On September 1, 2026, Apple filed a Form 8-K/A with the SEC that made headlines in financial media around the world. Tim Cook, in his new role as Executive Chair, will receive an annual salary of $2 million and a target equity award of $45 million, split equally between performance-based RSUs—linked to Apple’s total shareholder return relative to the S&P 500—and time-based RSUs vesting semiannually in equal 12.5% tranches over four years. For new CEO John Ternus, the figures are even higher: an annual salary of $3 million and a target equity award of $55 million, consisting of 75% performance-based RSUs and 25% time-based RSUs with the same four-year vesting schedule, plus a target pro rata RSU award of $2.5 million for service already rendered in FY2026.

Public reaction, as often happens, ranges from amazement to outrage: “$100 million between the two of them,” the newspapers proclaimed. But the headline value is not the same as cash immediately received; rather, it is a target that will be realized only if certain market and service conditions are satisfied over time. Behind these figures lies a complex legal framework in which good legal counsel plays a decisive role. Here’s why.

1. The Headline Value Is Not Cash in Hand

A common mistake is to equate the target value of an equity package with the amount actually received. Cook’s performance-based RSUs, for example, will convert into shares only if Apple outperforms an S&P 500 benchmark basket over a multiyear period; the time-based RSUs, although less uncertain, still require four years of continued service. As Apple itself explains in its proxy statements, performance RSUs reward long-term outperformance, while time-based RSUs promote leadership stability and retention.

2. Vesting and Performance Conditions: The Heart of the Mechanism

The mix of variable and fixed components is not accidental. In Ternus’s package, 75% of the equity is performance-based—a choice that aligns the new CEO’s incentives with the creation of shareholder value but exposes him to the risk of receiving far less—or nothing—if the results do not materialize.

3. Termination, Retirement, and Change of Control

One of the most delicate aspects of Cook’s package concerns retirement: if Cook leaves service due to retirement after the first anniversary of the grant, his equity award continues to vest and is settled on the original dates, subject to the performance conditions. Provisions like this require surgical drafting. What happens if the termination is involuntary? What if the company undergoes a change of control?

4. Clawbacks and Conflict Management

The Dodd-Frank rules and the internal policies of many public companies provide for mechanisms to claw back compensation in the event of an accounting restatement or misconduct.

5. Teamwork: Tax Advisors, Compensation Consultants, and Financial Advisors

Structuring a compensation package requires coordination among lawyers experienced in total compensation, tax advisors, and financial advisors (for valuing embedded derivatives and modeling payout scenarios). Legal advice does not replace these areas of expertise; it complements them by translating technical analyses into valid, approved, and enforceable contractual rules.

6. Dispute Prevention and Contractual Clarity

Most disputes over executive compensation arise from ambiguous provisions: vague definitions of “just cause,” performance metrics not tied to verifiable data, and silence regarding atypical termination scenarios.

7. Not Just Multinationals: A Proportionate Legal Approach

It would be a mistake to think that these considerations apply only to giants like Apple. Every company that compensates its executives with variable components—stock options, phantom shares, performance-based bonuses, and retention agreements—faces the same issues on a different scale. A small or midsize business that offers an incentive plan to its CEO needs the same contractual clarity as a public company, calibrated to its size and complexity.

For an initial assessment, just ask three questions.

Does the product contain digital elements?

Is it made available on the European Union market in the course of a commercial activity?

Can it exchange data with another device or a network?

If the answer to all three questions is yes, then the CRA applies.

ADVANT's advisory services covered the German and Italian aspects of the cross-border transaction, which was primarily conducted in Germany and involved numerous other jurisdictions in the EU, as well as the USA, Central America, and Asia. ADVANT was retained on the recommendation of the US law firm Winston Taylor. Winston Taylor advised JLL Partners as lead counsel on the US legal aspects of the transaction.

JLL Partners is a US-based private equity firm headquartered in New York and invests in businesses in sectors including healthcare, business services, and industrials.

