Pinned locations on map of globe.
Andrew Stutesman, Unsplash

If arbitration filing statistics tell us anything, it’s where business activity and business disputes are headed. Recent filing trends at some of the world’s leading arbitral institutions show that international arbitration remains strong, even several years after the disruptions caused by COVID-19.

The latest numbers show that institutions in Asia continue to gain ground, reflecting broader shifts in global trade, investment, and cross-border business activity.

2025 Case Filings at Seven International Arbitral Institutions Reflect Growth

During the pandemic, many expected international dispute activity to slow significantly. Arbitration filings have generally remained steady and, in many cases, continued to increase.

This pattern is reflected in the below chart:

Sources
CIETAC   – http://www.cietac.org/index.php?m=Page&a=index&id=40&l=en
ICC           – https://iccwbo.org/media-wall/news-speeches/icc-unveils-preliminary-dispute-resolution-figures-for-2021/
SIAC         –  https://www.siac.org.sg/newsite/index.php/70-articles-publication/190-annual-report
ICDR        – https://www.adr.org/research 
LCIA         – https://www.lcia.org/lcia/reports.aspx
HKIAC      – https://www.hkiac.org/about-us/statistics
ICSID       – https://icsid.worldbank.org/resources/publications/icsid-caseload-statistics

The last several years have brought supply chain disruptions, inflation, geopolitical tensions, shifting regulatory requirements, and changing trade relationships. Those developments have created plenty of opportunities for commercial disputes.

For companies operating internationally, arbitration continues to offer many of the advantages it always has: neutrality, confidentiality, and the ability to enforce awards across jurisdictions.

CIETAC Continues to Lead the Pack

CIETAC’s filing numbers stand out. Its caseload now significantly exceeds that of the other major institutions included in the comparison and continues a trend that has been developing for several years.

China remains one of the world’s most important commercial markets, and companies doing business there are increasingly negotiating contractual provisions that call for disputes to be resolved through Chinese arbitral institutions.

For in-house counsel, that means CIETAC is increasingly a negotiated option. Even companies that have historically defaulted to ICC, LCIA, or ICDR clauses may find themselves agreeing to dissolve disputes through CIETAC.

 

Sources
CIETAC   – http://www.cietac.org/index.php?m=Page&a=index&id=40&l=en
ICC           – https://iccwbo.org/media-wall/news-speeches/icc-unveils-preliminary-dispute-resolution-figures-for-2021/
SIAC         –  https://www.siac.org.sg/newsite/index.php/70-articles-publication/190-annual-report
ICDR        – https://www.adr.org/research 
HKIAC      – https://www.hkiac.org/about-us/statistics
ICSID       – https://icsid.worldbank.org/resources/publications/icsid-caseload-statistics

Singapore’s Rise Continues

SIAC’s continued growth reflects its established role as a leading center for international dispute resolution.Strong judicial support, a business-friendly environment, and a reputation for efficiency have made it an increasingly attractive option for parties negotiating cross-border agreements.

Today, Singapore is no longer simply an alternative to London, Paris, or New York. In many transactions, it is one of the first venues being considered. That trend appears likely to continue as investment and trade throughout Asia remain strong.

The Traditional Players Aren’t Going Anywhere

None of this means that institutions such as the ICC, ICDR, LCIA, HKIAC, or ICSID are losing relevance.

Each continues to administer substantial caseloads and remains a trusted forum for resolving international disputes.

https://s3.pushplanet.com/users/197990a3c42a4fb6b17b939a4dcce1f5/uploads/011be8c7ef824f00ae67032d392fa77d/2025_ICDRInfographic.pdf

The ICDR’s 2025 statistics provide a useful reminder that North America remains a significant center for international dispute resolution. The institution reported 725 international arbitrations involving parties from 96 countries, with claims exceeding $5.6 billion.

Technology, construction, financial services, and energy disputes continue to feature prominently, reflecting the significant cross-border investment and commercial activity occurring in these sectors. For in-house counsel, these figures underscore that arbitration remains relevant across a wide range of industries not just traditional infrastructure projects.

As a result, the choice of arbitral institution has become increasingly strategic. Companies are paying closer attention to factors such as location, procedural efficiency, costs, industry expertise, as well as the enforceability concerns when deciding where disputes should be heard.

