In the recent case of Primeo Fund v Bank of Bermuda (Cayman) Ltd & Anor (Cayman Islands) [2021] UKPC 22, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (the “Board”) further clarified the scope of the reflective loss rule. This is the rule that exists under both English and Cayman Islands law which operates to prevent a shareholder recovering loss which reflects loss suffered by the company in which they are invested. The rule has long been the source of controversy and confusion. This decision of the Board provides some welcome clarification on two aspects of the rules, being the relevant time for determining whether the reflective loss rule should apply (the “Timing Issue”) and the definition of a ‘common wrongdoer’ for the purposes of the reflective loss rule (the “Common Wrongdoer Issue”). Primeo Fund (the appellant) was a Cayman Islands company in official liquidation. It made claims against its two former professional service providers R1 and R2 in relation to loss suffered by its direct investments into BLMIS, the vehicle by which Bernard Madoff carried out his Ponzi scheme. The appeal to the Privy Council from the Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands concerned the operation of the reflective loss rule in company law. The parties were agreed that Cayman Islands law in this aspect was the same as English law. Nature of the Reflective Loss Rule The Board considered the UK Supreme Court’s recent majority judgment in Marex Financial Ltd v Sevilleja (All Party Parliamentary Group on Fair Business Banking intervening) [2020] UKSC 31 as a starting point. It restated the law in Marex that the reflective...

Singapore has overtaken London as the “global upstart” of international arbitration and is well-placed to deal with the emerging technology trends in dispute resolution, according to observers. In the latest White & Case and Queen Mary University of London 2021 International Arbitration Survey, Singapore tied with London as the most popular seat of arbitration, ahead of Hong Kong, Paris and Geneva. Given that the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) has only existed for 30 years, its meteoric rise is an “amazing achievement”, said 39 Essex Chambers barrister Karen Gough. “London has been a hub for international trade for centuries and a global center for arbitration. But while London has an excellent reputation – not least because of its legal infrastructure and facilities to accommodate arbitration hearings – there have been no new developments lately to encourage arbitration in London,” she said. London’s institutional rules were formed a long time ago. For example, the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) was established in 1982 while the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) began in 1919 and its rules first published in 1922. On the other hand, SIAC’s arbitration rules were produced in 1991 and are now in their sixth edition. These rules are, as with all things Singaporean, leading the way with an inclusion of provisions embracing recent legal developments and the practice of international commercial arbitration. The Singaporean courts are also well equipped to deal with arbitration matters, Gough said.   As Singapore’s arbitration environment continues to upgrade both its technological and procedural systems, it will be in a good spot to fix some lagging inefficiencies in arbitration. National University of Singapore...

On 26 August, 2020, the Standing Committee of the Sixth People’s Congress of Shenzhen Municipality reviewed and approved The Provisions on the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration, which came into force on 1 October, 2020. This made the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (SCIA) the first arbitration institution in China to be regulated by legislation approved by the local people’s congress. As the first arbitration institution in the world to implement the statutory body governance mechanism, the SCIA has carried out the statutory body reform since 2012 and established a Council-centered corporate governance structure, with an international Council standing as the decision body of the SCIA The Provisions is intended to continuously promote institutional innovation under the framework of the Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China, and is also an important measure taken by the SCIA to build an independent, impartial and innovative international arbitration institution. The Provisions are divided into seven chapters. These include the General Provisions, the Council, the Executive Body, Rules and Panels, Management of Finance and Human Resources, Supervision Mechanism and Supplementary Provisions and comprise 37 articles in total. Major contents and institutional innovations include: 1. Establishing a long-term corporate governance system: the SCIA will adopt a council-based corporate governance system to achieve organic unity of decision-making, execution and supervision. This will eliminate the parties’ doubts about local protection, administrative intervention and insider control of the arbitration institution and other aspects. 2. Promoting the structure of the Council and arbitrators in line with international standards: at least one third of the Council members or the arbitrators engaged by the SCIA in the panels...