COVID-19 and Technology in International Arbitration
Arbitration centers have witnessed a significant increase in the use of virtual hearing services.
November 19, 2021 at 02:20 PM
8 minute read
The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the adoption of technology in international arbitration, especially in the form of virtual or hybrid hearings. Initially, some parties opted to postpone and reschedule in-person evidentiary hearings hoping that the pandemic would be short-lived. However, with continued lockdowns and international travel restrictions, it soon became evident that fully-remote proceedings were unavoidable during the pandemic.
Arbitration institutions swiftly prepared guidance and adapted their rules to accommodate virtual hearings during the pandemic. In April 2020, the ICC published its Guidance Note on Possible Measures Aimed at Mitigating the Effects of the Pandemic, clarifying that Article 25(2) of the ICC Rules, which provides that the tribunal "shall hear the parties together in person," does not preclude a "hearing taking place 'in person' by virtual means." ICC Guidance, Art. 23. In May 2020, HKIAC issued Guidelines for Virtual Hearings. In June 2020, the Vienna International Arbitration Centre released the "Vienna Protocol—A Practical Checklist for Remote Hearings." In August 2020, the LCIA released an update to its LCIA Arbitration Rules, specifically allowing for any hearing to be held virtually. LCIA Arbitration Rules 2020, Art. 19.2.
In addition, arbitral institutions adopted different video-conferencing and technology platforms to facilitate virtual hearings. For example, the ICC has licensed access to Microsoft Teams, Vidyocloud, and Skype for Business. ICC Guidance, Art. 32. The SIAC collaborates with Maxwell Chambers' Virtual ADR service. SIAC COVID-19 Frequently Asked Questions. ICSID uses Cisco's Webex video conferencing platform. ICSID, Virtual Hearings. The IDRC partners with OPUS2 to deliver virtual hearings. OPUS2, The IDRC in collaboration With OPUS2.
This content has been archived.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
© 2024 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 AllArt of the Settlement: Trump Attorney Reveals Strategy in ABC Lawsuit
Evolving Legal Standards to Combat Disqualification of Arbitrators for Failing to Disclose Conflicts of Interest
8 minute readCourt of Appeals Holds that Arbitration Agreements Can Be Formed Through ‘Clickwrap’ Process
8 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
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