Looking Beyond the Numbers

The filing statistics also provide insight into broader business trends. The strongest growth is occurring in Asia. Not coincidentally, that is where many companies are expanding operations, investing capital, building supply chains, and forming new commercial relationships. Disputes tend to follow business activity. Arbitration filings often do too.

While much of the recent growth has occurred in Asia, cross-border business activity continues to expand throughout Latin America and the Caribbean as well. Miami has increasingly emerged as a gateway for companies operating across markets and a growing center for international dispute resolution.

U.S. Cities Continue to Grow as International Arbitration Venues

Cross-border business activity continues to expand throughout Latin America and the Caribbean as well. Miami has increasingly emerged as an important gateway for companies operating across these markets and remains a significant center for international dispute resolution. New York and Miami dominate the U.S. landscape for international arbitration. Miami has emerged as the second most active U.S. seat for international arbitration and the leading U.S. venue for disputes involving Latin America and the Caribbean. The ICDR’s published data shows Miami ranked second among all U.S. cities for international case filings.

Seyfarth’s recent expansion into Miami reflects the city’s growing role in international arbitration and cross-border business disputes. For companies with contracts in Brazil, Chile, Mexico, and elsewhere in Latin America, Miami increasingly offers the combination of legal infrastructure and geographic convenience. The firm’s Miami office, together with its Latin America practice, further enhances its ability to support clients involved in construction and infrastructure disputes throughout Latin America and the Caribbean.

Miraflores - Lima, Perú
Aarom Ore, Unsplash

Address
Auditorio UPC
Avenida General Felipe Salaverry 2255
San Isidro, Lima, Peru

Daniel Vielleville, a partner in Seyfarth’s Latin America practice based in the firm’s Miami office, will serve as a panelist on July 1, 2026, at the II AmCham Arbitration Forum 2026 in Lima, Peru— a premier international arbitration event convening leading practitioners from across the Americas.

Hosted by the Centro Internacional de Arbitraje AmCham Perú, the forum will bring together global thought leaders to discuss key developments shaping international arbitration, including procedural safeguards, geopolitical dynamics, and the evolving role of courts in cross-border disputes.

Daniel will participate in Panel 6: “Due Process, Right of Defense, and Judicial Oversight in International Arbitration,” where panelists will examine the balance between fairness and efficiency in arbitration proceedings, as well as emerging trends in judicial review of arbitral outcomes.

Based in Seyfarth’s Miami office, Daniel focuses on complex international disputes and arbitration matters across jurisdictions and industries. His participation underscores the depth of the firm’s Miami-based arbitration capabilities and Seyfarth’s continued engagement in global conversations shaping the future of dispute resolution.

For more information, click here.

Golden hour bathes Rome’s sea of domes and bell towers, stretching toward the horizon in warm haze.
Wyatt Simpson, Unsplash

At the DRBF International Conference held in Rome on May 14–15, 2026, leading construction and dispute resolution practitioners convened to examine many aspects of dispute boards as a dispute avoidance and resolution process on various projects throughout the world. I was asked to be part of a panel debating the following proposition: are dispute boards (DBs) fit for purpose on mega projects?

Framed as a structured debate around the motion “Dispute Boards Are Unfit for Mega Projects,” the session brought together experienced stakeholders from across the project lifecycle to test the limits of dispute boards in today’s most complex infrastructure environments. Our session leader and moderator, Paul Taggart, a long-time construction executive and experienced neutral, had conceived the idea for the session. My fellow debater on the antagonist side, arguing that the standard DB process is not the best fit for purpose on Mega Projects, was Marianne Ramey, an experienced and highly-respected expert on delay and disruption. The protagonist side was ably represented by two highly-experienced and respected DB practioners, Simon Longley and Graham Easton. It was truly an honor (and a pleasure) to serve on such a distinguished panel. In general, the debate touched on all of the points set out below:

The Unique Challenge of Mega Projects

Mega projects—generally defined as those exceeding USD 1 billion—present a set of characteristics that distinguish them from conventional construction projects. These include:

  • Multiple interdependent contracts and interfaces
  • Significant political, economic, and environmental exposure
  • High public visibility and stakeholder scrutiny
  • Complex and often imbalanced risk allocation structures

These factors create conditions in which disputes are more likely, more complex, and higher in value. They also introduce risks that originate outside the project’s contractual framework, including governance failures and external political pressures.

