence of an arbitration clause.
The parties may not waive their right to challenge the arbitral decision until after it has been passed.
Cristina Metea is a partner with Tuca Zbarcea & Asociatii.This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllKMPG Moves to Provide Legal Services in the US—Now All Eyes Are on Its Big Four Peers
International Arbitration: Key Developments of 2024 and Emerging Trends for 2025
4 minute readThe Quiet Revolution: Private Equity’s Calculated Push Into Law Firms
5 minute read'Almost Impossible'?: Squire Challenge to Sanctions Spotlights Difficulty of Getting Off Administration's List
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
- 2On the Move and After Hours: Meyner and Landis; Cooper Levenson; Ogletree Deakins; Saiber
- 3State Budget Proposal Includes More Money for Courts—for Now
- 4$5 Million Settlement Reached With Stone Academy
- 5$15K Family Vacation Turned 'Colossal Nightmare': Lawsuit Filed Against Vail Ski Resorts
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250