silhouettes of two men standing and watching sunset

Dispute Resolution

Peru

At present, companies are facing increasingly complex conflicts, finding themselves involved in litigation of diverse nature: civil, commercial, financial, administrative, constitutional, and criminal, among others.

In view of this, CMS Grau has established an area of Conflict Prevention and Resolution, characterized by bringing together an interdisciplinary team made up of lawyers with wide and recognized experience in litigation at the judicial and arbitral level.

Our counseling includes a preventive strategy towards the conflict with a view to solve the problems of our clients in the shortest time possible. In the context of the dispute, our counseling includes the design of an efficient procedural strategy and representation throughout the judicial or arbitration process, with a view to achieving a successful outcome for our clients´ interests.

The team is characterized by its interdisciplinary approach that includes specialists in complex and specialized sectors such as environment, energy, mining, public contracting, among others. Likewise, CMS Grau guarantees an active, committed and personalized counsel not only in the capital city, but also in the different provinces of Peru, and internationally.

Read more Read less

CMS Grau is highly rated by clients for its ‘great expertise, constant availability and quick response times’.

Legal 500

Choose area

    Constitutional Law

    Read more

    Criminal law

    Read more

    Administrative Judicial Claim

    Read more

    Civil and Corporate law

    Read more

    International Arbitration

    Read more

    Feed

    Show only
    13/05/2019
    The Ver­dict Risk & In­vest­ig­a­tions
    We are pleased to send our new is­sue of The Ver­dict, an at-a-glance round-up of re­cent leg­al de­vel­op­ments in re­la­tion to cor­por­ate crime. In this is­sue, the spot­light is on some sig­ni­fic­ant changes to anti-cor­rup­tion laws in Chile, in­clud­ing the ex­ten­sion.
    18/04/2019
    BARE­CON - The Im­port­ance of Class
    In the re­cent case of Sil­ver­burn Ship­ping (IoM) Ltd -v- Ark Ship­ping Com­pany LLC [2019] EWHC 376 (Comm), the High Court ruled that an ob­lig­a­tion in a charter­party to keep a ves­sel in class is both an ab­so­lute ob­lig­a­tion and a con­di­tion.
    28/02/2019
    Ar­bit­rat­ing fin­an­cial dis­putes – Are there tan­gible be­ne­fits?
    In the past dec­ade, sev­er­al at­tempts have been un­der­taken to pro­mote in­ter­na­tion­al ar­bit­ra­tion in the fin­an­cial in­dustry. In­deed, vari­ous fea­tures of in­ter­na­tion­al ar­bit­ra­tion ap­pear to be par­tic­u­larly well suited for the needs of fin­an­cial ser­vices pro­viders.
    16/11/2018
    Third-Party Fund­ing in in­ter­na­tion­al in­vest­ment ar­bit­ra­tion – en route...
    Over the last couple of years, Third-Party Fund­ing (TPF) has be­come more and more com­mon with­in in­ter­na­tion­al in­vest­ment ar­bit­ra­tion. Ac­cord­ing to a re­port pub­lished by the In­ter­na­tion­al Coun­cil for Com­mer­cial Ar­bit­ra­tion (ICCA) in 2015, 60 % or more of all.
    25/09/2018
    In the Af­ter­math of Achmea – Does Vat­ten­fall En­sure the Fu­ture for...
    On 6 March 2018, the EU Court of Justice (CJEU) held in its Achmea rul­ing that dis­pute set­tle­ment pro­vi­sions provid­ing for ar­bit­ra­tion in in­tra-EU bi­lat­er­al in­vest­ment treat­ies (BITs) are in­com­pat­ible with EU law.
    07/08/2018
    The Singa­pore Me­di­ation Con­ven­tion: Plug­ging the gap in cross-bor­der...
    This art­icle is pro­duced by CMS Hol­born Asia, a Form­al Law Al­li­ance between CMS Singa­pore and Hol­born Law LLC. On 26 June 2018, the fi­nal drafts for a con­ven­tion on the en­force­ment of in­ter­na­tion­al set­tle­ment agree­ments res­ult­ing from me­di­ation and the cor­res­pond­ing.
    14/06/2018
    In­ter­na­tion­al PPAs: High Court pro­tects ar­bit­ra­tion pro­cess
    In At­las Power Ltd v Na­tion­al Trans­mis­sion and Des­patch Com­pany Lim­ited [2018] EWHC 1052, the Eng­lish High Court gran­ted an anti-suit in­jec­tion to a group of in­de­pend­ent power pur­chasers in Pakistan (“IPPs”) to pre­vent a col­lat­er­al at­tack against an ar­bit­ral.