The Intended Role of Dispute Boards

Dispute boards were designed to address project disputes through real-time, embedded engagement. When implemented effectively, they provide:

  • Early identification and resolution of issues
  • Ongoing project oversight, including site visits and regular meetings
  • Neutral, expert determination of disputes
  • Rapid decisions intended to maintain project momentum

Modern practice emphasizes that dispute boards serve primarily as dispute avoidance mechanisms, with much of their work focused on informal guidance rather than formal rulings.

Evidence shared during the session indicated that projects with actively engaged boards can, in some instances, proceed with few or no formal disputes, underscoring the preventative value of early and consistent involvement.

Structural Challenges at Mega Project Scale

Despite their benefits, the session highlighted several recurring challenges that raise questions about the scalability of dispute boards.

Governance vs. Contractual Resolution

Dispute boards operate at the contractual level, while many of the root causes of mega project underperformance arise at the governance level—including unrealistic assumptions, weak oversight, and fragmented accountability.

Timing and Entrenchment

By the time disputes reach formal consideration, critical project decisions are often already entrenched. This limits the ability of dispute boards to meaningfully influence underlying project outcomes.

Procedural Formalization

Large, high-value disputes tend to drive DB processes toward increased formality, including:

  • Greater involvement of legal counsel and technical experts
  • Expanded evidentiary submissions
  • Hearing formats resembling arbitration

This evolution can erode the efficiency and speed that distinguish dispute boards from traditional dispute resolution processes.

Limits of Informality

The informal nature of dispute boards—often a key advantage—can also present risks in complex disputes, including:

  • Perceived inconsistencies in decision-making
  • Concerns regarding procedural rigor
  • Increased likelihood of challenges and escalation to arbitration or litigation

These pressures can undermine confidence in the process, particularly where the stakes are exceptionally high.

Why Dispute Boards Still Matter

Notwithstanding these challenges, the Rome discussion reinforced that dispute boards remain a critical component of effective dispute management when properly deployed.

Their effectiveness is strongest where:

  • Boards are appointed early, ideally at project inception
  • Parties actively engage in ongoing, informal dialogue
  • Dispute avoidance is prioritized over formal adjudication
  • Boards are integrated into the broader project governance framework

Importantly, many criticisms of dispute boards reflect an outdated view of their role as purely reactive adjudicators. In practice, modern DBs are increasingly proactive, embedded participants in project delivery.

The Mega Project Paradox

A notable theme emerging from the debate is the possibility that dispute boards may, in some cases, manage symptoms rather than resolve underlying causes.

By resolving disputes sufficiently to allow projects to continue, dispute boards may inadvertently enable projects with deeper governance or structural issues to persist longer than they otherwise would.

While not universally accepted, this perspective highlights an important limitation: dispute boards cannot substitute for sound project design, governance, and decision-making.

What Should Project Stakeholders Do Now?

The discussion in Rome makes clear that the relevant question is no longer whether to use dispute boards—but how to deploy them effectively on mega projects.

Stakeholders should consider the following:

  • Start with governance, not dispute resolution. Establish clear decision-making authority, accountability structures, and risk ownership before implementing dispute mechanisms.
  • Appoint dispute boards early—and use them proactively. Early engagement allows boards to identify and address issues before they escalate into formal disputes.
  • Design dispute board procedures for scale. Mega projects may require hybrid approaches that preserve flexibility while incorporating appropriate procedural safeguards.
  • Align risk allocation with project realities. Overly aggressive or imbalanced risk transfer increases the likelihood of disputes that no mechanism can efficiently resolve.
  • Plan for escalation. Recognize that some disputes will move beyond the board process and ensure that escalation pathways are clear, efficient, and enforceable.

Conclusion

The Rome session underscored that dispute boards remain a valuable tool in the delivery of complex infrastructure projects. However, their effectiveness on mega projects depends less on their presence and more on how they are integrated within the broader project ecosystem. The parties should discuss the possibility of new and innovative DB structured such as the possible use of one DB member solely as a mediator.

For project owners, contractors, and counsel, the implication is clear: dispute boards should be deployed as part of a comprehensive strategy that prioritizes governance, realistic planning, and collaborative project execution.

When aligned with these fundamentals, dispute boards can play a meaningful role in navigating the complexity and risk inherent in today’s largest and most challenging projects.

