ISDA修订关于衍生品纠纷仲裁指南，扩大示范性仲裁条款适用范围

    国际互换和衍生工具协会（ISDA）与广泛的利害关系人磋商之后，修订了其仲裁指南（2013年首发），该指南中包含一个为当事人的衍生品交易规定仲裁框架的解释性备忘录，也包含对1992年ISDA主要条款和2002年ISDA主要条款等选择性示范性仲裁条款，可以将示范性条款放于新的主条款中，也可以在修改ISDA主条款时纳入其中。

指南请见：

https://www.isda.org/a/5kDME/ISDA-2018-Arbitration-Guide.pdf

新版指南只进行了部分修订，它反应了2013年仲裁指南首次问世以来仲裁领域的发展，如紧急仲裁制度的广泛适用，以及早期驳回索赔和抗辩的可能性。

如下所述，仲裁的许多程序特征可能对衍生品交易各方有吸引力。此外，在衍生品纠纷中，特别是在合同中列入仲裁条款时，当事人需要考量的因素。

正如 ICC在一份关于金融机构和国际仲裁的报告中所言，作为衍生品合同争议解决方法之一，特别是在进入交易衍生品市场的参与者变得更加多样化的情况下，仲裁一直在稳步发展。长久以来，ISDA对仲裁的支持，可能会促进衍生品市场的交易当事人选择仲裁，并促进将可行的仲裁条款纳入ISDA主协议和相关合同。

指南修订的主要内容

（1） 示范性仲裁条款及起草

为进一步回应在咨询期间提出的意见，新版指南中涵盖了下列其他机构的示范条款：SCC规则（斯德哥尔摩）、DIS规则（法兰克福）、DIFC-LCIA规则（迪拜）和VIAC规则（维也纳）。其他条款中保留了（ICC规则、AAA-ICDR规则、HKIAC规则、SIAC规则、瑞士规则，以及P.R.I.M.E金融规则。还起草了一些条款，以便在适用法律方面作出特别选择。ISDA的处理办法为缔约方提供了大量资料，以助于它们起草文书，而不偏袒任何一个机构或仲裁地。

考虑到英国脱欧，指南中包含一个ISDA拟定的仲裁地在都柏林的LCIA规则条款，适用爱尔兰法的主协议，以及用于国际伊斯兰金融市场Tahawwut主协议和适用法国法的ISDA2002年ISDA主协议的交叉引用条款

除示范条款外，指南中还重点列出了当事人希望在示范条款中增加或修改的事项，例如增加关于下列事项的规定：关于证据开示范围的证明事项；多方当事人纠纷以及保密性。

（2）国际仲裁的发展

国际各国际仲裁机构关于仲裁管理规则的修改，反应了对国际仲裁领域的发展，对指南作了以下修订：

简易裁决：值得一提的是，最近在一些机构的仲裁规则中增加了一项条款，授权仲裁庭适用简易程序驳回不合理的索赔请求或抗辩，可能会在早期驳回某些关于衍生品的索赔请求，（例如，在ISDA主协议相关的衍生品合同终止后，一方明显地欠对方一笔钱的争议）。然而，如指南所述，简易程序会影响正当程序权利，因此申请方必须有确切的证明应立即驳回索赔。因此，被申请人可以提出有争议的复杂论点来抗辩。这对于法院的简易判决申请也同样适用，正如ISDA所言，有时会夸大法院适用简易判决的可能性。

多方当事人和多方协议:本指南的一大亮点是修订了关于多方当事人和多方协议的章节，明确在ISDA主协议下发生的交易可能涉及非ISDA主协议的各方，且不受仲裁协议的约束。虽然修订后的指南更清楚地阐明了本节的内容，但我们亦注意到，在多方当事人及多份合约的情况下，可能需要专家意见，以确保所有有关当事人均受仲裁协议的约束，并使有关协议下的争议得以一并解决。

（3）与衍生品交易有关的仲裁的主要特点

可在这里找到关于在财务纠纷中适用仲裁的详细讨论，与解决衍生品纠纷有关的仲裁的显著特征包括:

