Historically, financial institutions have preferred to adjudicate disputes in national courts in established financial centers, avoiding not only courts in emerging markets, but arbitration venues as well. The global financial crisis of 2008 did much to change financialinstitutions’ perception of the value of arbitration. Thecrisis resulted in an increase in claims both among and against financial institutions, including an increase in class actions. In many courts of law, these matters were to be heard by jurors or other triers of fact who were expected to be unfavorably disposed towards financial institutions in the wake of the crisis. In addition, post- crisis belt-tightening brought new rigor to dispute cost management. Financial institutions thus cast a fresh eye upon arbitration as an alternative means of dispute resolution.

In response to these developments, the Commission’sTask Force on Financial Institutions and InternationalArbitration (the “Task Force”) conducted an extensivetwo-year study of financial institutions’ use of arbitration,announcing its results in a December 2016 report titled“Financial Institutions and International Arbitration” (the “Report”). 1 The Report finds that financial institutions’overall assessment of arbitration is more positive than previously thought, and is rapidly changing. Financial institutions do have some unique requirements for dispute resolution, but their opinions regarding the advantages and disadvantages of arbitration are now similar to those held by litigants in general. Accordingly, while financial institutions still do not utilize arbitration by default, they increasingly resort to arbitration in disputes for which it is well-suited.