THE AUTHORS<\/strong>: THE EDITORS<\/strong>: On 11 September 2024, Young Miami International Arbitration Society<\/a> (MIAS) launched its first in-person event of the season with the support of the Madrid International Arbitration Center \u2013 Ibero-American Arbitration Center (CIAM-CIAR)<\/a>, Canal Arbitraje<\/a>, the Spanish Arbitration Club (Club Espa\u00f1ol e Iberoamericano del Arbitraje, CEIA)<\/a>, the Instituto Espa\u00f1ol de Comercio Exterior (ICEX)<\/a>, ICC<\/a> Spain, Ciarb<\/a> Iberia, Jus Mundi<\/a>, Arbitration Channel<\/a> and the Hispanic National Bar Association<\/a> (HNBA).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Held simultaneously in Miami (Hughes Hubbard and Reed<\/strong><\/a>) and in Madrid (G\u00f3mez Aceboy y Pombo<\/strong><\/a>), the panel “Transatlantic Perspectives Miami-Madrid: Hubs of Influence<\/em>” was hosted to celebrate the close relationship between the two cities and explore the synergies between the two key markets in the international arbitration field.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Presenting the cultural and macroeconomic backdrop of the panel, Munia El Harti Alonso<\/a> (Chair of the International Relations Committee of Young MIAS, Independent Practitioner) and Natalia Jaramillo <\/a>(Chair of the Substantive Participation Committee, Associate, White & Case<\/strong><\/a>) mentioned in their opening remarks that over the past decade, the US and Spain have strengthened their bilateral relations, aiming to leverage their strategic positions as bridges between the United States, Europe, and Latin America. Historically, Spanish companies have viewed Latin America as a natural terrain for international expansion. However, in the last decade, they have increasingly sought to redirect their investments into the United States<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n They were joined by esteemed professionals such as D. Javier Yraola Burgos (Economic and Commercial Counselor of the Embassy of Spain and Director of ICEX in Miami); Katharine Men\u00e9ndez de la Cuesta<\/a> (Partner, Holland & Knight<\/strong><\/a>); Luis L\u00f3pez Alonso (Partner, G\u00f3mez Acebo y Pombo<\/strong>)<\/a> ; Ana Lombard\u00eda (Director, AAA-ICDR<\/strong><\/a>); Bernardo Cremades Jr<\/a> (Socio, Cremades y Asociados<\/strong><\/a>); Brian Vaca<\/a> <\/strong> (Senior Associate, Hughes Hubbard & Reed<\/strong><\/a> in Miami and Washington); and Patricia Saiz<\/a> (Independent Arbitrator, Member of the ICC International Court of Arbitration and Professor at Esade).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The in-depth discussions and comparative analyses across both jurisdictions focused on the following key topics:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Javier Yraola Burgos<\/strong> elucidated the growing relationship between the United States<\/a> and Spain<\/a>, noting that Miami has emerged as a prominent hub for Spanish companies, particularly those originally based in Madrid. He explained that the establishment of Spanish companies in Florida, especially in Miami, is due to the fact that, outside of Europe, the U.S. is Spain’s:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thus, making it Spain’s principal direct investment partner outside of Europe. He also took the opportunity to reiterate the importance of ICEX in supporting the internationalization of Spanish companies in the U.S., doing so by providing information on exports, establishment, and direct investments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Katharine Menendez de la Cuesta<\/strong> emphasized the crucial role of law firms in advising Spanish companies entering the U.S. on structuring, establishing presence, addressing concerns, and protecting their interests in disputes. As a result, attorneys, whether American or Spanish, establish networks with each other to address these challenges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n She further mentioned the importance of verifying whether American and Spanish companies are safeguarded by an investment treaty. The role of legal counsel being, in such a case, to determine whether investments are covered by applicable investment treaties between both Nations and whether fair and equitable treatment exists for local and foreign companies alike. Bearing in mind the importance of consulting the Office of Foreign Assets Control <\/a>(OFAC) and the requirement necessary for arbitrators to arbitrate sanctioned parties (such as Venezuela and Cuba, two important trade partners for Spain currently under U.S. sanctions).<\/p>\n\n\n\n While protection is important, she stressed the critical nature of avoiding litigation in local courts. Spanish companies often face challenges due to differences between the U.S. and Spanish legal systems, with litigation in the U.S. being significantly more costly. This is the reason why International Arbitration becomes significant, serving as a vital, neutral dispute resolution mechanism under international treaties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ana Lombard\u00eda Villalba<\/strong> emphasized Florida’s emergence as a key hub for international arbitration with Miami ranking just below New York given the recent influx of its arbitration cases. The rising of Florida – and Miami in particular – as a hub can be explained by the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Luis L\u00f3pez Alonso <\/strong>emphasized that, as demonstrated by recent decisions from Spain\u2019s Constitutional Court, Madrid has firmly established itself as a significant hub for International Arbitration. The Court, by ruling that annulments must be based on specific legal grounds rather than broad claims of Public Policy violation, has significantly restricted the national courts\u2019 ability to annul arbitral awards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition, recent statistics show significant growth in arbitration within key institutions in Madrid. This is explained by the use of Spanish in arbitration which offers clear advantages, including cost savings (avoiding translations), quicker proceedings and enhances cultural alignment in disputes involving Latin America.