• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제18권3호
• /
• pp.51-69
• /
• 2008

The financial industry in which arbitration is most frequently resorted to so as to resolve disputes is the sector related to the securities industry. Most securities related disputes are raised from broker-dealer controversies which is not new in the Republic of Korea. The disputes between securities brokers and customers are very frequently settled by arbitration in the United States. But the arbitration in the securities area may deprive investors from securities regulation's protection. Introducing the United States' Federal Supreme Courts cases, the author explores the logic of how the pre-dispute arbitration agreement compatible with Securities regulations. However, the author insist the South Korea should more careful in accepting pre-dispute arbitration contract in securities area. Mostly because of the lack of more specific way to secure substantive fairness in securities arbitration. Also the author worries about the possibility of prevailing pre-dispute arbitration agreement in all of the securities investment contract without any other choices, or securities laws' protection. But the author also suggests to introduce public securities arbitration system of the States, and also insists the way to secure substantive fairness, or the application of securities regulations in securities arbitrations. Which may be the pre-requirements for the pre-dispute arbitration agreement in securities investment contract.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제14권2호
• /
• pp.107-133
• /
• 2004

In these days, arbitration helps alleviate some of the burden of a heavy caseload from the judiciary and is a viable method to resolve disputes in a relatively quick and efficient manner. An award of punitive damages is often the most significant and detrimental part of an award arising from a judicial or arbitral proceeding. In 1995, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split. upholding an arbitral panel's authority to award punitive damages under a securities arbitration agreement. This decision was monumental in establishing arbitral power. However, it left several questions unanswered. For example, which, if any, standards should be applied to such awards？ The decision in Sawtelle, adopting a separate ground for review of punitive damages awards, is one that signals a significant change in the field of arbitration. This article addresses the reviewability of punitive damages awards arising out of a securities arbitration hearing. It would be necessary to introduce securities arbitration system to our disputes resolution system. Compared to American practices, there could be many differences in recognition on arbitration and legal structure in our country. Thus it will be a future assignment to consider seriously and carefully what kind of securities arbitration system will be proper for us. This article analyzed predispute arbitration agreements and agreements to arbitrate after a dispute has already arisen.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제12권2호
• /
• pp.337-372
• /
• 2003

Given the difficulties investors would encounter in pleading and proving their claims in court, they may well be better off in a system where less attention is paid to the law and more to the equities of the actual dispute before the arbitration panel. While this is not a system where accountability and predictability of results can be achieved, investors may fare better than they might expect. It follows then that if equitable considerations enhance rather than subtract from investors' chances of recovery, then investors need not worry about the consequences of the arbitrators' failure to apply the law. This article tracked the evolution of the arbitration process, through amendments to the pertinent securities arbitration codes of procedure, from an informal proceeding into a quasi-judicial one. Subsequently, I examined the practical difficulties arbitrators encounter in their efforts to apply the law. The Court in McMahon assumed arbitrators would apply the law and that the “manifest disregard” standard would provide sufficient judicial oversight to ensure that they did. But there is no meaningful review of arbitration awards to assure arbitrators are applying the law. Arbitration awards have no value as precedent for future arbitrations. Accordingly, there appears to be little reason to write such an award, particularly if the end result is an award immune from challenge no matter how the panel ruled. In these days, securities arbitration as a disputes resolution system is becoming a more popular practice. The trend of the courts in America has been to enforce arbitration agreements. Moreover arbitration helps alleviate some of the burden of a heavy caseload from the judiciary and is a viable method to resolve disputes in a relatively quick and efficient manner. Therefore I think it would be necessary to introduce securities arbitration system to our disputes resolution system Compared to American practices, there could be, of course, many differences in recognition on arbitration and legal structure in our country. Thus it will be an assignment to consider seriously and carefully what kind of securities arbitration system will be proper for us.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제12권2호
• /
• pp.221-262
• /
• 2003

In recent years, information technological revolution of using Internet in the Stock Market has shown reconsideration of Securities and Exchange Law. Since the 1998 Taipei Conference, ILA have studied upon it and presented 6th Interim Report during the 2000 London Conference. This paper summarizes a part of the 6th Interim Report. The Internet has created a medium to which traditional principles of jurisdiction may not have full relevance. To understand the jurisdictional issues posed by this new medium, we should first review the traditional principles of jurisdiction under international, U. S. law and Other Countries law. In previous reports, the general principles of jurisdiction in international law have been described. These principles are, however, difficult to apply in the context of Internet and other forms of computerized securities trading. Regulators all over the world are trying to address and solve jurisdictional issues raised by the Internet. The traditional rules of jurisdiction in international law, grounded as they are on a geography-based approach, may be in the process of being undermined by the Internet and other global networks allowing for remote access to information and to markets.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제17권1호
• /
• pp.97-116
• /
• 2007

