Similar Posts
India’s bid to become a hub for international commercial arbitration
ByihcAs one of the world’s fastest-growing economies, India is a party to many international commercial arbitrations and the government is making efforts …
Dentons to Combine with PJS Law in the Philippines
ByihcDentons intends to combine with Philippine law firm PJS Law, in a combination foreseen to accelerate Dentons’ momentum to become the…
Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co Appoints New Chief Operating Officer
ByihcShardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co has appointed Amit Jaiswal as Chief Operating Officer. He will be located at the Delhi office and…
Herbert Smith Freehills opens alternative legal services hub in China
ByihcHerbert Smith Freehills has set up a first-of-its-kind alternative legal services hub in China….
Cryptocurrency regulations and their prospects in Korea
ByihcLawmakers and regulators have struggled to come to terms with bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies …
CIETAC: Uncovering the differences between the Beijing and the Shanghai Rules
ByihcIn our last issue, (Volume 10 Issue 3) we brought you an overview of the key changes to the CIETAC Rules 2012 in “Moving the CIETAC goal posts…for the better.” Here, Harry Liu and Yue Qiu of King & Wood Mallesons guide us through the major differences between the CIETAC Beijing Rules and the CIETAC Shanghai Rules, enlightening us as to how these distinctions have a bearing on choice of venue for the
parties involved.
