Glenn Hendrix, the managing partner of law firm Arnall Golden and Gregory LLP, has been leading a broad-based initiative to develop an international arbitration center in Atlanta.

In the following question and answer interview with GlobalAtlanta, Mr. Hendrix describes the steps that still need to be made before the center becomes a reality.

He also suggests future activities such as attracting cases from Africa that would set apart an arbitration center in Atlanta from centers elsewhere in the world.

GlobalAtlanta: Arbitration is a leading method for resolving cross-border business disputes.  What are the main reasons for its current popularity?

Mr. Hendrix: International commercial arbitration is not an exotic pastime.  Arbitration has become the leading method for resolving cross-border business disputes, in part because companies naturally fear litigating in a foreign court.  Arbitration allows the parties to resolve their dispute in a neutral forum before arbitrators of their choosing.  In the cross-border context, it is also easier to enforce an arbitration award than a court judgment.

While the U.S. has no treaties with any other country for the enforcement of our court judgments, it is a party to the 1958 New York Convention, which is a treaty providing for the enforcement of arbitration awards.

Over 140 countries are parties to the New York Convention.  The U.S. has been a member since 1970.  Worldwide, the success rate in enforcing foreign arbitration awards is approximately 90 percent, although experience varies by country.

GlobalAtlanta: Apparently international arbitration has become big business in Houston and Miami. How big? And how did they get the jump on Atlanta?

Mr. Hendrix: It is big business.  I can’t quantify it, except to say that are a lot of lawyers in both cities who stay busy with international arbitration work.

Miami has become a regional center for the resolution of disputes involving Central and South America and the Caribbean and is now number 2 in the U.S. after New York as a seat of international arbitrations.  Of course, Miami’s role as the gateway to Latin America has played a key role in that success, but there’s a lot more to it than that. 

At the urging of the international law section of the Florida Bar, the Florida legislature passed a statute based on a model arbitration law established by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).  This helped establish the legal framework for international arbitrations, and also signaled to the marketplace that Florida is arbitration-friendly.

Local lawyers also organized themselves into group called the Miami International Arbitration Society which has a website and brochure touting the benefits of arbitrating in Miami.

The University of Miami recently added an International Arbitration Institute and began offering a master’s of law degree in international arbitration.  The program, headed by two internationally renowned scholars and practitioners in the field -- Jan Paulsson and Albert Jan van den Berg – has helped raise the city’s profile on the international arbitration stage.

Several annual international arbitration conferences are held in Miami.  There were lawyers from 30 countries in Miami for the most recent International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Conference on International Commercial Arbitration in Latin America.  The American Arbitration Association’s (AAA’s) international arm – the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) – also presents an annual conference.  These events showcase the city, enhance its profile and help educate the local bar on the intricacies of international arbitration.

Miami also has some excellent hearing facilities.  For instance, the ICDR has a new arbitration hearing center in the Bank of America Tower overlooking Biscayne Bay.

So the success of Miami is no accident. 

Houston’s story is a little different.  It got a jump because the city is a major hub for international arbitration in the oil and gas sector.  Houston lawyers have also worked hard to promote their city through an organization known as the Houston International Arbitration Club.

GlobalAtlanta: What are Atlanta’s advantages as an international arbitration center?

Surveys of corporate counsel indicate that the most important factor in picking an arbitral venue is the legal infrastructure, including the jurisdiction’s arbitration law and track record in upholding agreements to arbitrate and arbitral awards. 

Georgia showcases well on that front.  The Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which is based in Atlanta, is the most international arbitration-friendly court in the United States and among the most arbitration-friendly courts in the world.  For instance, the 11th Circuit has taken the national lead in taking a no-nonsense approach to sanctioning parties who make frivolous challenges to arbitration agreements and awards.

The 11th Circuit is also one of only two Circuits that precludes challenges to arbitration awards on the basis of “manifest disregard for the law.” This eliminates a concern expressed by some European lawyers with respect to conducting international arbitrations in the United States. 

