May 2019 – Young ICCA

Tips from the top: Young ICCA interviews Jadranka Jakovcic

Jadranka Jakovcic is an associate at New York office of Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP, International Arbitration group. She advises in both investment treaty and commercial arbitrations, with particular experience in cases conducted under the auspices of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).

Prior to joining Curtis, Ms. Jakovcic served as a judicial trainee to Justice Charles E. Ramos of the New York Supreme Court, Commercial Division. She also interned at the Legal Service of the European Commission, assisting on the preliminary ruling procedure concerning Croatia before the European Court of Justice.

A Croatian national, Ms. Jakovcic trained in both civil law and common law, with a Master of Laws degree from the University of Zagreb and an LL.M. from Fordham University School of Law.

Compatibility, Novelty, Practical Corollary? A Collective Analysis of the Prague Rules

By Vladimir Khvalei, Laurence Ponty, Juan Pablo Valdivia Pizarro, Andreea I. Nica and Maria Teder

Introduction

The following article is the result of a collective project, carried out by one of the groups of the Young ICCA Mentoring Programme, comprised of Juan Pablo Valdivia Pizarro,[1] Andreea I. Nica[2] and Maria Teder,[3] as Mentees, Vladimir Khvalei,[4] as Mentor, and Laurence Ponty, as Buddy.[5]

With the benefit of Vladimir Khvalei being one of the drafters of the Prague Rules (or the “Rules”), the group chose to address this hot topic to contribute to the lively (and sometimes passionate) debates, which the Rules have triggered even way before their launch in December 2018. Further, given the concentration of the discussion on the legal background underlying the Rules (the civil law and more inquisitorial approach) and the potential tensions with the common law culture approach, the analysis of the Prague Rules by a group representing a large variety of nationalities and jurisdictions,[6] sounded particularly relevant.

The Mareva injunction and its story of expanding horizons

By Mahasweta Muthusubbarayan, Final year B.A. LL.B. student at ILS Law College, Pune, India

A Mareva injunction or a freezing injunction is a form of ad personam interim relief, which is usually sought during the pendency of court or arbitration proceedings or once the proceedings are completed and a verdict is rendered, but before the judgement/award is enforced and executed. This form of injunction is essentially sought by a claimant or judgement/award creditor against a respondent or judgement/award debtor, to prevent the latter from dispersing his assets otherwise than in the ordinary course of business, so as to ensure that the enforcement of a judgement or arbitral award is not defeated. Unlike a regular injunction, a freezing injunction covers even those assets which are not necessarily a part of the subject-matter in dispute or those in which the claimant does not claim any direct right.