Click cover to download

(Subscriber-only password access)

Not a subscriber?

Click here to join the FREE mailing list and receive password access

Disputes remain an unavoidable feature of the modern commercial landscape, but the environment in which they arise and are resolved is becoming increasingly complex. Economic uncertainty, geopolitical tensions, regulatory change and more sophisticated cross-border transactions are creating new sources of conflict for businesses operating internationally. For businesses, effective dispute resolution increasingly depends on careful preparation, procedural flexibility and a clear understanding of the wider commercial objectives at stake. Organisations that adopt a proactive approach will be better positioned to minimise disruption, control costs and achieve favourable outcomes.

UNITED STATES

Paul Hastings

“The challenges at the centre of commercial disputes in the US can differ depending on the venue and type of case. In many courts, crowded dockets can prevent swift adjudication and resolution of complex disputes. Discovery in complex commercial cases is time consuming and costly. Frequently, cases are set for trial repeatedly only to reset six months later. To a degree, specialised or business courts in certain states address these issues by providing more streamlined access and more certain trial dates.”

CANADA

McCarthy Tétrault

“Several market challenges are shaping disputes in Canada. The effects of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and related supply chain disruption continue to feature in large-scale infrastructure disputes. More recently, trade and supply chain volatility have created new risks on active projects. Tariffs and cross-border arrangements are driving uncertainty over price adjustments, force majeure relief and change-in-law provisions.”

ARGENTINA

Marval O’Farrell Mairal

“Argentina’s dispute landscape is being reshaped by two forces: the continuing effects of regulatory and economic change, and a new cycle of large-scale investment. Companies still face contract adjustment, pricing and risk-allocation issues, but the pipeline of potential disputes is changing. The Large Investment Incentive Regime is moving from legislation to implementation, with major projects approved across mining, oil and gas infrastructure.”

GERMANY

Morrison & Foerster LLP

“Economic headwinds, supply chain disruption and multiple energy crises have driven a rise in high-value, cross-border commercial disputes. These concern the automotive, industrial and energy sectors and regularly involve aspects of tariffs, export controls and sanctions. The respective disputes call for landmark decisions concerning force majeure and the frustration doctrine. At the same time, mass claims continue to dominate court dockets, from legacy cases connected to the diesel emissions scandal to newer data protection and consumer claims against large social media providers.”

ITALY

Hogan Lovells Cadwalader

“Following the expanded Italian class action regime under Law No. 31/2019, and the transposition of the EU Representative Actions Directive, corporate defendants face a growing volume of collective claims and injunctions, particularly in the automotive, online platform, banking and consumer credit sectors. At the same time, international armed conflicts, Red Sea instability and tariff uncertainty have caused significant supply chain disruption and sharp fluctuations in raw material costs, generating disputes over force majeure clauses, price revision mechanisms and contractual non-performance, especially in manufacturing, energy and agri-food.”

PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Beijing Dacheng Law Offices, LLP (Shanghai)

“China’s commercial disputes are currently developing along three main dimensions of diversification. First, traditional disputes remain persistently high. Against a backdrop of increasingly cautious investment and financing activity, cases involving breach of contract and tortious claims continue to run at elevated levels. Second, new categories of dispute are emerging with growing frequency.”

CONTRIBUTORS

Beijing Dacheng Law Offices, LLP (Shanghai)

Hogan Lovells Cadwalader

Marval O’Farrell Mairal

McCarthy Tétrault

Morrison & Foerster LLP

Paul Hastings