Life Couriers Group is an internationally operating specialist for time- and temperature-critical logistics solutions for the healthcare and life sciences industries, headquartered in Munich. The group is particularly active in the areas of radiopharmaceuticals, life sciences, stem cell transport, direct supply to patients, pharmaceutical and emergency logistics, and has an international presence in the USA, Europe, Central America and Asia.

With this acquisition, JLL Partners intends to support Life Couriers' next phase of growth. The focus will be on further international expansion and the development of its services for time-critical healthcare logistics.

Advisors to JLL Partners:

ADVANT Beiten: Christian von Wistinghausen, Tassilo Klesen (both lead counsel), Dominik Moser (all Corporate/M&A), Danah El Ismail (Corporate/M&A & Real Estate, all Berlin), Insa Müller-Trucksaess (Corporate/M&A, Munich), Lelu Li (Corporate/M&A, Beijing), Christoph Schmitt, Nadejda Kysel, Jessica Schneeberger, Juliane Schöttler (all Banking/Finance/Restructuring, Frankfurt), Virginia Mäurer, Mark Zimmer, Katharina Furtmayr (all Employment Law, Munich), Christian Döpke (IP, Digital & Data, Düsseldorf), Philipp Hohmann (Commercial, Düsseldorf), Oliver Korte (Commercial, Hamburg), Jochen Pörtge, Kristin Trittermann (both Compliance, Düsseldorf), Silke Dulle (Health Care, Berlin), Christoph Heinrich, Cathleen Laitenberger (both Antitrust), Katrin Lüdtke (Public Sector, all Munich), Markus Linnartz (Tax, Düsseldorf)

ADVANT Nctm: Michele Motta, Mario Giambò, Benedetta Ripa, Federico Cirillo (all Corporate/M&A, Milan)

Press contact
Frauke Reuther
Manager Kommunikation
ADVANT Beiten
+49 (69) 75 60 95 - 570
frauke.reuther@advant-beiten.com

With Dr Gökçe Uzar Schüller on board, ADVANT Beiten gains a renowned expert in resolving complex commercial law disputes. She advises national and international companies on litigation and arbitration proceedings, as well as on the development and implementation of litigation strategies. In addition, she advises companies and investors on cross-border M&A transactions, particularly in the context of German-Turkish business relations.

Before joining ADVANT Beiten, Dr Gökçe Uzar Schüller had worked at Graf von Westphalen for 14 years. There, she set up the Turkey Desk and most recently headed it as an associate partner. In this role, she advised companies and investors on a wide range of complex national and international mandates. She has extensive experience in conducting international arbitration proceedings and has been an active member of the German Arbitration Institute (DIS) and other national and international professional bodies for many years.

With the appointment of Dr Gökçe Uzar Schüller, ADVANT Beiten is further strengthening its advisory expertise in cross-border disputes and international arbitration proceedings. At the same time, the law firm is expanding its range of services for internationally active companies and investors, as well as for clients with links to Turkey – a growth market of great significance to German companies and investors, as well as to other international markets. Dr Gökçe Uzar Schüller’s expertise complements the firm’s international focus and the close collaboration within the ADVANT Alliance.

"In Dr Gökçe Uzar Schüller, we are gaining an outstanding individual for our partnership. She combines outstanding expertise in the field of conflict resolution with many years’ experience in international arbitration and cross-border disputes. Her international profile and her particular expertise in German-Turkish business relations will further strengthen our advisory competence and offer our clients significant added value. We are delighted to welcome her as an equity partner at ADVANT Beiten," says Dr Guido Krüger, Managing Partner at ADVANT Beiten.

Dr Gökçe Uzar Schüller explains: "ADVANT Beiten combines excellent commercial law advice with a strong international focus. I was particularly impressed by the close collaboration within the ADVANT Alliance and the firm’s entrepreneurial approach. German-Turkish business relations are gaining further momentum, particularly at this time – whether in M&A transactions, joint ventures or dispute resolution. I look forward to contributing my experience in this field, working alongside my new colleagues to establish a dedicated point of contact for clients with links to Turkey, and supporting them as they navigate their increasingly complex cross-border challenges."

