News 11 Oct. 2023
Curtis Team Instrumental in Shareholder Approval of a New Multilateral Treaty to Transform Pan-African Housing Finance Institution Shelter Afrique into a Development Bank
more
Event 23 Aug. 2023
Partner Borzu Sabahi Speaks at the 52nd IDRI Professional Accreditation & Membership Programme
Event 18 Aug. 2023
Partner Borzu Sabahi Speaks at FDI Moot Shenzhen
News 25 Jul. 2023
Partner Eric Gilioli Ranked in Top 10 Influential Energy & Natural Resources Lawyers in Kazakhstan in Business Today
Article 22 Aug. 2023
Fuad Zarbiyev Publishes Article in Journal of International Economic Law
Client Alert 14 Aug. 2023
The EU’s Market in Crypto Assets (MiCA) Regulation: The Highlights
Event 22 Aug. 2023
Partner Dr. Claudia Frutos-Peterson to Speak at Arbitration and ADR Commission of the ICC Mexico
Event 11 Jul. 2023
Partner Elisa Botero Speaks on the Role of the ICC in Investment Disputes
News 15 Aug. 2023
Legal Reader Publishes Article on Dr. Majed Alotaibi’s Arrival as Senior Counsel in Curtis’ Riyadh Office
News 31 Jul. 2023
Curtis Welcomes Senior Saudi Advisor, Dr. Majed Alotaibi, to its Riyadh Office
News 24 Aug. 2023
Curtis Attorneys Quoted in CoinDesk on FTX Founder Sam Bankman-Fried’s Strategy Ahead of His Criminal Trial
News 06 Mar. 2023
Russia Sanctions at the First Anniversary: An Overview of Current Sanctions in the US, UK, and EU and How Global Companies Can Navigate Evolving and Conflicting Sanctions Regimes
Client Alert 30 Aug. 2022
The EU Adopts the “Maintenance and Alignment” Sanctions Package
Client Alert 24 Jun. 2021
Update on Virtual Notarization (Executive Order 202.7) During the COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Pandemic (Updated: June 24, 2021) — U.S. Insight
Update on Virtual Witnessing (New York Executive Order 202.14) During The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Pandemic (Updated: June 24, 2021) — U.S. Insight
Article 05 Feb. 2020
Arbitration.ru
“OPPORTUNITY IS A COMBINATION OF CHANCE AND CHOICE”. INTERVIEW WITH PETER М. WOLRICH, PARTNER OF CURTIS, MALLET-PREVOST, COLT & MOSLE LLP, PARIS
By Dmitry Artyukhov, Arbitration.ru Editor-in-chief
Below is an excerpt from the interview with Arbitration.ru. Please refer to the attachment for the complete interview.
Peter M. Wolrich is one of the leading arbitration lawyers in the world. Born in the U.S., he represented numerous European and Asian countries in complex and lengthy investor-states arbitration proceedings. Peter works in Paris, but occasionally visits Russia as well and took part in American Bar Association conference held in Moscow this September. We talk with Peter about his legal career, the Central Asia, complex cases and his philosophy that has driven him through over 40 years of his work in arbitration.
This year you came to Moscow for the ABA conference hosted together with RAA and spoke on a panel on bifurcation in international arbitration. Why did you choose this particular topic?
Bifurcation is an important and multi-faceted issue that needs to be considered when setting up a time and cost efficient arbitral procedure. However, it is a topic that is rarely dealt with in arbitration conferences. I thought it was time to bring it to the fore, and the Moscow ABA/RАA Conference was an excellent venue in which to do so.
In your long career in arbitration, what particular challenges of bifurcation have you come across as a counsel or arbitrator?
Bifurcation, of course, occurs when certain issues are broken out for early determination by the arbitral tribunal in a partial award. Some issues such as jurisdiction, capacity, arbitrability or the application of the statute of limitations could dispose of the entire arbitration. Other issues such as the applicable law, the meaning of a contractual provision or the determination of a key fact in dispute may narrow or simplify the remaining issues to be decided or may encourage settlement. As an example, in one arbitration in which I was sitting as an arbitrator there was an issue as to whether the law of country X or the law of country Y was applicable to the dispute. We considered that it would be inefficient to require the parties to plead their case alternatively under two different legal systems. In addition, the laws of country X allowed for consequential damages and the laws of country Y did not. One of Claimant’s largest claims was for consequential damages. As a result, the tribunal, at the request of Claimant, decided to bifurcate the applicable law issue and decide it upfront in a partial award.
International Arbitration
Commercial Disputes - Arbitration
Peter M. Wolrich
Partner
Paris
+33 1 42 68 72 00
News 29 Nov. 2023
Partner Dr. Alexandra G. Maier Wins the 2024 Lexology Client Choice Award for the Mining Experts Category
Event 29 Nov. 2023
London Partner Luciana Ricart to Speak at Annual Conference of the Society of British and Argentine Lawyers
Event 28 Nov. 2023
Partners Claudia Frutos-Peterson and Borzu Sabahi Participated in Washington Arbitration Week 2023
We use cookies on our website to enhance your browsing experience, match your interests and assess our website performance. We do not share information with any third-party for marketing purposes. Please view our privacy policy to learn more about the use of cookies on our website. By continuing to browse our website, you consent to our use of cookies.