When several obligees can claim performance of the same obligation from an obligor:
(a) the claims are separate when each obligee can only claim its share;
(b) the claims are joint and several when each obligee can claim the whole performance;
(c) the claims are joint when all obligees have to claim performance together.
COMMENT
1. Several obligees
Plurality of obligees occurs in different situations.
Illustration
1. Banks A, B and C join in a syndicated loan agreement to lend company X USD 12,000,000. The three banks are plural obligees with regard to claiming reimbursement from X.
Other instances of plurality of obligees occur, among others, with co-insurers, multiple buyers and/or sellers in share acquisition agreements and partners in consortium agreements in various sectors, such as the construction sector or the petroleum industry.
2. The same obligation
This Section applies when the different obligees can claim performance of the same obligation from the obligor. This is the case in Illustration 1 (reimbursement of the syndicated loan). Situations where different obligees of the same obligor have rights deriving from different obligations do not fall under the scope of this Section.
Illustration
2. Architect A and contractor B are both involved in the construction of a new industrial plant. Their respective claims against the client concern different obligations (payment of their respective types of services). The claims are not subject to the Articles in this Section, but to the respectively applicable law.
On the other hand, when different actors in a construction project join in a consortium and claim one payment for all their services, they are to be considered as plural obligees for that payment.
The “same obligation” usually derives from a single contract. In Illustration 1, the syndicated loan agreement is a single contract. It could however also happen, in the same situation, that each lender would choose to have its own contract with the borrower. Co-insurers joining to cover the same risk usually have distinct contractual relationships with the insured.
Illustration
3. Eight insurance companies agree to co-insure the liability risks of a pharmaceutical group. The co-insurance agreement provides that each co-insurer has a distinct contractual relationship with the insured, but the insured’s obligations towards the co-insurers are the same (payment of the agreed premium, required prevention measures, loss notification, etc.). These co-insurers are plural obligees, subject as such to the Articles in this Section.
3. Three main types
Article 11.2.1 defines three main types of claims available in practice when several obligees can claim performance of the same obligation from an obligor.
The claims can be separate. Each obligee can then claim only its share.
Illustration
4. The facts are the same as in Illustration 1. If the claims of banks A, B and C against X totalling USD 12,000,000 are separate and if their shares are equal, each bank may only claim reimbursement of USD 4,000,000 from X.
The claims can be joint and several, which means that each obligee can claim full performance (see Article 11.2.2), subject to subsequent allocation between the different obligees (see Article 11.2.4).
Illustration
5. Companies A and B are co-owners of a storage house, which they rent to transport company X. The contract provides that the co-owners’ claims for the rent are joint and several. A and B may each claim payment of the full amount of the rent from X.
The claims are “joint” when all obligees have to claim together; consequently, the obligor may only perform in favour of all of them together. This situation is sometimes also referred to as “communal claims”.
Illustration
6. Companies A and B rent an office together, to share in a foreign capital. Due to the nature of their claim on occupation of the office, A and B are joint obligees. This would not prevent them from designating one of them as agent for dealings with the owner of the premises.
4. No presumption provided
In the case of plurality of obligors, Article 11.1.2 sets a presumption of joint and several obligations, because this corresponds to the most frequent commercial practice.
On the contrary, when it comes to determining to which of the three types defined in this Article claims by plural obligees belong, the Principles do not provide any presumption. The reason is that none of these types seems to be dominant in practice; choices vary considerably, mainly depending on the operation concerned.
Consequently, in situations where plural obligees are involved, parties are encouraged to choose the relevant type by an express stipulation.
Illustrations
7. Banks A, B and C join in a syndicated loan agreement to offer financing to company X. The agreement provides that “All amounts due, and obligations owed, to each Bank are separate and independent obligations. Each Bank may separately enforce its rights under this agreement”. This express provision makes the banks’ claims separate.
8. Art collectors A and B, co-owners of a painting by Rothko, sell it to a Museum for the price of USD 20,000,000. The contract stipulates that each seller can claim payment of the whole price. The claims are joint and several.
9. The facts are the same as in Illustration 8, except that the sales contract with the Museum provides that A and B’s claims are separate. This means that each of them can only claim payment of the price for its own share of the claim, normally corresponding to its previous share of ownership.
Before making such a contractual choice, parties should pay attention to the advantages and disadvantages of each of the different types of plural claim.
In particular, joint and several claims have the advantage of avoiding the multiplication of law suits. This is an especially important concern in international trade. Any of the obligees may claim the whole performance. Joint and several claims also simplify the situation of the obligor, who will not have to divide performance between its different obligees. From the point of view of the plural obligees themselves, claims are normally easier if they are joint and several.
On the other hand, plural obligees have to be aware that if their claims are joint and several they lose exclusive control of their respective shares. Any other joint and several obligee may claim and collect the whole performance, with the risk that later allocation under Article 11.2.5 could create difficulties. This explains why separate claims seem to be more prevalent in certain sectors (see for instance Illustration 1).
If the parties have failed to make an explicit contractual choice, the type to which a plural claim should be assigned will be determined by interpretation of the contract in accordance with the provisions in Chapter 4. In many instances circumstances such as the nature or the purpose of the contract will be especially relevant (see Article 4.3 (d)).
Illustrations
10. Company A, located in country X, and company B, located in country Y, join in ordering a large quantity of cars from a manufacturer. The cars for country X are right-hand drive, those for country Y left-hand drive. When delivery is to be claimed, these circumstances indicate that A and B are separate obligees, each one being entitled to claim its type of car.
11. Tax consultant X has undertaken to give tax advice to companies A and B concerning the operations of a joint venture in which the latter are involved. Since the tax advice concerns the common venture of A and B and this advice is hardly divisible, A and B are to be considered as joint and several obligees when claiming performance from X.