With the appointment of Dr Gökçe Uzar Schüller, ADVANT Beiten is consistently pursuing its strategic growth path. The targeted expansion of the partnership in key areas of commercial law underscores the firm’s commitment to supporting clients with excellent specialist expertise and advice backed by a Europe-wide network across the ADVANT Alliance.

STAYING AHEAD IN A RAPIDLY CHANGING LEGAL LANDSCAPE

The global arbitration landscape is undergoing profound transformation, driven by two competing forces: the legislative push toward digitalisation and modernisation, and an increasingly complex geopolitical environment that challenges traditional enforcement mechanisms. This legal digest provides an analytical overview of pivotal arbitration developments across Germany, France, Italy, China and Russia as of mid-2026. The updates show how international dispute resolution is changing rapidly - and what businesses need to do to stay ahead.

Read the full Arbitration Digest (Summer 2026) here.

This opportunity does not, however, guarantee a good result.

A mediator manages the process, facilitates communication and helps the parties explore possible solutions. A mediator does not represent either party or advise whether a proposal should be accepted or rejected. These decisions remain with the parties. Mediation advocacy provides the legal, commercial and strategic support required to make these decisions on an informed basis.

We recently concluded two successful mediations, which were strikingly different in nature. One process unfolded over several months before reaching a resolution. The other was completed in just over two weeks. Yet both shared a common thread: While our role as counsel and the respective mediation styles differed, the same disciplined approach to preparation and case management proved decisive in achieving the best possible outcome for our clients.

1. What is mediation advocacy?

Mediation advocacy describes our role in preparing a client for commercial mediation, guiding the negotiations and turning any agreement reached into clear legal terms. It differs both from the role of the mediator and from conventional advocacy before a court or arbitral tribunal.

In litigation and arbitration, the lawyer’s principal task is to persuade a decision-maker of the client’s legal position. In mediation, there is no decision-maker to be persuaded. We instead help the client understand its position, evaluate settlement and non-settlement scenarios, define objectives and limits, develop possible solutions, negotiate effectively and translate any agreement into clear legal terms.

This requires a combination of legal analysis, commercial understanding, strategic judgment, negotiation experience and restraint.

2. Establishing the decision framework

Before entering into negotiations, the client needs a clear framework for evaluating possible outcomes. This includes identifying the desired result, the interests that must be protected, acceptable areas of compromise and any non-negotiable limits.

An important part of this exercise is assessing the client’s best and worst realistic alternatives to a negotiated agreement, commonly referred to as BATNA and WATNA. Relevant considerations include the prospects of success and evidential risks, the likely costs and duration of proceedings, enforcement or insolvency risks, the impact on management and internal resources, commercial and reputational consequences, and the future of the parties’ business relationship. 

This analysis provides a benchmark against which proposals can be measured. It helps prevent the client from accepting terms that are worse than its realistic alternatives or rejecting terms that would leave it in a better overall position.

BATNA and WATNA do not produce a mechanical settlement figure. Legal and institutional constraints, such as mandatory law, directors’ duties, compliance requirements, equal-treatment considerations or the precedent created by a settlement, may exclude options that otherwise appear commercially attractive. Our task as counsel is to make the true decision space visible:

Which alternatives are realistically available? Which settlement options improve on them? Which limits must be respected?

3. Moving from positions to interests

Commercial disputes are usually expressed through opposing positions. 

One party demands payment. The other denies liability.
One party insists on performance. The other seeks to terminate the contract.

A position describes a particular result. An interest explains why that result matters.

A demand for immediate payment may reflect a need for liquidity, security or planning certainty. A refusal to pay may be driven less by the amount than by concerns about precedent, reputation or similar claims from other parties.