20260416_101146467_iOS

Cross-border wealth and estate planning have become increasingly important among high-net-worth families in the APAC region, particularly those with ties to Mainland China, Hong Kong, and the United States, as well as ties to offshore structures in the British Virgin Islands.  Often families will find themselves involved in complex interactions between civil law (China) and common law (Hong Kong, US and BVI) systems, differing inheritance rules, tax regimes, and enforcement challenges.

In view of this, on 16 April 2026, Seyfarth Shaw’s private wealth practice group hosted a focused seminar in Shanghai, in collaboration with the Hawaii Tax Institute, on the importance of estate planning.  The event took place at The Langham Hotel, Xintiandi, Shanghai and brought together more than 30 high-net-worth individuals, family office representatives, local service providers, bankers, and other professionals.

The seminar welcomed participants and speakers from Hong Kong (Ms. Ann Cooley and Mr. Jonathan Bok), the USA (Mr. Kurt Kawafuchi), and Shanghai (Ms. Yvonne Wang and Ms. Tina Geng), creating a rich, multinational dialogue on the complexities of managing and protecting wealth across borders, together with Seyfarth’s private wealth practitioners Wan Li and Karen Lam (Hong Kong) and Alan Yoshitake (Los Angeles).

Key Topics Explored

The speakers delivered practical and timely insights on several critical areas, including:

  • Cross-border estate planning – navigating the unique challenges faced by families with assets and connections in multiple jurisdictions.
  • Family office collaboration – how family offices can work effectively with advisors to align long-term goals and resolving disputes if arisen.
  • The importance of proactive estate planning – why high-net-worth families should act now rather than later to protect their legacy, especially with the implementation of the Common Reporting Standard (CRS) for the sharing of financial information between tax authorities of different countries.
  • Dispute prevention and resolution – strategies to minimize and manage family or beneficiary conflicts.
  • Private wealth investment considerations – current trends and considerations in structuring and managing investments in a volatile global environment.

The discussions were well-received, with attendees engaging actively and exchanging valuable perspectives throughout the day. The combination of international expertise and local market knowledge made the sessions particularly relevant for those with assets or interests spanning across Asia and the United States.

This event reflects Seyfarth Shaw’s ongoing commitment to supporting clients in the private wealth space with practical, cross-jurisdictional advice. As global tax rules, regulatory requirements, and family dynamics continue to evolve, such forums play an important role in helping families and their advisors stay ahead.

We would like to thank all speakers, our collaborating partners at the Hawaii Tax Institute, and every guest who joined us in Shanghai. We look forward to hosting more opportunities for meaningful dialogue in the future.

1773860097-2489-2674-lxb_photonXt5HtLmlgElxb_photo-
Kyle Glenn, Unsplash

Wednesday, April 22, 2026
11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Eastern
10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Central
9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. Mountain
8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Pacific
4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. GMT

REGISTER HERE

About the Program

For global organizations, managing whistleblowing programs across multiple jurisdictions is increasingly complex. With diverging obligations under US, UK, and EU laws, even well-intentioned policies can fall short — exposing companies to enforcement risk, employee claims, and reputational harm.

Join Seyfarth Shaw LLP for a live, interactive webinar designed specifically for in-house counsel and compliance professionals responsible for overseeing global ethics, investigations, and reporting frameworks. Through real-world examples and practical insights, our international team will explore how to develop a coordinated, compliant, and trusted approach to whistleblowing across borders.

Key takeaways:

  • Interpret and operationalize the key differences among US, UK, and EU whistleblowing regimes and identify potential risks posed by each jurisdiction
  • Manage internal investigations that meet multi-jurisdictional standards
  • Understand the impact of new whistleblower incentives in the UK and further enhancements made to the US whistleblower regime.
  • Implement a unified framework that enhances transparency, employee confidence, and regulatory compliance

Speakers

Matthew Banham, Partner, Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Ada Dolph, Partner, Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Sofia Bargellini, Partner, Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Sara Thomas Arano, Associate, Seyfarth Shaw LLP

REGISTER HERE

If you have any questions, please contact Sadie Jay at sjay@seyfarth.com and reference this event.

Learn more about our False Claims, Whistleblower, and Internal Investigations and White Collar Defense and Investigations practice.To comply with State CLE Requirements, CLE forms requesting credit in IL or CA must be received before the end of the month in which the program took place. Credit will not be issued for forms received after such date. For all other jurisdictions forms must be submitted within 10 business days of the program taking place or we will not be able to process the request.

