November 29, 2021

How New York Courts Provide Broad Support to Parties Engaged in International Arbitration and Litigation

November 29, 2021/ Ruchelman P.L.L.C.

Why is an international tax journal addressing the broad scope of remedies available to parties in foreign litigation or arbitration? The reason is simple. Clients enter transactions, transactions blow-up, and parties sue or can be sued. Even if the parties, the contract, or the dispute at issue have little or no connection to New York, potential documents, assets, or witnesses may be located within the State. If so, New York courts can provide tools (i) to obtain broad information vital to a pending foreign proceeding, (ii) to attach assets to secure an ultimate recovery or incentivize settlement, or (iii) to enforce final judgments or awards, including seizure of assets and other post-judgment remedies. These are important tools to a litigator. Dan J. Schulman, a commercial litigator based in New York, explains all. He has over 35 years of experience managing complex commercial litigations, arbitrations, and appeals in New York, and shares the tools that are available to parties in a litigation.

January 15, 2015

B.E.P.S. Action 14: Make Dispute Resolution Mechanisms More Effective

January 15, 2015/ Web Developer

Read Publication

INTRODUCTION

The O.E.C.D. has continued to publish discussion drafts under its 15-part action plan (the “B.E.P.S. Action Plan”) for combatting base erosion and profit shifting (“B.E.P.S.”), with Action 14 being the most unique.

Action 14, entitled “Make Dispute Resolution Mechanisms More Effective,” provides as follows:

Develop solutions to address obstacles that prevent countries from solving treaty-related disputes under MAP, including the absence of arbitration provisions in most treaties and the fact that access to MAP and arbitration may be denied in certain cases.

While most components of the B.E.P.S. Action Plan address the problems caused by base erosion and profit shifting, the recently proposed discussion draft for Action 14 (“Discussion Draft” or “Draft”) addresses the mutual agreement procedures (“M.A.P.”) used to resolve treaty-related disputes. Action 14 addresses the current obstacles faced by taxpayers seeking M.A.P. relief to avoid economic double taxation and provides suggestions as to how to revise provisions in order to improve the integration of M.A.P. dispute resolution mechanisms. The O.E.C.D. describes it as a unique opportunity to overcome traditional obstacles and to provide effective relief through M.A.P. The Discussion Draft proposes complementary solutions that are intended to have a practical and measurable impact, rather than merely providing additional guidance which may not be followed.