Subject to some very minor restrictions, Georgia allows parties to select counsel of their choice in arbitration proceedings, including attorneys not licensed in any U.S. jurisdiction.  That’s important to parties selecting a arbitral venue.  If the parties’ dispute is governed by, say, English law, they’re going to want to have English lawyers involved in the case.

GlobalAtlanta: In what ways specifically is the Georgia international arbitration statute attractive in the city’s development as an international arbitration center?

Thanks to some forward thinking by two Georgia State University professors (Doug Yarn and the late Gabe Wilner), Georgia has an international arbitration-friendly state statute that was enacted back in 1988.  Among other provisions, the law guarantees that arbitrators may be of any nationality and that “[s]election of this state as the place of arbitration shall not in itself constitute selection of the procedural or substantive law of that place as the law governing the arbitration.”  Such provisions constitute the base table stakes for any would-be major arbitral forum.

Atlanta has also the necessary infrastructure for an arbitration center – abundant hotel and conference space, translators, interpreters, etc.  The offices of the AAA (American Arbitration Associatiion), Henning (Henning Mediation and Arbitration Service), JAMS (Judicial, Arbitration and Mediation Services), the State Bar headquarters, law firm mock courtrooms, and ample hotel conference rooms, offer many options for hearings.

The Atlanta Aerotropolis mixed-use project that is proposed to be built next to Hartsfield-Jackson might also offer some intriguing possibilities.  Compared to most international arbitral centers, Atlanta is also inexpensive.  The cost of professional fees, ancillary services (court reporters, interpreters, etc.), accommodations, meals, and other expenses associated with an arbitration proceeding will be less than in most other venues.

GlobalAtlanta: Would Atlanta have any advantages as an international arbitration center that Houston and Miami do not?

Mr. Hendrix: Atlanta is one of the easiest places in the world to access.  In Hartsfield-Jackson, we have the busiest passenger airport in the world.  No other city in the world can make that claim.  The airport serves non-stop flights to 151 U.S. destinations and more than 90 international destinations in 55 countries.  That’s a huge advantage for Atlanta.

Moreover, unlike Miami and Houston, Atlanta is not pigeon-holed into either Latin American or oil and gas disputes. And while Miami has beaches, it can’t claim to be a corporate headquarters city like Atlanta.  We have a worldwide reputation for providing an excellent environment for business.

We’re the transportation, communications, education and professional services hub for the southeastern United States.  Atlanta is a primary legal market served by a sophisticated legal community accustomed to handling the most complex transactions and disputes.

And to a greater extent than Houston, Atlanta is perceived as an outward-looking, internationally­-oriented city.  The ’96 Olympics, the Martin Luther King and Andrew Young legacies, the Carter Center, the “city too busy to hate,” CARE, and CNN are all part of Atlanta’s cosmopolitan global brand.  It’s no surprise that 76 countries are represented in Atlanta by a consulate, trade office or bi-national chamber of commerce.

Another positive intangible is Atlanta’s reputation for “Southern hospitality,” a theme that would play well in a bid to host international arbitrations.

Finally, Atlanta has a tradition of effectively selling itself to the rest of the world.  Atlanta’s capacity for marshaling business, civic and political coalitions in the successful pursuit of an objective should never be underestimated.

While not the primary thrust of this initiative, one interesting possibility is making Atlanta the venue of choice for Africa-related arbitrations.  The amounts at stake in these cases tend to be considerable, as Africa-related arbitrations typically arise from natural resources and infrastructure disputes.

Few Africa-related arbitrations are conducted in Africa because even African parties to arbitration, not only the foreign parties, are reluctant to agree on an African seat of arbitration.  Yet the law of an African state is often selected to govern the transaction.

Africa-related arbitrations governed by the law of an African country, but not seated in that country, might just as logically be seated in Atlanta as elsewhere.  Delta offers direct flights to a number of cities in Africa.

