Haircut undone? The Greek drama and prospects for investment arbitration

As a result of the sovereign debt crisis that engulfed Europe in 2010, investors are much more likely to pursue dispute resolution options when faced with losses. This paper seeks to examine the position of investors who suffered losses in the Greek haircut of 2012 in the context of investment treaty arbitration. The paper evaluates arguments that investments in Greek sovereign bonds have been expropriated by the introduction of retrofit CACs and that compensation is payable as a result of the protections offered by BITs. The paper investigates whether sovereign bonds come within the definition of protected investment in BITs, assesses the degree to which CACs act as a jurisdictional bar to investor-state claims and attempts an evaluation of whether claims could be successful. The analysis uses as an illustration recent cases brought against Greece at ICSID. The paper concludes by considering whether the Greek haircut was expropriatory and reflects on the possible outcome of current arbitrations.

Can you seek security for costs in international arbitration in Australia

International arbitrations can be conducted under either federal or State legislation in Australia. In both cases complexities arise in the resolution of procedural questions, such as whether security for costs can be granted. There is scant Australian case law on such issues. This article considers whether an arbitral tribunal or a court has the power [*2] to order security for costs in an international arbitration in Australia. After analysing Australia's international arbitration laws and discussing New Zealand and House of Lords' authority, it is argued that unless the parties have specifically empowered the arbitral tribunal to order security for costs, only the relevant court has that power, and even that is uncertain.

Enforcement of arbitral awards where the seat of the arbitration is Australia, how the Eisenwerk decision might still be a sleeping assassin

This article examines the enforcement of foreign awards in Australia. It identifies and explains the difference between a “foreign award” and “international arbitration award,” observing it is a somewhat surprising but potentially significant distinction. The article then moves to consider the consequences of the distinction with particular reference to the Australian arbitral landscape. Australia has dual arbitration regimes operating at the state and federal level. Particular attention is given to the still controversial Queensland Supreme Court of Appeal decision in Australian Granites Ltd. v. Eisenwerk Hensel Bayreyth Dipl-Ing Burkhardt GmbH. The article concludes by promoting a line of interpretation that will effectively allow subsequent courts to avoid the potentially disastrous effects the Eisenwerk decision may yet still wreak.

Can you seek security for costs in international arbitration in Australia?

International arbitrations can be conducted under either federal or State legislation in Australia. In both cases complexities arise in the resolution of procedural questions, such as whether security for costs can be granted. There is scant Australian case law on such issues. This article considers whether an arbitral tribunal or a court has the power [*2] to order security for costs in an international arbitration in Australia. After analysing Australia's international arbitration laws and discussing New Zealand and House of Lords' authority, it is argued that unless the parties have specifically empowered the arbitral tribunal to order security for costs, only the relevant court has that power, and even that is uncertain.

Australian conditions imposed in stay of foreign arbitration matter

In Walter Rau Neusser Oel Und Fett AG v Cross Pacific Trading Ltd, the construction of arbitration clauses and the operation of s.7 of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) were considered - scope of the arbitration issue, mandatory stay issue and discretionary stay issue were examined.