当事人选任仲裁员:允许当事人选择具有复杂金融产品交易经验以及知悉ISDA文件的仲裁庭；

当事人指定专家：在高端的衍生品纠纷中，对于当事人来说，国家的诉讼程序中不会以此种方式提供专家证据，这是一个相当大的优势；

根据1958年《纽约公约》在159个司法管辖区执行国际仲裁裁决：在衍生品市场向新兴市场司法管辖区参与者扩张的背景下，需要便于执行。此外，仲裁裁决的相互执行不受英国脱欧的影响。

（4）在考虑仲裁时，衍生品市场的各方当事人也会考虑的其他事项

影响法院审判进程的保密问题：衍生品市场的一些参与者可能担心，由于争议的私人仲裁，有关解释ISDA主协议的重要判例法（特别是在普通法司法管辖区）可能不会公开。可从宏观层面感受到其影响，因为公共机构关于ISDA中与Master相关问题的同一判例有利于裁决的确定性，而在微观层面，涉案的多方当事人中有同样的争议。如果有这样的问题，各方当事人可以在仲裁协议中约定同意公开裁决（包括以简要的方式）。P.R.I.M.E.金融规则中有此规定。

裁决的利息和币种：熟悉某一国家法院的做法的当事人可能会进一步考虑仲裁庭在有关利息和货币裁决方面自由裁量权的幅度。这两个因素都会对仲裁的最终结果产生重大影响。此外，双方可能会在订立衍生品合约（及仲裁协议）时，就仲裁庭在此问题上的职权范围达成协议。

 【英文原文】

   Derivatives Disputes: ISDA revises Arbitration Guide, expanding the model arbitration clauses

The International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) has revised its Guide to Arbitration (the Guide). First published in 2013, after considerable stakeholder consultation, the Guide includes an explanatory memorandum which provides an overview of arbitration for parties to derivatives transactions, and includes a broad choice of model arbitration clauses (and guidance notes) for use with both the ISDA 1992 Master Agreement and the ISDA 2002 Master Agreement.  The model clauses can be included in new Master Agreements or can be included when amending an ISDA Master Agreement.

The new version of the Guide is best described as an enhancement, rather than a wholesale revision. It reflects developments in the field of arbitration since the Guide was first launched in 2013, such as the increasing availability of emergency arbitration, and the possibility of early dismissal of claims and defences.  The Guide also now features model arbitration clauses for various additional institutions, including the German Arbitration Institute (DIS) Rules clause to which Herbert Smith Freehills contributed (see here for further information).

As discussed below, arbitration offers a number of procedural features which may be attractive to parties to derivative transactions.  Further, there are certain considerations relevant inderivatives disputes in particular which the parties may wish to bear in mindwhen including an arbitration clause in their contractual documents.

As the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) confirmed in a report on Financial Institutions and International Arbitration, arbitration has been steadily growing as a chosen method of dispute resolution in derivatives contracts, particularly as the participants entering the market of traded derivatives become more diverse (see here for further information).  ISDA’s continued support for arbitration is likely to encourage parties in the derivatives market to consider arbitration for their transactions and to facilitate the inclusion of workable arbitration clauses in ISDA Master Agreements and related contracts.

Summary: Changes to the Guide

a) Model arbitration clauses anddrafting

Further to feedback during a period of consultation, the new Guide includes model clauses for the following additional institutions: Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) Rules (Stockholm seat); DIS Rules (Frankfurt seat); Dubai International Finance Centre – London Court of International Arbitration (DIFC-LCIA) Rules (DIFC seat); and Vienna International Arbitration Centre (VIAC) Rules (Vienna seat). The other clauses remain (ICC Rules, London, Paris or New York seat; LCIA Rules, London seat; American Arbitration Association – International Centre for Dispute Resolution (AAA-ICDR) Rules, New York seat; Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) Rules, Hong Kong seat;Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) Rules, Singapore seat,Swiss Rules, Zurich or Geneva seat), and P.R.I.M.E. Finance Rules, London, New York or the Hague seat).  A number of the clauses are also drafted to be used with a particular choice of governing law. ISDA’s approach provides parties with a considerable amount of information to assist them in their drafting, without ISDA favouring any one institution or seat of arbitration over another.