In fact, the Lagos-Atlanta flight is said to be the most profitable in the Delta system.  Thus, Atlanta might seek to play a role in Africa-related arbitrations similar to the one played by Miami with respect to Latin America-related arbitrations.

But a more fundamental point here is that we don’t need to displace Miami or Houston.  Both cities have well-deserved reputations as arbitral centers in their respective niches.  We’re competing with the European and Asian venues to greater degree than with either of those two cities. 

GlobalAtlanta: Have there been any international arbitration cases held in Atlanta?

Mr. Hendrix: Absolutely.  I’ve personally handled a number of cases. Most have involved at least one Georgia party, but not all.  For instance, I once arbitrated an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration here between companies based in Athens, Greece, and Pittsburgh, Pa.  I had another case involving the sale of an oil refinery to China.  Neither case had any connection to Georgia, but the parties chose Atlanta as a neutral and convenient site to settle their dispute.

There are dozens of other lawyers in town who also have experience in international arbitrations.  The ICDR reports that it is currently administering 14 pending international cases with a Georgia locale.

GlobalAtlanta: If so, why is the current initiative necessary?

Mr. Hendrix: A common feature of all successful arbitral venues is an active collective effort by the local legal community to market and brand the city as an international arbitral seat.  That hasn’t happened in Atlanta.  Some individual practitioners, arbitrators and firms are developing and promoting practices and reputations in the field, and the city has attracted a number of international arbitration cases due to the natural advantages of the forum, but we could attract a lot more through a coordinated effort to raise the profile of the city.

Much of the international arbitration work being performed by Atlanta lawyers is on cases outside of Georgia.  During the meeting kicking off this initiative, there were incidental references to Georgia lawyers having served as counsel or arbitrator in international arbitrations seated in Chile, England, Finland, India, Russia, Switzerland, Turkey, the U.A.E. and many states in the U.S., and that list merely scratches the surface.  We ought to bring more of that work home to Atlanta.

GlobalAtlanta: Would there be any advantages for Georgia attorneys if Atlanta became an international arbitration center?

Mr. Hendrix: Increasing the number of international arbitration proceedings with a Georgia venue would expand the work available for Georgia lawyers, even if non-Georgia lawyers also benefit.

By way of illustration, I am presently serving as an arbitrator in a case seated in Miami in which one of the lawyers is from Argentina and another one of the arbitrators is from Spain.  This might raise the question of how giving work to lawyers from Georgia, Argentina and Spain helps Florida lawyers.

The answer is that the dispute has no connection with Florida (it relates to the Dominican Republic), and while one party is represented by a non-Florida firm, the other party is represented by Florida lawyers and the chair of the arbitration panel is from Florida.

But for Florida's international arbitration-friendly legal regime, the case would have been heard elsewhere.  While ceding a small piece of the pie to non-Florida lawyers, Florida lawyers are reaping the benefit of a much larger pie.

GlobalAtlanta: Does this initiative have the support of the local legal community?

Mr. Hendrix: Yes, very much so.  The first five meetings of our group rotated between Alston & Bird, Arnall Golden Gregory, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, King & Spalding and Womble Carlyle.  The next two meetings will be hosted by Miller & Martin and Sutherland Asbill.  Representatives of more than two dozen law firms are involved in this initiative in some capacity.

The Metro Atlanta Chamber, the State Bar, each of the four major Georgia law schools, and the major U.S.-based arbitral institutions have also been very supportive. 

GlobalAtlanta: Is Atlanta’s corporate community behind the initiative?

Mr. Hendrix: Yes, although we need to do more on that front.  Several corporate in-house counsel are involved in the initiative in varying capacities, but we thought it best to get some basic spade work done before engaging in intensive outreach to the corporate community. 

GlobalAtlanta: Are you aware of any opposition to the initiative?

Mr. Hendrix: None that I’m aware of.

GlobalAtlanta: What do you consider the “next steps” to be important for the initiative to be successful?

