Arbitration has become the default dispute-resolution mechanism in many global industries — from commodities and shipping to insurance, M&A, and international trade. Yet banks and wealth or asset managers have historically remained reluctant to embrace it.
Why?
Despite offering clear advantages — confidentiality, specialist decision-makers, procedural flexibility, and, in some jurisdictions, enhanced neutrality — arbitration clauses are still the exception rather than the rule in financial services.
This panel explores the reasons behind that hesitation. Are state courts perceived as more predictable or more bank-friendly? Do concerns about “Solomonic” awards, loss of procedural control, interim relief, or enforceability — particularly in relation to retail clients — outweigh arbitration’s benefits? Or is this reluctance simply a matter of habit?
Bringing together experienced litigators, arbitrators, and a banking representative, the discussion will offer a practical, market-driven perspective on when arbitration does — and does not — make sense for financial institutions. The panel will also examine recent developments, including the growing use of arbitration by banks and the inclusion of arbitration clauses in standard documentation such as ISDA templates.
A timely and pragmatic discussion for professionals in financial services — and for anyone interested in how and why industries choose their dispute-resolution mechanisms.
Speakers
Joanne Strain
Partner, Quinn Emanuel (Dubai)
Thomas Odgen
Barrister, 4 New Square (London)
Guillaume Gonczy
In-house counsel, Banque Pictet (Geneva)
Arnaud Nussbaumer-Laghzaoui
Partner, Jacquemoud Stanislas (Geneva)
Registration
Standard pass, day pass or transferable pass needed.
Open registration.