Dominance of English and American Laws in International Corporate Law

choi

International commercial law | Exorbitant Privilege. American and English law and lawyers have a stranglehold on cross-border business. That may not last. Economist, May 10, 2014. www.economist.com/news/internati ... border-business-may

“Almost two-thirds of litigants in English commercial courts are foreign.

“Dependence on American and British law firms makes it harder for dealmakers to move from New York and London to Hong Kong or Frankfurt. Britain’s government describes lawyers as ‘central to the export of other professional services’ such as accounting, asset management and banking.

But the incumbents’ [to wit, US and UK] biggest advantage is that they have common-law systems with centuries of binding precedent. That means they offer as much certainty as any jurisdiction can. In civil-law countries such as France, Portugal and Spain, and their ex-colonies, judges have wide latitude to interpret statutes, increasing the risk of nasty legal surprises. Common law also permits almost any terms in a contract. Civil systems place more restrictions on acceptable clauses, and often consider the interests of third parties, such as workers or consumers.

“ The immediate threat to American and British law comes from a trend [of using arbitration instead, in Paris, Stockholm, Hong Kong and recently, Singapore] that dispenses with courts altogether.


Note:
(a) In 2012 ICBC bought four-fifths of the Argentine subsidiary of Standard Bank, a South African firm. “ICBC was represented by Linklaters, an English firm, and Standard Bank by Jones Day, an American one. The deal was made under English law, with any differences to be settled in an English arbitration centre.”

Linklaters
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linklaters
(a multinational law firm headquartered in London; founded in 1838 [with John Linklater as a co-founder])

(b) “A global survey by Queen Mary University in London in 2010 of general counsels and legal-department heads found that 40% most frequently did business using English law and another 22% American, generally the law of New York state. No other country’s law got a significant share.”

Queen Mary University of London
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Mary_University_of_London
(public; a constituent college of the federal University of London)

(c) “Among the most successful [nations to offer arbitrations] is Singapore, whose dedicated arbitration venue, SIAC, opened in 1991. Singapore’s government exempts arbitrators from income tax and expedites entry for participants in hearings. * * * English law remains prevalent in Asian arbitration, accounting for 32% of cases at SIAC (most of the rest are under Singaporean law and involve at least one local party). * * * [In contrast] Britain authorities often fail to provide timely visas for parties, experts or witnesses.”

SIAC = Singapore International Arbitration Centre
www.siac.org.sg
(established in 1991 as a not for profit non-government organisation)