Our live programming is accredited for CLE in CA, IL, and NY (for both newly admitted and experienced).  Credit will be applied as requested, but cannot be guaranteed for TX, NJ, GA, NC and WA. The following jurisdictions may accept reciprocal credit with our accredited states, and individuals can use the certificate they receive to gain CLE credit therein: AZ, AR, CT, HI and ME. For all other jurisdictions, a general certificate of attendance and the necessary materials will be issued that can be used for self-application. CLE decisions are made by each local board, and can take up to 12 weeks to process. If you have questions about jurisdictions, please email CLE@seyfarth.com.

Please note that programming under 60 minutes of CLE content is not eligible for credit in GA. programs that are not open to the public are not eligible for credit in NC.

Dar Es Salaam Port Harbour
Ali Mkumbwa, Unsplash

Volatile U.S. tariff announcements continue to affect international supply chains for U.S. construction projects. Although recent litigation has centered on the scope of presidential tariff authority rather than construction‑specific disputes, these decisions carry important implications for how parties structure risk in their contracts. In May 2025, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) struck down certain “Liberation Day” tariffs as exceeding presidential authority under IEEPA. A federal district court in Washington, D.C. likewise issued a preliminary injunction suspending related tariffs—though it later stayed its own order pending appeal. And the Supreme Court has agreed to review cases addressing the legal limits of IEEPA‑based tariffs.

While none of these developments arises from construction disputes, the themes they highlight—timing, statutory authority, and documentation—mirror the issues encountered when tariff conditions disrupt international procurement. The following strategies reflect practical steps U.S. project owners, contractors, and foreign suppliers can take to mitigate risk, drawing on drafting approaches now widely used across major construction forms, including—but not limited to—modified AIA agreements.

1. Strengthen Contract Provisions to Manage Tariff‑Driven Cost Escalation

Clarify Escalation and Cost‑Sharing Models

Many construction contracts include capped risk‑sharing structures to address material cost volatility. Contractors typically absorb cost increases up to a negotiated threshold—often 10–15%—after which owners share or assume the excess, subject to notice and documentation requirements. This remains one of the most balanced approaches to addressing tariff unpredictability.

Contracts also increasingly include pricing trigger ranges (commonly ±5–10%) requiring the parties to reassess pricing when material costs shift beyond agreed bands.

Use Precise, Timing‑Based Tariff Definitions

Construction contracts must also take into account tariff effective dates, specifying that tariff‑related relief applies only to tariffs enacted after the contract’s effective date.

Balance Escalation With Savings Provisions

Because some tariffs have been suspended or stayed pending appeal, well‑drafted contracts now include savings provisions requiring parties to share decreases in cost when tariff‑related prices fall. This symmetry promotes fairness and reduces disputes as markets stabilize.

2. Refine Risk Allocation Across Interlocking Contract Clauses

Tariff‑related risk is typically spread across multiple provisions—not just escalation clauses.

Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) Contingency Language

On GMP projects, contractors often negotiate the right to use contingency funds for tariff‑related cost increases. Owners typically limit such use to non‑contractor‑caused events. Clear drafting reduces later disagreement over whether contingency use was appropriate.

Buyout and Price‑Hold Requirements

Volatile tariff timing has led some subcontractors to resist long price‑hold periods. Contracts should address how design development, delayed notices to proceed, or owner‑driven sequencing changes affect suppliers’ pricing obligations.

Tailored Delay Provisions

Tariff‑driven procurement delays may be treated as excusable (but not necessarily compensable). Expressly identifying tariff‑related disruptions as potential causes of excusable delay promotes clarity without overreliance on force‑majeure provisions—which courts interpret narrowly.

3. Mitigate Procurement Exposure Through Early Planning and Supplier Engagement

International commentary notes that sudden tariff changes can significantly disrupt supply chains, especially in industries dependent on imported steel, aluminum, and specialty components. For construction projects with cross‑border material dependencies, the following steps can reduce exposure:

  • Early procurement or hedging to secure pricing before tariff changes.
  • Alternative or parallel sourcing to diversify suppliers in non‑impacted regions.
  • Structured supplier communication protocols to ensure early notice of tariff developments.
  • Rolling procurement schedules that help isolate tariff‑related impacts before full buyout.