Once the underlying interests are understood, additional solutions may become possible. Depending on the circumstances, these might include structured payments, security, adjustments to future business, revised performance obligations or a package combining financial and operational terms.

Focusing on interests does not mean abandoning legal rights. It allows the parties to identify solutions that may be more practical, valuable or predictable than the outcome of litigation. A mediation counsel helps identify the interests on both sides and translating them into workable settlement options.

4. Preparing and shaping the mediation

Mediation requires structured preparation. For corporate clients, this begins with the internal decision-making process. We would identify who needs to participate, who has authority to settle, who must be consulted and whether approval from management bodies, shareholders, insurers, lenders or other stakeholders may be required. The criteria for evaluating any settlement should be clarified in advance, not for the first time when an offer is already on the table.

Preparation also includes shaping the process. We as counsel may assist in selecting a mediator with suitable legal, commercial or sector experience and determining which participants can provide relevant information, assess the commercial consequences of the dispute or support the relationship between the parties.

The presentation of the case also requires consideration. Where appropriate, a mediation statement can help the mediator understand the dispute and its central legal, technical and commercial issues. We would consider whether an opening statement would assist the process and how our client’s position can be presented persuasively without unnecessarily entrenching positions.

A clear information and confidentiality strategy is equally important. The parties should understand the applicable confidentiality framework, including what may be disclosed in joint or private sessions and how information exchanged during the mediation may subsequently be used. Together with the client we would determine what should be shared, when it should be disclosed and what should remain confidential.

Preparation does not eliminate flexibility. It provides a framework within which the client can respond to new information and unexpected developments without making consequential decisions primarily under pressure or fatigue.

5. Advocacy in the room

Effective representation during the mediation requires assertiveness, judgment and restraint. A mediation is not an oral hearing. Repeating every legal argument may entrench positions without improving the client’s negotiating position. At the same time, remaining silent when the client is acting on a serious misunderstanding or moving beyond an agreed limit would not constitute effective representation.

We would explain the significance of new information (if required), test the assumptions underlying an offer, compare a proposal with the client’s alternatives, request time for private advice, structure concessions carefully, develop packages combining financial and non-financial terms, or protect the client against undue pressure.

Parties may also use ambitious opening positions, deadlines, assertions of limited authority or threats to leave. Such techniques are not necessarily improper, but they must be recognised and assessed. We as counsel may test whether an asserted constraint is genuine, resist pressure for an immediate response, make concessions conditional or reciprocal and return the discussion to objective criteria.

There will also be moments when the client is the most effective person to speak, particularly when explaining the commercial impact of the dispute or addressing a damaged business relationship. The relevant question is whether a particular intervention by us as counsel or the client advances informed decision-making and supports the negotiation.

6. Navigating obstacles and impasse

Even where the parties’ interests are understood, agreement is not automatic. Distrust, perceived unfairness, internal expectations or differing assessments of litigation risk may prevent progress.

Depending on the circumstances, progress may require clarifying disputed assumptions, separating individual issues, introducing objective criteria, developing conditional or package proposals or obtaining further information or internal approvals. A temporary adjournment may allow the parties to reconsider their assessments or continue negotiations once a particular uncertainty has been resolved.

A complete settlement is not the only useful outcome. Mediation may also result in agreement on individual issues, clarification of disputed facts, an exchange of information, a reduction in the matters requiring adjudication or an agreed process for continuing negotiations.

Effective advocacy is, therefore, not measured solely by whether a settlement is reached. If the available terms do not improve on the client’s realistic alternatives or fail to protect essential legal and commercial interests, declining them may be the right result. We would help our client to distinguish between an impasse that may still be overcome and a proposed agreement that should not be accepted.

7. Turning an agreement into a workable settlement

Agreement on headline terms is not the end of the process. Legal precision is essential to ensure that the settlement resolves the dispute instead of creating new uncertainty.

