Arbitrator Intelligence collects feedback regarding allegations of corruption raised in commercial and investment arbitrations from parties and counsel who participated in the proceedings.
Based on feedback received, allegations of corruption were most commonly raised in respect of jurisdiction and admissibility in investment cases, but as an affirmative defense against claims advanced in commercial cases.
Our feedback indicates that most corruption claims were founded on specific factual allegations. Overall, corruption allegations were raised more frequently in investment arbitrations.
Tribunals did not issue procedural orders in response to corruption allegations in any case for which Arbitrator Intelligence has received feedback. In 26% of such cases, tribunals granted document production or other requests for evidentiary measures to facilitate investigation of allegations of corruption.
The impact of corruption allegations on the duration of proceedings and deliberations in investment arbitrations was greater than in commercial arbitrations, with both proceedings and deliberations taking longer.
The way in which costs (other than lawyers’ fees) were awarded by tribunals did not differ significantly in cases where corruption allegations were raised. Tribunals most frequently allocated costs evenly between the parties, whether or not allegations of corruption were raised in the specific case.
Feedback that Arbitrator Intelligence has collected from parties and counsel demonstrates that tribunals awarded lawyers’ fees based on the relative merit of each party’s arguments much more frequently in cases where allegations of corruption were raised.
Do you have feedback to share on a recent arbitration in which you appeared as counsel?