4. Strengthen Documentation and Notice Practices

Tariff‑related litigation underscores the importance of detailed, contemporaneous records. Construction participants can adopt documentation discipline through:

  • Procurement records showing when quotes were obtained and how tariff timing affected pricing.
  • Supplier correspondence linking cost or schedule impacts to specific tariff enactments.
  • Documentation of mitigation efforts, including alternative sourcing and expedited procurement.
  • Separate cost‑tracking for tariff‑driven impacts versus general market inflation.

5. Incorporate Flexible Contractual Tools to Address Tariff Volatility

While tariffs may trigger broader cross‑border commercial disputes, construction stakeholders can still manage volatility by proactively incorporating flexible and well‑structured contractual tools, such as:

  • Predefined cost‑sharing thresholds tied to tariff‑driven cost increases.
  • Conditional pricing adjustments triggered by new or rescinded tariff actions.
  • Re‑pricing or termination rights in extreme circumstances.
  • Structured review procedures to evaluate tariff impacts collaboratively.

These tools help project participants respond to tariff changes constructively and maintain project momentum.

Conclusion

As courts continue evaluating the legality of recent U.S. tariff actions, construction stakeholders can seek to mitigate the risk of the politically weaponized tariffs through carefully coordinated contract drafting, proactive procurement planning, and robust documentation. By updating contract provisions to address tariff timing, escalation, savings, contingencies, and procurement delays, owners, contractors, and suppliers can manage politically driven tariff volatility with greater confidence and stability.

Lady Justice.
Tingey Injury Law Firm, Unsplash

We’ve previously written about the split among federal courts as to whether the agent of a non-U.S. country can waive that country’s immunity from suit under the U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act or “FSIA” (you can find our prior posts here and here). Briefly, in some U.S. federal courts (New York, Connecticut, or Vermont), if the plaintiff reasonably believed that the agent had authority to bind the foreign sovereign, i.e., “apparent authority,” that suffices to establish a waiver of immunity. In other U.S. federal courts (California, Texas, Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Louisiana, Mississippi, California, Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Montana), the foreign sovereign only waives immunity if the agent had actual authority; apparent authority is not good enough.

The D.C. Circuit may soon weigh in on which side of the divide it falls. At the very least, it will likely provide guidance on the minimum pleading standard that plaintiffs in the District of Columbia need to meet to overcome a motion to dismiss regarding an agent’s authority. That holding, in turn, could be important for FSIA litigations going forward, as many lawsuits against foreign sovereigns are brought in the District in the Columbia.

The D.C. Circuit appeal arises out of a decision last fall by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in a case involving the Republic of Iraq, Al Moumin v. Republic of Iraq.  The plaintiff alleged that Iraq’s then-Senior Vice President (and former Prime Minister) Nouri al-Maliki entered into a contract for the services for which she was owed a pension. The plaintiff contended that al-Maliki was authorized to act on behalf of Iraq, and that Iraq therefore engaged in “commercial activity” for which it is not immune from suit under the FSIA. Iraq contended, among other things, that the plaintiff failed in her complaint to allege that al-Maliki had the requisite authority to act on behalf of, or bind, Iraq.

The district court noted the split among courts on whether apparent or actual authority suffices. The court stated that, “at least at this point in the litigation,” it did not need to resolve the question. The district court reasoned that the plaintiff had alleged barely enough to meet the “actual authority” standard. The court noted that communications between al-Maliki and Iraq were not within plaintiff’s control, and it was plausible to think that “the Senior Vice President (and former Prime Minister) of Iraq had actual authority to bind Iraq.” The court stated that it would “stage proceedings” to allow the parties “to develop a more complete jurisdictional record before turning, if at all, to the merits.” In other words, the district court seems to intend to have the parties engage in discovery on the issue of al-Maliki’s authority before proceeding further with the case.