Mr. Hendrix: There are at least six “next steps”:

1)  Further liberalizing the Bar Rule with regard to foreign lawyers handling arbitrations in Georgia.  This involves some tweaks to the commentary.   We are three steps through the process.  The changes have already been approved by the State Bar’s International Trade in Legal Services Committee, the Disciplinary Rules & Procedure Committee and the Executive Committee.  The Board of Governors will consider the changes this summer.  Ben Greer of Alston & Bird and Bill Smith of the State Bar have been the key players here.

2)  Updating the Georgia International Arbitration Act.  It’s an excellent statute, but a lot has happened since it was enacted in 1988.  Among other things, we need to address the issue of interim measures.

For instance, under what circumstances should a court intervene in a pending arbitration to issue emergency relief?  This was a key element in the dispute a couple years ago between a group of Atlanta investors and Ritz Carlton over the operation of a Jamaican resort.

We’d also like to de-link the international and domestic chapters of the Georgia Arbitration Code.  Doug Yarn of GSU, Bo Rutledge of UGA and Meghan Magruder of King & Spalding are driving this aspect of the initiative.

3)  Developing a website and promotional materials.  Matt Richardson of Alston & Bird has been leading this charge with assistance from Ryan Szczepanik of King & Spalding, John Watkins of Barnes & Thornburg, Kirk Watkins of Womble Carlyle and Hunter Hughes of Rogers & Hardin, among others.

4)  Planning an annual signature conference on international arbitration.  This has been a key aspect of Miami’s success.  The lead planners are Brian White of King & Spalding, Steve Clay of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, Whit Engle of Prenova and Joan Grafstein of JAMS.

5)  Membership and outreach.  Among other things, this involves pulling in the corporate community (especially corporate counsel) and promoting an international arbitration seat to companies throughout the Southeast.

A company headquartered in, say, Memphis, Charlotte or Nashville might be able to persuade the party on the other side of the deal that Atlanta is a sufficiently “neutral” site to resolve future disputes.  One of the objectives behind the liberalized bar rule is getting lawyers in neighboring states to view a thriving international arbitration platform in Atlanta as a business opportunity, not a threat. 

6)  Establishing a state-of-the-art arbitration facility featuring remote technology that would reduce travel and witness expense.  This is not critical to the initiative, but would be very appealing.  Dan King of King & Spalding and Doug Yarn of GSU are taking the lead on this issue.

GlobalAtlanta: What other cities in the world have benefited from becoming centers for international arbitration?

Mr. Hendrix: London, Paris, New York, Geneva and Hong Kong are the leaders.  Over 85 percent of all arbitrations administered by the London Court of International Arbitration have no connection to England.  That creates a lot of work for English lawyers and other service providers.

In a speech to Parliament last month (March 23), George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer (essentially the equivalent of the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury) described international arbitration as one of the U.K.'s "unsung success stories" and promised that the government would continue to take steps to promote international arbitration in London.

Other active arbitral venues include Stockholm, Vienna, Singapore, Beijing, Moscow, Dubai, Tokyo, and, as previously mentioned, Miami and Houston.

The good news is that international arbitration is becoming increasingly decentralized.  The traditional centers – London, New York, Paris, Stockholm, and Geneva -- used to hold a lock on the market, but in the last decade, Singapore, Dubai, and Miami, among other cities, have all emerged as leading arbitration centers.  A recent survey of in-house corporate attorneys by Queen Mary University of London confirmed that parties are increasingly looking beyond the “traditional” seats of arbitration.

GlobalAtlanta: What can local corporations do to help your initiative?

Mr. Hendrix: Encourage their in-house attorneys to become involved in the initiative, and write an Atlanta arbitration clause into their contracts!

Mr. Hendrix practices in the areas of commercial and administrative dispute resolution, including litigation, arbitration and administrative appeals. He has served as an arbitrator and counsel in international arbitration proceedings administered by the International Centre for Dispute Resolution and the International Chamber of Commerce.

2012 The Agio Press, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without expressed permission.