The Guide also now includes an LCIA Rules clause with a Dublin seat for use with the Irish-law governed Master Agreement developed by ISDA in the context of Brexit, as well as a cross reference to clauses intended to be used with the ISDA/International Islamic Financial Market Tahawwut Master Agreement and the ISDA 2002 Master Agreement that is governed by French law.

In addition to the model clauses, the Guide highlights a list of matters which parties may wish to add or modify in the model clauses, such as to add provisions on: evidential matters as to the scope of document production; multi-party disputes; and confidentiality.

b) Developments in arbitration

The Guide has been updated to refer to a number of developments in the field of international arbitration, some of which are reflected in changes to the administrative rules of various international arbitration institutions.

Summary judgment: Of particular interest is the more recent addition in some of the institutional arbitration rules of a provision empowering the tribunal to dismiss unmeritorious claims or defences on a summary basis.  Some derivatives claims may lend themselves to early dismissal (for example, where it is undisputed that a party owes sums following termination of an ISDA Master-related derivative contract). However, as is noted in the Guide, summary procedures can affect due process rights and therefore the applicant must overcome a very high hurdle to demonstrate that the claim should be dismissed summarily. A defendant may therefore be able to defeat the application by raising complex arguments of dubious merit.  The same consideration applies to summary judgment applications in the courts and, as ISDA points out, the possibility of obtaining summary judgment in the courts may at times be over-stated.

Multiple parties and multiple agreements: The Guide features a revised section on multiple partiesand multiple agreements, recognising that transactions that take place under an ISDA Master Agreement may involve parties which are not party to that ISDA Master Agreement and may not be bound by the arbitration agreement therein. Whilst the revisions introduce more clarity to this section of the Guide,it is noted that specialist advice may be required in multi-party and multi-contract scenarios to ensure that all relevant parties are bound to an arbitration agreement and to enable disputes under related agreements to be resolved together.

Key aspects of arbitration relevant to derivatives transactions

A detailed discussion of the use of arbitration in the context of financial disputes can be found here. The salient features of arbitration relevant to the resolution of derivatives disputes include:

§  Party-nomination of arbitrators: allowing parties to select a tribunal with, for example,experience in transactions involving complex financial products, and a working knowledge of ISDA documentation;

§  Use of party-appointed experts: in highly technical derivatives disputes the parties may regard this as a considerable advantage over any national court process which does not feature expert evidence in this way; and

§  Enforcement of international arbitration awards in 159 jurisdictions under the New York Convention 1958: the relative ease of enforcement is relevant in the context of the expansion of the derivatives market to participants in emerging market jurisdictions. Further, reciprocal enforcement of arbitration awards is unaffected by Brexit.

There are other points on which parties in the derivatives market may wish to reflect when considering arbitration,including:

§  Privacy affecting the development of jurisprudence: some participants in the derivatives market may be concerned that, due to the private arbitration of disputes,important case law on the interpretation of the ISDA Master Agreements relevant in particular in common law jurisdictions may not be publicly available. The implications could be felt on a macro level in the sense that a public body of consistent case law on ISDA Master-related issues contributes to certainty, and on a micro level in situations where the same party has disputes with multiple unrelated parties concerning the same issue.  If this is a concern, parties may agree in their arbitration agreement to the publication of awards (including in a redacted way).  Such a consideration is reflected in the P.R.I.M.E. Finance Rules.

§  Interest and the currency of the award: parties who are familiar with the approach of a particular national court may wish to reflect further on the breadth of the tribunal’s discretion with regard to both the award of interest and the currency in which the award is made. Both of these factors can make a material difference to the net outcome of an arbitration. Again, the parties may wish to reach an agreement as to the scope of the tribunal’s powers on these issues at the time the derivatives contract (and arbitration agreement) is concluded.

By Nicholas Peacock

                                                                                                               来源：微信公众号 临时仲裁ADA