We as counsel would then consider whether the agreement is intended to be immediately binding, whether approvals or other conditions remain outstanding, which claims, contracts and related matters are covered, how and when each obligation must be performed, whether security or enforcement mechanisms are required, what happens in the event of delay or non-performance, how pending litigation or arbitration will be dealt with, how costs, confidentiality and external communications will be handled, and how disputes concerning implementation will be resolved.

Good mediation advocacy turns the negotiated solution into an agreement that is legally effective, practically workable and, where appropriate, enforceable.

Effective mediation advocacy helps clients make informed decisions, negotiate with clarity and convert any agreement reached into a workable legal solution. It does not guarantee settlement, but it ensures that each possible outcome is assessed and pursued on a sound legal, commercial and strategic basis.

Dr Ralf Hafner
Dr Tobias Pörnbacher

According to the 2025 International Arbitration Survey conducted by Queen Mary University of London in partnership with White & Case, the ICC Arbitration Rules emerged as the preferred set of arbitral rules across nearly every region (with only the exception of Asia-Pacific, where the ICC ranks third after HKIAC and SIAC), underlining both their global reach and their flexibility.

The revision also follows a period of continued growth for ICC Arbitration. In 2025, 881 new cases were filed under the ICC Arbitration Rules, placing the year among the three busiest years in the institution's history. At year end, a record 1,869 cases remained pending. In December 2025, the ICC Court reached another milestone by registering its 30,000th arbitration under the ICC Rules.

The scale of ICC Arbitration is further illustrated by the value of disputes administered by the institution. According to the 2024 ICC Dispute Resolution Statistics, the total value of pending cases reached US$354 billion, representing the highest aggregate caseload value ever recorded by the ICC.

Against this background, the 2026 revision was not intended to fundamentally reshape ICC Arbitration. Instead, the 2026 Rules continue the ICC's longstanding approach of refining existing mechanisms, expanding procedural options and adapting to evolving commercial realities.

1. Expanded Expedited Procedure and More Effective Emergency Arbitration

The 2026 Rules further strengthen the ICC's commitment to efficient dispute resolution by refining two mechanisms that have become increasingly important in practice: the Expedited Procedure Provisions ("EPP") and Emergency Arbitration.

1.1 Expanded Scope of Expedited Procedure

The overall structure of the EPP, now governed by Article 32 and Appendix V, remains unchanged. Proceedings continue to benefit from a sole arbitrator by default, shortened procedural timetables and lower costs than ordinary ICC arbitrations.

The principal amendment is the increase of the monetary threshold for automatic application from US$3 million to US$4 million for arbitration agreements concluded on or after 1 June 2026.

The revised threshold reflects both the growing value of international commercial disputes, and the confidence users have developed in expedited proceedings since their introduction in 2017. By the end of 2025, the ICC had administered more than 1,000 expedited cases, and more than 40% of cases filed in 2025 involved amounts below US$4 million.

Party autonomy remains fully preserved: parties may opt out of the EPP even where the threshold is met or agree to apply it to substantially larger disputes.

1.2 More Flexible Emergency Arbitration

The 2026 Rules also introduce targeted amendments to the Emergency Arbitration provisions contained in Article 31 and Appendix IV.

Most notably, emergency applications may now be brought not only against signatories and their successors, but also against parties for whom the President of the ICC Court is satisfied that an arbitration agreement may exist. The amendment reflects the increasingly complex structures of modern commercial transactions and seeks to ensure that access to urgent relief is not unnecessarily restricted.

Another significant innovation is the express recognition of preliminary orders. Emergency arbitrators are now expressly authorised to issue orders aimed at preventing a party from frustrating the purpose of an emergency application.

Where necessary, such orders may be granted without prior notice to the opposing party, for example where advance notice could result in asset dissipation or the destruction of evidence. At the same time, the Rules preserve due process by ensuring that affected parties are subsequently given an opportunity to present their case and by empowering the emergency arbitrator to modify or revoke the order.

These amendments align the ICC Rules more closely with other leading arbitration frameworks and enhance the effectiveness of urgent interim relief.