Iraq appealed the decision, filing its opening brief at the end of January. (The plaintiff also cross-appealed from the district court’s dismissal of a different part of her complaint).  Although interlocutory appeals are typically not permitted in U.S. federal courts, Iraq invoked the “collateral order” doctrine. Under that doctrine, litigants can immediately appeal an issue that: (1) the district court conclusively determined; (2) is important and completely separate from the merits of the case; and (3) would effectively be unreviewable following a final judgment in the action. (You can read more about the collateral order doctrine here). Iraq contends that the issue of its sovereign immunity falls within that doctrine. On the merits, Iraq argues, among other things, that the plaintiff failed to plead that al-Maliki was acting on behalf of Iraq (as opposed to on behalf of himself); that the plaintiff failed to adequately allege actual authority; and that the plaintiff failed to allege apparent authority or that apparent authority “is even a concept that exists under Iraqi agency law.” Iraq argues also that al-Maliki was merely a “deputy” to Iraq’s President and that the President of Iraq is, in turn, a largely ceremonial post. Thus, Iraq contends there was no basis for the district court to find even apparent authority. Iraq relies heavily on a 2021 decision from then-judge Ketanji Brown Jackson (now a U.S. Supreme Court justice), which we wrote about here. 

The plaintiff’s response brief is due at the end of February, and oral argument or a decision may be months away. Although the D.C. Circuit could side-step the actual authority versus apparent authority split like the district court did, it may at least provide additional guidance on FSIA plaintiffs’ pleading burden in future cases in the District of Columbia.

plexus net
Conny Schneider, Unsplash

Tuesday, November 11, 2025
6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Pacific
7:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Mountain
8:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. Central
9:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. Eastern
10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Hong Kong (Wednesday, November 12th)

Register Here

About the Program

On May 21, 2025, Hong Kong’s Legislative Council passed the Stablecoins Bill, establishing a regulatory framework for stablecoins – cryptocurrencies whose value is tied to an external asset or commodity. The Stablecoin Ordinance took effect on August 1, 2025, positioning Hong Kong as a leading hub for digital finance.

In the United States, President Donald Trump signed the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act) into law on July 18, 2025. This landmark legislation will begin transforming the traditional paper currency payment system into a digital economy, reshaping how market participants buy and sell goods and services.

Designed for legal, compliance, and financial professionals, the program will cover the following key topics in the virtual currency/crypto industry:

  • Market Movements & Volatility
  • Regulatory & Policy Shifts
  • Institutional Adoption & ETFs
  • Technology & Blockchain Innovations
  • DeFi & Stablecoins

Speakers

Gordon Peery, Partner, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Jing Li, Consultant, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Elsa Zhang, Founder & CEO, DECA Capital
Arthur Lam, Co-Founder & CEO, Negawatt Utility Limited
Carrie Law, CEO & Director, WOW IMPACT GROUP

Register Here

If you have any questions, please contact Andrew Shah at ashah@seyfarth.com and reference this event.

Learn more about our derivatives practice. 

To request CLE credit please fill out the attendance verification form here. To comply with State CLE Requirements, CLE forms requesting credit in IL or CA must be received before the end of the month in which the program took place. Credit will not be issued for forms received after such date. For all other jurisdictions forms must be submitted within 10 business days of the program taking place or we will not be able to process the request.

Our live programming is accredited for CLE in CA, IL, and NY (for both newly admitted and experienced).  Credit will be applied as requested, but cannot be guaranteed for TX, NJ, GA, NC and WA. The following jurisdictions may accept reciprocal credit with our accredited states, and individuals can use the certificate they receive to gain CLE credit therein: AZ, AR, CT, HI and ME. For all other jurisdictions, a general certificate of attendance and the necessary materials will be issued that can be used for self-application. CLE decisions are made by each local board, and can take up to 12 weeks to process. If you have questions about jurisdictions, please email CLE@seyfarth.com.

Please note that programming under 60 minutes of CLE content is not eligible for credit in GA. programs that are not open to the public are not eligible for credit in NC.

1757518612-2466-3181-lxb_photoFUVKEii8BpUlxb_photo-
Nguyen Phan Nam Anh, Unsplash

One of the earliest issues to decide on a hospitality renovation abroad – whether it’s a branded resort in Europe, a hotel in Asia, or a mixed-use property in Latin America – is the selection of the appropriate project contracts.  The design and construction contracts in wide use in the US are sometimes appropriate for adaptation for use abroad.

This was the focus of our recent webinar, Adapting Standard Construction Forms for Use in Overseas Hospitality Renovations. Below, we outline several of the most significant considerations that arise when U.S. forms cross international borders.

Standard Forms in Different Jurisdictions

In the United States, forms from the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and ConsensusDocs are the most widely used for construction projects, supported by a deep body of case law with respect to the AIA suite of contract forms.