This article has the objective of studying French ADR System which is unique and peculiar in the world. Nowadays commercial conflict is resolved by litigation or ADR. ADR plays an important part in resolving commercial conflict in the US, England, Germany, Japan and France. Untill now, only French ADR System has not been studied at all in Korea. So we can safely say that it is necessary to research into French ADR System in order to improve Korea's ADR System. This study is composed of Introduction, Concept of French ADR System, Actual Circumstances of French ADR System and Conclusion. The Fundamental system of French ADR is the law of February 8, 1995 that is made up of 82 articles. Among these articles, Judical Conciliation and Mediation are the most important. It is universally admitted by most of legal scholars that judicial conciliation and mediation have the character of contract. Because mutual consent is necessary in order for judicial conciliation and mediation to be effective. French system of judicial conciliation and mediation is provided in French Civil Procedure Law. Judicial conciliation plays an important role in Labor Law and Family Law. In the early part of litigation, the attempt of consiliation can be made very frequently in France. Successful conciliation and mediation are induced into negociation between parties. Arbitration has its long history in Europe. In the medieval times, Western European merchant began to use Arbitration System. After the medieval times had passed, Arbitration System took root in France. But Arbitration System has not so developed in France. On the other hand, Arbitration System has developed to a considerable degree in the US in spite of its short history. It is due to the fact that the French dislike to have recourse to litigation as compared with the Americans. However Arbitration can resolve securities conflict through various institutions in France, which is very similar to the concerned US phenomenon.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제12권1호
• /
• pp.271-321
• /
• 2002

Every year, many million of business transactions take place. Ocassionally, disagreements develop over these business transactions. Many of these disputes are resolved by mediation, arbitration and out-of-court settlement options. The American Arbitration Association(AAA) helps resolve a wide range of disputes through mediation, arbitration, elections and other out-of-court settlement procedures. The AAA offers a broad range of dispute resolution services to business executives, attorneys, individuals, trade associations, unions, management, consumers, families, communities, and all level of governments. The 198,491 cases composed of the 194,303 arbitration cases and the 4,188 mediation cases, were filed with the AAA in 2000. These case filings represent a full range of matters, including commercial finance, construction, labor and employment, environmental, health care, insurance, real state, securities, and technology disputes. The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (KCAB) does more than render arbitration services. It helps facilitate settlements and guarantee implementation thereof between trading partners at home and abroad involving disputes related to such areas as the sale of commodities, construction, joint venture agreements, technical assistance, agency agreements, and maritime transport. The 643 cases composed of the the 197 arbitration cases and the 446 mediation cases, were filed with the KCAB in 2001. There are some differences between the AAA and the KCAB regarding the number and the area of mediation and arbitration case filings, the breath of service offerings, the scope of alternative dispute resolution, and the education and training. In order to apply to the proceedings of the commercial mediation and arbitration, the AAA has the Commercial Mediation Rules, the Commercial Arbitration Rules, the Expedited Procedures, the Optional Procedures for Large, Complex Commerical Dispute, and the Optional Rules for Emergency Measures of Protection as amended and effective on September 1, 2000. In order to apply to the proceedings of commercial arbitration, the KCAB has the Arbitration Rules as amended by the Supreme Court on April 27, 2000, which have been changed to incorporate the revisions of the Arbitration Act that went into effect on December 31, 1999. There are some differences between the AAA's commercial Arbitration Rules and the KCAB's Arbitration Rules regarding the clauses of jurisdiction and administrative conference, number of arbitrators, communication with arbitrator, vacancies, preliminary hearing, exchange of information, oaths, evidence by affidavit and posthearing filing of documents or others, interim measures, serving of notice, form of award, scope of award, delivery of award to parties, modification of award, release of liability, administrative fees, neutral arbitrator's compensation, and expedited procedures. In conclusion, for the vitalization of KCAB and its ADR system, the following measures should be taken : the effective case management, the development of on0-line ADR, the establishment of ADR system of electronic commerce disputes, and the variety of dispute resolution rules in each expert field.