2. Enhanced Arbitrator Disclosure and Transparency

The independence and impartiality of arbitrators remain among the cornerstones of ICC Arbitration. Accordingly, the 2026 Rules devote particular attention to the disclosure framework contained in Article 12.

The substantive disclosure standard itself remains unchanged. Prospective arbitrators continue to be required to disclose circumstances that may call into question their independence or give rise to reasonable doubts as to their impartiality.

However, the Rules now incorporate several principles that had previously been reflected mainly in the ICC Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals (a guide on how to implement the arbitration rules in practice). Article 12(2) expressly provides that any doubts regarding whether a circumstance should be disclosed must be resolved in favour of disclosure, while Article 12(4) clarifies that disclosure alone does not establish a lack of independence or impartiality.

Another important innovation is Article 12(5), which requires each party to provide the Secretariat at the outset of the proceedings with a list of persons and entities that prospective arbitrators should consider for conflict purposes, together with the reasons for their inclusion.

The 2026 Rules also strengthen the position of tribunal secretaries. Tribunal secretaries are now subject to the same requirements of independence, impartiality and confidentiality as arbitrators and must sign a statement of acceptance, availability, impartiality and independence before their appointment. This development acknowledges the increasingly important role tribunal secretaries play in modern arbitral proceedings.

3. Express Recognition of Early Determination

Another important development under the 2026 Rules is the express introduction of Early Determination in Article 30.

Although not new, early determination had previously existed primarily through arbitral practice and the ICC Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals, which since 2017 has guided tribunals in disposing of manifestly unmeritorious claims or jurisdictional objections.

In response to feedback from users and the wider business community, the ICC has now incorporated this mechanism directly into the Rules, thereby removing any remaining uncertainty regarding a tribunal's authority to employ it.

Under Article 30, any party may request the early determination of one or more claims or defences on the grounds that they are manifestly without merit or manifestly outside the tribunal's jurisdiction. The tribunal retains broad discretion both as to whether the application should proceed and how the procedure should be organised.

Applications are expected to be made promptly, as those brought only after extensive submissions or document production are less likely to achieve their intended purpose.

Early determination is likely to be most effective where issues can be decided as a matter of law and without extensive evidentiary analysis. Its codification brings the ICC Rules into line with a broader trend among leading arbitral institutions, including SIAC, HKIAC and the SCC.

At the same time, the requirement that claims be "manifestly" without merit suggests that Early Determination will remain an exceptional tool rather than a substitute for full merits proceedings.

4. Greater Procedural Flexibility and the End of Mandatory Terms of Reference

One of the most notable procedural changes introduced by the 2026 Rules concerns the traditional Terms of Reference.

For decades, the Terms of Reference represented one of the defining features of ICC Arbitration, serving to confirm consent to arbitrate, record procedural agreements and identify the scope of the dispute. Over time, however, these functions became less significant as international arbitration evolved.

Under previous versions of the Rules, tribunals were required to prepare the Terms of Reference within 30 days after receiving the file. In practice, extensions were frequently granted, and many users increasingly regarded the process as adding costs and procedural complexity without materially narrowing the issues at such an early stage.

The Terms of Reference have been abolished as an instrument altogether, which does not, however, preclude the tribunal and the parties to the arbitration from agreeing on such.

The amendment builds on the ICC's experience with expedited proceedings introduced in 2017. In more than 1,000 expedited cases administered to date, only a small number of tribunals considered Terms of Reference necessary.

The reform places greater emphasis on early case management. The initial Case Management Conference under Article 24 now becomes the central procedural milestone in the arbitration. Following that conference, no party may introduce new claims without the tribunal's authorisation.

Another consequence concerns the timing of awards. Article 34 now allows the President of the ICC Court to determine and extend time limits by reference to the procedural timetable established in the case.

5. Introduction of Highly Expedited Arbitration

Perhaps the most visible innovation of the 2026 Rules is the introduction of the Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions ("HEAP"), first referred to in Article 33 and further set out in Appendix VI.