Outside the U.S., however, other industry forms are available.  Examples include:

  • FIDIC – rarely used on hospitality projects unless part of a large-scale mixed-use development.
  • Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT) – the principal suite of construction contracts in the UK.
  • New Engineering Contract (NEC) – frequently employed for public sector projects.
  • Canadian Construction Documents Committee (CCDC) – consensus-based contracts common across Canada.

These forms reflect regional practices, risk allocations, and regulatory environments that may differ significantly from U.S. norms.

Areas of Divergence

Several key issues arise when adapting U.S. forms for international hospitality renovation projects:

  • Local Law Requirements: Employment rules, licensing laws, building codes, and anti-corruption statutes can impose obligations directly on owners. Financial security instruments also differ—bank guarantees are more common abroad than U.S.-style surety bonds.
  • Risk Allocation: The distribution of risk in U.S. forms does not always align with expectations overseas, where owners or contractors may bear greater responsibilities under local practice.
  • Dispute Resolution: Internationally, arbitration is the preferred forum for construction disputes. Institutions such as the ICC, LCIA, SIAC, and HKIAC are commonly chosen, as well as country-based arbitral tribunals, and awards are broadly enforceable under the New York Convention.

Conclusion

Standard forms such as AIA and ConsensusDocs provide a familiar starting point in the United States, but they do not automatically fit the needs of overseas hospitality projects. Understanding regional frameworks, legal requirements, and dispute resolution mechanisms is essential when renovating or developing properties abroad. Careful alignment of these elements can help ensure that projects proceed smoothly and that agreements are enforceable across borders.

1755803169-2461-1630-lxb_photopREq0ns_p_Elxb_photo-
Conny Schneider, Unsplash

Asia-Pacific
Wednesday, September 3, 2025
9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. Hong Kong and China Standard Time (UTC+8)
11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Australian Eastern Standard Time (UTC+10)

US
Tuesday, September 2, 2025
6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Pacific Time (UTC-7)

Please note: A recording of this presentation will be made available for those who cannot attend live.

Register Here

About the Program

This webinar will explain how historic new law will present business opportunities for market participants in two of the world’s largest economies.

On May 21, 2025, Hong Kong’s Legislative Council passed the Stablecoins Bill, establishing a regulatory framework for stablecoins – cryptocurrencies whose value is tied to an external asset or commodity. The Stablecoin Ordinance took effect on August 1, 2025, positioning Hong Kong as a leading hub for digital finance.

In the United States, President Donald Trump signed the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act) into law on July 18, 2025. This landmark legislation will begin transforming the traditional paper currency payment system into a digital economy, reshaping how market participants buy and sell goods and services.

Designed for legal, compliance, and financial professionals, the program will cover:

  • A primer on cryptocurrency with a focus on stablecoins, including new issuers, new uses, and the law that governs issuance and use;
  • Key features of the US GENIUS Act and the Hong Kong Stablecoin Ordinance;
  • Practical business implications for issuers, exchanges, institutional and retail investors, banks and competitors of banks, and the consumer; and
  • Emerging global trends, cross-border considerations, and predictions for future developments, along with guidance on how to prepare.

There will be an opportunity for questions following the presentation.

Speakers

Gordon Peery, Partner, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Jing Li, Consultant, Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Register Here

If you have any questions, please contact JoAnna Barbero at jbarbero@seyfarth.com and reference this event.To comply with State CLE Requirements, CLE forms requesting credit in IL or CA must be received before the end of the month in which the program took place. Credit will not be issued for forms received after such date. For all other jurisdictions forms must be submitted within 10 business days of the program taking place or we will not be able to process the request.

Our live programming is accredited for CLE in CA, IL, and NY (for both newly admitted and experienced). Credit will be applied as requested, but cannot be guaranteed for TX, NJ, GA, NC and WA. The following jurisdictions may accept reciprocal credit with our accredited states, and individuals can use the certificate they receive to gain CLE credit therein: AZ, AR, CT, HI and ME. For all other jurisdictions, a general certificate of attendance and the necessary materials will be issued that can be used for self-application. CLE decisions are made by each local board, and can take up to 12 weeks to process. If you have questions about jurisdictions, please email CLE@seyfarth.com.

Please note that programming under 60 minutes of CLE content is not eligible for credit in GA. programs that are not open to the public are not eligible for credit in NC.