5th Annual GAR Live Singapore

5th Annual GAR Live Singapore

Event Description


Event Schedule

9.00: Welcome coffee and registration 

9.30: Chairs’ opening remarks

Matthew Secomb, White & Case 

Amanda Lees, Simmons & Simmons  

9.40: Session one: Enforcement: bridging the gap? 

There is a difference between having your award recognised by local courts and getting at actual assets.  How does one bridge that gap – particularly in Asia?  Once you are clear of the court system, what happens? 

In this panel a series of specialists in enforcement – from around the region, including India, Indonesia and China – will discuss navigating the gap between the courts and getting awards into real money.

Questions they’re expected to discuss include:

Deciding where to enforce against an Asian opponent: is it better to enforce near to their home, at the seat or elsewhere?

What happens once you clear the court system?

How does enforcement work in practice in the local courts?

Is there an enforcement division of the local court system – and how will it operate? Is there a way to stop it from acting as a negotiator between the sides?

What does a model enforcement strategy for Asia look like? Which other professionals will be part of it? Are subsidiaries fair game? 

What other region specific pitfalls do newcomers need to be aware of? 

Avoiding visits to India – does the Middle-East route work? 

What legal remedies are available at the seat, e.g. worldwide receivership orders?  What legal and practical questions might that raise? 


Amanda Lees, Simmons & Simmons 


Jacques-Alexandre Genet, Archipel 

Shreyas Jayasimha, Aarna Law 

Philip Norman, Simmons & Simmons 

Jessica Pyman, Mintz Group 

Gitta Satryani, Herbert Smith Freehills 

10.55: Coffee break sponsored by Clyde & Co

11.25: Session two: The GAR Live Question Time

A twist on our usual Tylney Hall format. A panel of distinguished arbitrators will discuss questions submitted by the audience and the moderators.


Michael Pryles AO PBM, Independent Arbitrator 


Lawrence Boo, The Arbitration Chambers 

Jane Davies Evans, 3 Verulam Buildings 

Paul Friedland, White & Case 

Joongi Kim, Yonsei University 

12.40: Networking lunch

14.00: Session three: Dissecting bifurcation

Everyone agrees bifurcation is a good idea, but is it really being embraced? Some initial evidence suggests no. 

What are people afraid of, and are those fears justified. How can arbitrators be nudged into embracing it – for the right cases? 

Questions they’re expected to discuss include:

What is the ‘ideal’ case for bifurcation?

No-go zone: when is bifurcation off the table?

Does bifurcation save costs? Long term? Short term?

Does due process paranoia prevent arbitrators from bifurcating when they should?

Does bifurcation ever go ‘wrong’?

Should the likelihood of settlement play a role in deciding whether to bifurcate?

Parties taking partial awards to the national courts: a reason to shy away from bifurcation?


Matthew Secomb, White & Case 


Tony Dymond, Debevoise & Plimpton

Sapna Jhangiani, Clyde & Co

Robert Kirkness, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer 

Wendy Lin, WongPartnership 

Julie Raneda, Schellenberg Wittmer 

15.15: Coffee break sponsored by Clyde & Co

15.45: Session four: The GAR Live Inquisition – Power of the institution vs Party autonomy

This session will replicate a US senate committee hearing with a succession of witnesses being ‘grilled’ by a panel of GAR Live inquisitors, who are seeking to get to the bottom of a problem. 

The panel will explore the extent to which institutions should have power over arbitrations, at the expense of party autonomy.  Why shouldn’t institutions be able to impose measures for cost effectiveness and efficiency that override the arbitration agreement?  After all, who has more experience in seeing what works and what doesn’t?

Amongst others, topics will include:

Expediated procedures and the provision for sole arbitrators 

Cross institutional consolidation protocol

Prospective / retrospective rule changes

Party vs institutional appointed arbitrators 


Barry Stimpson, Reed Smith

Christopher Lau SC, 3 Verulam Buildings 

Jimmy Yim SC, Drew & Napier  


Kevin Nash, SIAC

Chiann Bao, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom

Lucy Martinez, Independent Consultant

17.00: Chairs’ closing remarks

Matthew Secomb, White & Case 

Amanda Lees, Simmons & Simmons  

17.10: Close of conference

Event Information


Jun 24, 2019






Warning: A non-numeric value encountered in /nas/content/live/newtontest/wp-content/themes/directoryengine/template/comment-place.php on line 15