The GAC was selected as the arbitral institution in at least 6 international case(s) known by Jus Mundi (6 Commercial Arbitration). None of these cases are pending.
The GAC has adopted to date 0 rules and 0 other documents available on Jus Mundi.
Jus Mundi’s algorithms detected 14 arbitration practitioners who acted as arbitrators, counsel or experts in cases administered by this institution.
- Jiewen Lin v. Binglin Zhong, GAC Case No. 173-2020, Default Judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, 31 December 2019
Go Premium to unlock all institution analytics
The full access includes metrics on Status of Case, Role, Tribunal/Court/Institution, Applicable Treaty, Economic Sector.GO PREMIUM
List of Cases (6)
Unlock the list of cases - Go Premium
|Date||Case||Type of Case||Status||Economic sector||Rules||Seat of Arbitration||Applicable Law||Applicable Treaty|
|2019||Premium||Commercial Arbitration||Premium||Financial and insurance activities||GAC Arbitration Rules (version not specified)||Guangzhou||Unknown||Unknown|
|2018||Premium||Commercial Arbitration||Premium||Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles||GAC Arbitration Rules (version not specified)||Unknown||China||Unknown|
|2008||Premium||Commercial Arbitration||Premium||Financial and insurance activities||GAC Arbitration Rules (version not specified)||Guangzhou||China||Unknown|
|1998||Premium||Commercial Arbitration||Premium||Construction, Professional, scientific and technical activities||GAC Arbitration Rules (version not specified)||Foshan||Unknown||Unknown|
The analytics displayed herein are based on the information collected by Jus Mundi. The information Jus Mundi relies on is by no means exhaustive and does not in any way presume the other activities of this profile.
For any questions relating to the publishing of a decision/award/document, write to us at firstname.lastname@example.org.