Swiss Arbitration Decisions

This is a relatively interesting case related to the calculation of time limits to file an appeal in accordance with the CAS Code and the consequences of the alleged non-compliance with such time limits.

This dispute arose between a national football federation, two players (the Appellants) and the African Football Confederation (CAF, Respondent) over the African Cup of Nations U17 (CAN U17), an African football tournament organized at the continental level for players under 17, whose first and second teams qualify for the FIFA U-17 World Cup.

The case involved a contract in which three parties agreed to make their respective contributions with a view to acquiring a large number of shares in a company. One of the parties failed to make its contribution and the contract contained an arbitration clause providing for arbitration in Lugano under the Swiss Rules of International Arbitration.

The case involved a dispute between a Mexican football club and some Argentine coaches. In 2009, they entered into an employment contract with the club and the contract had dispute resolution clause, yet confusingly providing for jurisdiction of a state court as well as jurisdiction of the Mexican Football Federation.

The case involved a dispute between a Dutch foundation, an American company and various other players, arising from an investment agreement allegedly breached by one of the parties. The state court in California was seized first and this produced a default judgment in 2007 ordering the restitution of the amount invested and awarding punitive damages.

C.________ had requested the payment of a fee following the brokering of a settlement agreement with a state petroleum company on behalf of A.________ and B._________. The latter companies refused to pay and an arbitration with its seat in Geneva was initiated under the Swiss Rules, before three arbitrators. C.________ partially prevailed, and the Defendants appealed to the Federal Tribunal, citing violations of their right to be heard and a lack of equal treatment of the parties.

The case involves a 2006 contract between an English company and a Canadian resident, acting as trustee for a trust that owned the shares of a company, sold the shares to the buyer. Simultaneously, an employment contract was entered into between the company owned by the trust, which was based in the United Arab Emirates and an Italian resident with a view to his future employment as a managing director.