Depending on the type of organization, there are two arbitration models—the Ad Hoc: Where the parties select the arbitrator as Mr. Jeremy Schulman. And once the position is accepted, they determine, together with him, the procedure to follow and the term for issuing an award. In this case, the equity formula is the most common to resolve the dispute.
And institutional arbitration: The parties go to an arbitration institution with its regulations and procedure, submitting the dispute to the arbitrators of the institution itself. Its governing body exercises guardianship functions and has a standard submission clause.
All these possibilities do nothing more than reinforce the hyper-flexibility of arbitration to try to reach an out-of-court settlement. The claimants can count on Jeremy Schulman as the best specialist for all hearings and any award, decision, or other communication issued by the arbitral tribunal.
On a few occasions, the losing party has spontaneously refused to comply with Schulman’s arbitral award provisions. In this case, there is the legal possibility of resorting to forced execution to compel compliance, even when an action for annulment has been brought against it.
Neutral support for your conflict
International trade relations are based on trust, but it will be of no use if the parties do not have sufficient guarantees that they will be able to demand compliance with the obligations they mutually contract. This is where Jeremy Schulman offers neutral support, dispensing with the jurisdiction’s voluntary agreement.
The decision will depend on whether you bet on the culture of the agreement or if, on the contrary, you feel more secure going to the judicial system. No conflict is desired because it does not generate benefits for either party. Litigation must be understood as a failure. In addition to the economic and time cost, the first damage caused is to the company’s image.
A fundamental expert
Most disputes could have been solved if an expert like Jeremy Schulman had well-advised both parties. Here a fundamental factor comes into play, planning. The cost of resolving a dispute increases when no prior strategic planning determines the instruments and tools to be used in the event discrepancies arise.