India needs legal system, structure to support arbitration: John Quinn

Chairman of one world's largest law firms for business arbitration says 'enormous demand' for setting commercial disputes outside courts

John B Quinn, the founder and chairman of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, one of the largest law firms in the world for business litigation and arbitration, is visiting India amid rising adoption of arbitration by Indian companies to resolve commercial disputes.

Quinn is visiting at a time when India is contemplating allowing foreign lawyers to practice arbitration here. Quinn told Asit Ranjan Mishra and Bhavini Mishra in an interview he is not immediately contemplating opening an office in India.

Here are edited excerpts from the interview.

What brings you to India?

It’s amazing what’s happening in this country. Everybody’s talking about that this is India’s time; that the future has arrived for India and we want to be a part of that. There are a lot of things that we are interested in, that are important here—growth of technology for example. I come from California, sometimes it seems Indian Americans have taken over Silicon Valley. They are such a permanent part of the technology community. We have the largest technology practice, litigation practice, both in the US and in Germany. So that’s an important theme for us. So we want to be close to the heart of Indian innovation and technology developments.

Singapore has become increasingly important particularly because of the events during Covid. Hong Kong is losing market share to Singapore. Singapore is such an important venue for resolution of disputes coming out of India. So we are looking at potentially opening an office in Singapore this year; a big chunk of the clientele there will be Indian. So it is about time that we get to know this market better and develop some relationships here.

The Bar Council of India recently notified that the country will allow foreign lawyers and law firms to carry out arbitration proceedings from India for foreign clients on foreign laws. Does that excite you?

We have to look at that. Talking to Indian lawyers, I am not sure anybody understands what that would mean and what the contours of that would be. As described, it is not that different from what we do in China. We have offices in Shanghai and Beijing. There we can’t practice or advise on Chinese laws. We can’t appear in Chinese courts. We still find there is plenty for us to do--to help Chinese companies and Western companies that have issues in China. That’s one potential model of what practice might look like in India. But it is too early for us to talk about whether it makes sense for us to have an office here. We don’t have an office in South Korea but it is our largest and most important Asian practice.

One issue that has cropped up recently is the Adani-Hindenburg tussle. What are your thoughts on it?

Let me see what I can say. Look, these short-seller attacks happen. There are short sellers in funds; they are in the business of taking short positions in companies and writing things that are very negative about the company. If those things are false, there are avenues to seek redress. We have done short-seller attack cases where we have sued short sellers on behalf of companies who have been victims of short-seller attacks. I have read in the newspapers. I have no insight into the thinking of the defence on the Adani side.

You have not been contacted for this case, as Adani is reportedly trying to sue Hindenburg?

I can’t answer that question. I can’t discuss that.

Are you meeting Adani group people during your visit?

Presently, we don’t have them on the schedule.

The Indian government wants to make India an arbitration hub. What does India need to do for that?

It’s a challenge. A lot of countries tried to do that because it is great for the economy; you have talented lawyers. But it is hard to do because the international arbitration community is kind of an insular community; it’s a close knit practice area. So it really involves, among other things, gaining confidence. This international group of high end arbitration practitioners. Of course, you need to have a legal structure that supports arbitration. Some countries have bad reputations, their court systems are not really pro-arbitration, laws are not pro-arbitration. The courts interfere. If one of the parties is not happy with what's going on, they approach the court and the judges stop it.

Is that true for India?

I don’t know if that’s true in India. I am not personally an arbitration practitioner. Japan, South Korea have really tried to promote arbitration. My impression is they are not really making a mark in international arbitration. There are not that many places. There is Hong Kong, Singapore, Paris, London, Zurich and Geneva; to a lesser degree Washington, New York; Miami for Latin American arbitration, but it’s not huge. But Indian business communities are huge utilisers of arbitration because the court system is so slow here. Indian companies (dealing) with Indian companies have contracts that call for arbitration because they don’t see a chance of speedy resolution in the Indian civil justice system. So you have enormous demand here in what may be the largest country in the world. You need a legal system and structure to support arbitration.