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bernardo Cremades Jr.<\/strong> highlighted that the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)incorporates grounds for refusal of the recognition of awards in accordance with the New York<\/a> and Panama <\/a>Conventions, with judges typically interpreting these exceptions narrowly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Brian Vaca<\/strong> further explained that the limited grounds for annulment under Section 10 of the FAA are crucial because they enhance predictability and legal certainty for parties selecting Miami as their arbitration seat. In addition, according to the limited criteria of Chapter 1 of the FAA, only the court of the seat of arbitration can set aside an award in comparison to the New York Convention<\/a> which refers exclusively to recognition and enforcement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Brian Vaca also discussed the significance of the Hidroel\u00e9ctrica v. AIC and Novacom<\/em>, Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 13 April 2023<\/a>, which clarified the distinction between the grounds for<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the matter of forum non conveniens<\/em>, Bernardo Cremades Jr. mentioned that it is considered a procedural issue before U.S. courts and is guided by three main factors:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bernardo Cremades Jr. further underlined the divergence in the application of forum non-conveniens<\/em> among U.S. appellate courts. Some courts,<\/a> have applied said doctrine in cases where an essential norm of the dispute is linked to the national sovereignty of another State, while others, such as the D.C. Circuit, have consistently rejected its application in enforcing foreign arbitral awards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This divergence is illustrated in Monde Re v. Ukragazprom<\/em>, Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 15 November 2002<\/a>,where the court stated that forum non conveniens<\/em> is a limited exception based on the inherent power of courts to manage their own affairs for orderly and expedient resolution. The court dismissed the recognition request, determining that the case required extensive and complex proceedings better suited for another forum. The same approach was followed in Figueiredo Ferraz E Engenharia de Projeto Ltda. v. Republic of Peru, 09-3925 (2d Cir. 2011). In contrast, in TMR v. SPF<\/em>, Opinion of United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuits, 17 June 2005<\/a>, the court asserted that the New York Convention does not permit such discretionary dismissals.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n This panel highlighted the complementary roles of Madrid and Miami as arbitration hubs, both legal centers actively serving as bridges connecting Europe, North America, but also Latin America. In addition to their shared commitment within their arbitration communities to promote the use of Spanish in arbitration proceedings, the historical, cultural, and geopolitical ties between these two cities can foster a more accessible, efficient, and inclusive arbitration ecosystem for Spanish-speaking parties. The above, coupled with the continued economic collaboration between both cities, allows to speculate that they will continue to grow, becoming increasingly more important but complimentary arbitration hubs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n ABOUT THE AUTHORS<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Gabriela Marandola<\/strong> Burmeister is a foreign associate at DLA Piper<\/strong><\/a> Vienna. She is a Brazilian-qualified lawyer and a member of the Brazilian Bar Association. Gabriela holds a Bachelor\u2019s degree in Law from Pontif\u00edcia Universidade Cat\u00f3lica de S\u00e3o Paulo (PUC-SP) and an LL.M. degree in International Arbitration from the University of Miami School of Law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Gabriela Mirandola Burmeister<\/strong>, Foreign Associate at DLA Piper<\/strong><\/a>
Pierre-Antoine Robin<\/strong>, Miami University Graduate, Attorney at Law<\/strong> (Madrid)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Munia El Harti Alonso<\/a>, <\/strong>Independent Practitioner, Universidad Complutense de Madrid<\/strong>
Ana\u00efs Leray<\/strong>, Georgetown University Law Center Graduate, Dual Qualified Attorney<\/strong> (New York, Paris)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n
US-Spain and Miami-Madrid Commercial and Investment Framework<\/strong><\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Competing or Complementarity Arbitration Hubs?<\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Miami: A Sui Generis<\/em> Hub for International Arbitration<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Madrid: The Determination to Become a Global Arbitration Hub<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Cross-border Arbitration: Forum Non-Conveniens<\/em> and Enforcement of Awards.<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Conclusion<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n