Get marketing news you’ll actually want to read

In drafting arbitration clauses that contemplate interim security for enforcement costs, negotiators should begin with a clear statement of purpose. The clause should specify which party may seek security, the circumstances that justify interim measures, and the types of costs covered, such as filing fees, administrative expenses, and potential legal costs incurred in pursuing remedies. Consider whether security will be limited to a fixed amount or pegged to a reasonable estimate of likely costs. It is essential to align these provisions with governing law, since different jurisdictions treat interim security differently. Drafting cautiously helps avoid unintended waivers or narrow interpretations that could otherwise undermine the remedy’s effectiveness. A well-designed clause reduces disputes over scope and amount later.

Beyond purpose, the drafting should define the manner of securing costs, including acceptable forms of security (cash, bank guarantees, or other collateral) and the timeline for provisioning. The clause should authorize the arbitral tribunal to determine the appropriate security on an application by a party and to adjust amounts as the case develops. To prevent abuse, add conditions that security can be sought only when threatened irreparable harm exists or when an undisputed risk of nonpayment is demonstrated. Include procedural checks, such as notice requirements and an opportunity for the opposing party to respond, ensuring fairness. Finally, embed a mechanism for the rapid return of excess security or unused funds to minimize economic distortion.

The central purpose of interim security is to preserve the viability of a potential award, not to punish the other side. Therefore, the clause should cap how high the security can reasonably rise and tie it to a justifiable calculation of anticipated enforcement costs. It is prudent to require a court or tribunal to assess proportionality, ensuring that the remedies do not become punitive barriers to legitimate claims. When noncompliance occurs—such as failure to post security in a timely fashion—the clause should authorize automatic enforceability mechanisms, including contempt procedures or expedited execution options. Drafting with these safeguards helps maintain procedural integrity across jurisdictions.

To support enforceability across borders, include a reference point to recognized international standards and a clarifying sentence about the governing law for security provisions. The clause should also address what happens if the losing party cannot provide security due to insolvency or hardship, allowing for phased or reduced security that still protects the prevailing party. In addition, define how security will interact with other provisional measures, such as nondisclosure orders or preservation orders, avoiding conflicts that could derail the arbitration. These details prevent gaps that opponents might exploit to delay or derail enforcement.

Determining the form of security requires practical consideration of the case’s risk profile and the parties’ resources. Cash deposits are the most straightforward, but banks’ guarantees or letters of credit can offer flexibility when liquidity is constrained. The clause should specify acceptable formats, including how letters of credit must be drawn and what documents accompany draw requests. It should also lay out the scope of security—whether it covers only enforcement costs related to the award, or broader expenses, such as potential damages for delay. By describing these elements, the clause reduces ambiguity and the likelihood of disputes over what constitutes recoverable costs.

In setting the scope, the clause should tie security to a reasonable estimate of anticipated expenses, including arbitrator fees, administrative fees, and anticipated counsel costs. It may provide for an annual adjustment mechanism tied to a reputable index or a mutually agreed estimator. The draft should require that any provision of security be accompanied by a schedule itemizing the expected expenditure and the basis for estimation. Including a process for updating the estimated amount as the case progresses helps maintain fairness and proportionality, minimizing the risk that security becomes either insufficient or excessive as circumstances evolve.

Timing is a critical lever in these clauses. The agreement should specify when security must be posted—typically at the time of filing or within a short grace period after notice of arbitration initiation. It should also provide a trigger mechanism for adjusting the security amount if costs materially change due to new developments or delays caused by either party. A transparent review procedure helps prevent disputes and creates a predictable path for compliance. The arbitral tribunal could be empowered to revise security upon a showing of changed circumstances, supported by documented cost projections. Clear timing rules reduce the risk of late posts and consequent procedural stagnation.

When security is reduced or replaced, the clause should define how excess amounts are returned. Equally important is the treatment of security that remains outstanding at the conclusion of the arbitration. The draft should specify whether unutilized funds are released automatically, or whether they remain in escrow until a final accounting is completed. It should also address the possibility of security becoming payable to a different party if assignments occur or if interests shift during the proceeding. A well-structured approach promotes confidence in the process and minimizes disputes about funds after a decision is rendered.

The arbitration clause should outline practical remedies if a party fails to post or maintain security as required. Potential remedies include staying the arbitration until security is posted, awarding costs against the noncompliant party, or granting accelerated enforcement of the award at a later stage. It is prudent to specify that noncompliance may trigger provisional measures, such as freezing assets or compelling performance through expedited procedures. The clause should also empower the tribunal to address repeated noncompliance with escalating measures, ensuring that the mechanism remains credible and enforceable in different jurisdictions. Clear remedies deter noncompliance while preserving the rights of all participants.

To avoid systemic bias, draft language that preserves the respondent’s opportunity to contest the necessity and amount of security. The clause should require a timely, reasoned tribunal decision on the security application, along with a concise explanation of the criteria applied and the basis for any increase. Include avenues for preliminary relief or interim relief while security issues are resolved, provided such relief is consistent with due process. This balance helps maintain procedural fairness and supports a constructive dispute resolution environment even when security matters are hotly contested.

When drafting model language, use precise terms such as “interim security,” “enforcement costs,” and “protective measures” to prevent misinterpretation. Include a fallback clause that clarifies what happens if a particular security instrument becomes unavailable, such as a substitution right or a temporary waiver with a later obligation. It is also wise to incorporate harmonization provisions that align these security provisions with other governing agreements, ensuring consistency across contracts. Consider adding an illustrative example or a schedule that enumerates typical costs to assist negotiators and arbitral tribunals in applying the clause consistently. Practical drafting reduces scope for arguments and accelerates decision-making.

Finally, consider enforcement in domestic courts and international settings. The clause should specify how interim security is to be treated under local law, including potential conflicts with mandatory rules or public policy. Include a mechanism for recognizing and enforcing arbitral security orders across borders, leveraging instruments like the New York Convention where applicable. A well-crafted clause anticipates enforcement challenges and provides pragmatic solutions, such as mutual recognition of security orders or cooperation between tribunals. By integrating these considerations, parties create a robust framework that sustains the arbitration’s integrity from initiation through enforcement.