Disclosure Restrictions in International Arbitration: Whose Confidentiality Is It Anyway?
In their International Litigation column, Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky discuss the various way that parties to international arbitrations may be restricted by law and institutional rules, as well as their own agreements, in the use they may of make of awards and other information emanating from their proceedings. They suggest that careful consideration be given before accepting general rules that may limit later use or access to such material.
January 26, 2022 at 12:15 PM
11 minute read
One of the aspects of international arbitration that is much discussed in published commentaries is the confidentiality of arbitral proceedings—what it consists of, the extent to which it is or should be imposed, by whom, and who should be affected. In this article, we explore the extent to which parties may be advertently or inadvertently bound by confidentiality restrictions limiting their present or subsequent disclosure of information, including awards, from arbitration proceedings in which they are involved.
Over the past several decades, more and more major international disputes have been resolved through arbitration. It is likely that, earlier, such disputes would have been heard in courts, resolved through negotiation or even not pursued all. Businesses and investors have been drawn to international arbitration as a way of avoiding local courts and their unfamiliar procedures and influences, and replacing them with tribunals whose members they have had a hand in selecting. But they are also reported to have been drawn to arbitration for reasons of the privacy and confidentiality of the proceedings, which the parties may prefer over the wide-open process in U.S. and other courts, where case filings may be available electronically and hearings are presumptively can be open to the public. Although court proceedings in some other countries do not partake of this kind of openness, judgments in civil cases are generally available to the public and, most importantly, the parties are not legally restricted as to what they may communicate to others concerning the proceedings (in most circumstances).
The meaning of confidentiality in international arbitration varies. Institutional rules generally provide that hearings are private, excluding nonparticipating persons and that the deliberations of arbitrators are kept secret. Also, the rules of administering institutions invariably include provisions that restrict their administrative staff and the arbitrators from disclosing information concerning proceedings and their outcome.
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 AllWhen It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
8 minute readFrom ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute readDeposing Former Mayor Bill de Blasio; Misrepresentations To Induce Investment: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
- 2'It Refreshes Me': King & Spalding Privacy Leader Doubles as Equestrian Champ
- 3Class Action Filed Against Houston Health Savings Account Firm for Allegedly Confiscating Client Funds
- 4These 2 Lawyers Just Became Florida Judges
- 5'Disease-Causing Bacteria': Colgate and Tom’s of Maine Face Toothpaste Class Action
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