Building on Emergency Arbitration (2012) and the Expedited Procedure Provisions (2017), HEAP provides an additional opt-in option for parties seeking a swift and cost-efficient resolution.

Unlike the Expedited Procedure Provisions, HEAP does not apply automatically and is not linked to any monetary threshold. Instead, it is available on an opt-in basis, irrespective of the amount in dispute.

The suitability of HEAP depends not on the value of the dispute, but rather on its complexity and on the parties' interest in obtaining a rapid resolution. The procedure is intended primarily for disputes involving straightforward factual issues or limited procedural complexity and is therefore not available for joinder or consolidation scenarios.

Proceedings are conducted by a sole arbitrator and are accelerated from the outset. Parties are required to frontload their case by submitting the Statement of Claim together with the Request for Arbitration and the Statement of Defence together with the Answer. The sole arbitrator enjoys broad discretion to limit further submissions, witness evidence and document production and may decide the dispute without a hearing.

Most notably, the award is expected within three months from the initial Case Management Conference, including the ICC Court's scrutiny process.

Another innovative feature is the possibility for parties to agree to an award without reasons. While this may further enhance efficiency, parties should carefully consider potential enforcement risks in jurisdictions that require reasoned awards.

HEAP represents one of the few genuinely new mechanisms introduced by the 2026 Rules. HEAP reinforces one of the central themes of the revision: enabling parties to tailor the arbitral process to the needs of their dispute.

6. Further Noteworthy Amendments 

In addition to the headline changes, the 2026 Rules contain several smaller amendments that further modernise the ICC framework and align it with contemporary arbitral practice.

Electronic communications are now the default under Article 3. Requests for Arbitration, Answers and Requests for Joinder are to be submitted electronically, reflecting long-standing practice and the increasing use of ICC Case Connect.

Consistently with the abolition of mandatory Terms of Reference, Article 34 now links award deadlines to the procedural timetable rather than the signing of Terms of Reference, without affecting the specific timelines under the EPP and HEAP.

The Rules also address confidentiality more expressly. For the first time, arbitrators are subject to an explicit confidentiality obligation under Article 12(8), while parties retain the freedom to tailor confidentiality arrangements to the needs of their particular dispute.

Another amendment reflecting contemporary practice concerns virtual tribunal deliberations. Article 19(3) expressly provides that arbitral tribunals may deliberate in person, virtually or in any other appropriate manner. Following the widespread adoption of remote working practices after the COVID-19 pandemic, the amendment formalises what has already become common practice in international arbitration.

Finally, Article 14 expands the factors that may be considered when appointing arbitrators. In addition to traditional criteria such as nationality, residence and availability, the ICC Court may now expressly consider the qualifications and expertise required by the dispute, including expertise in investment protection law where appropriate. Article 14 also provides greater flexibility by allowing direct appointments in suitable cases.

7. Conclusion

The 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules illustrate the ICC's long-standing approach of measured and pragmatic reform in response to developments in international commerce and arbitral practice.

At the same time, the Rules demonstrate the ICC's willingness to innovate where appropriate. The introduction of Highly Expedited Arbitration, the express recognition of Early Determination and the move away from mandatory Terms of Reference show that the institution continues to adapt its framework to evolving user expectations and the increasing demand for efficiency and proportionality.

In that sense, the 2026 revision reflects one of the ICC's greatest strengths: maintaining continuity while ensuring that the Rules evolve alongside international arbitration itself - with a record caseload and more than 30,000 cases administered to date as testament to their enduring relevance.

Dr Ralf Hafner
Oliver Korte
Dr Tobias Pörnbacher

In this new episode of our Fil Rouge series, our restructuring lawyers explore the legal and financial challenges businesses can face during an LBO, from early warning signs to restructuring options and strategic solutions.

They explain the key issues for companies, shareholders, lenders and investors, and highlight how anticipating difficulties can help preserve value and support long-term recovery.