5. Possible designation of an agent
In practice, plural obligees often designate an agent with the authority to deal with the obligor on behalf of all of them, within agreed limits. This seems to be especially frequent, for practical reasons, when the claims are separate. However, in that case, each obligee intends to keep full control of its own rights, often reserving the possibility to revoke the agent’s authority at any time.
Illustration
12. Banks A, B and C have joined in a syndicated loan agreement to lend USD 12,000,000 to company X. The claims are separate, USD 4,000,000 for each bank. However, A has been designated as agent of the consortium with authority to collect reimbursement of the full amount.
The initiative of designating an intermediary may come from an obligor who wants to exert some control over claims which could be separately brought by its numerous obligees.
Illustration
13. Under the terms of issue of a bearer bond trustees are appointed to represent the interests of bondholders. The issuer covenants to make payments to each bondholder in accordance with the terms of issue and gives the trustee a parallel payment covenant. Upon the issuer’s default the trustee may at its discretion enforce payment and must do so if so required by a given percentage in value of bondholders. Individual bondholders are precluded from taking action on default by the issuer unless the trustee for the bondholders has failed to fulfil its obligation under the trust deed to take enforcement action. Each bondholder is a separate obligee. The purpose of the trust is simply to monitor performance by the issuer and co-ordinate enforcement in order to avoid precipitate action by an individual bondholder.
Full performance of an obligation in favour of one of the joint and several obligees discharges the obligor towards the other obligees.
COMMENT
1. Each obligee can claim full performance
The main effect of joint and several claims has already been stated in the definition of Article 11.2.1(2). When claims are joint and several each obligee is entitled to claim full performance from the obligor.
Illustration
1. Co-owners A and B sell their hotel to buyer X for a price of EUR 5,000,000. Their shares of co-ownership are equal. The sales contract provides that the sellers’ claims concerning payment of the price are joint and several. A may claim EUR 5,000,000 from X, subject to further allocation under Article 11.2.4.
2. Obligor’s choice
This Article states two other major effects of joint and several claims.
First, if the obligor takes the initiative to spontaneously perform its obligation, it is entitled to render performance in favour of any of its obligees.
Illustration
2. The facts are the same as in Illustration 1. X takes the initiative of paying the price before being invited to do so by either of its obligees. X may validly pay to A or to B.
3. Obligor’s discharge
Another main effect of joint and several claims is that the obligor who has rendered full performance in favour of one of the obligees is discharged towards the other obligees.
Illustration
3. The facts are the same as in Illustration 1. X has paid the whole price of EUR 5,000,000 to A. B, having difficulties to recover its share from A, requests payment of EUR 2,500,000 from X. Under Article 11.2.2(2), the claim will be rejected since full payment to A has discharged X towards the other obligee.
4. Practical aspects
The right given to each of the joint or several obligees to claim full performance may call for some coordination to avoid duplication of initiatives and unnecessary costs. Either the obligees have agreed in advance on which of them will claim performance, or at least the obligee envisaging to take the initiative should consult with its co-obligees.
On the other hand, when the obligor takes the initiative its choice of obligee to which it will perform may be affected by the fact that another obligee is already requesting performance. Some prior consulting may then be appropriate. Furthermore, an obligee who has received payment should immediately inform the others that performance has been rendered.
These solutions could usefully be agreed in advance by all parties involved. Otherwise the requirements of good faith and fair dealing are always applicable (Article 1.7).
(1) The obligor may assert against any of the joint and several obligees all the defences and rights of set-off that are personal to its relationship to that obligee or that it can assert against all the co-obligees, but may not assert defences and rights of set-off that are personal to its relationship to one or several of the other co-obligees.
(2) The provisions of Articles 11.1.5, 11.1.6, 11.1.7 and 11.1.8 apply, with appropriate adaptations, to joint and several claims.
COMMENT
1. Availability of defences
The defences which may entitle the obligor to refuse to perform do not necessarily exist against all obligees. Some of the defences may be personal to the obligor’s relationship with one obligee only. These defences can be asserted only against the obligee concerned.
Illustration
1. Grain producer X has agreed to supply a certain quantity of wheat seeds to companies A, B and C which are engaged in a common agricultural project in a developing country. The contract provides that A, B and C are joint and several obligees as concerns the deliveries. X discovers that the premises where it has to deliver the seeds are not equipped with appropriate facilities for convenient unloading, the availability of which only A has guaranteed. X may invoke this as a defence against A requiring delivery, but not against B and C which had not guaranteed that the premises for the delivery would be equipped with appropriate facilities.
The obligor may also assert defences that it has in common against all obligees.
Illustration
2. The facts are the same as in Illustration 1. X finds out that the agricultural project involves child labour by A, B and C in violation of applicable mandatory rules. This is a common defence that X may assert against any one of the obligees claiming delivery of the wheat seeds.
2. Effects of certain defences
Section 1 of this Chapter contains particular rules about the effects of certain types of defence (see Articles 11.1.5, 11.1.6, 11.1.7 and 11.1.8) available to joint and several obligors. Paragraph (3) of this Article provides that these rules apply, with appropriate adaptations, to joint and several claims.
a. Performance and set-off (reference to Article 11.1.5)
Article 11.1.5 provides that “Performance or set-off by a joint and several obligor or set-off by the obligee against one joint and several obligor discharges the other obligors in relation to the obligee to the extent of the performance or set-off”. Similarly, performance received by (or set-off exercised by) one of the joint and several obligees discharges the obligor towards the other obligees to the extent of the performance of set-off.
Illustrations
3. Companies A, B and C have jointly and severally loaned EUR 300,000 to X. A receives full payment. If B or C still claims reimbursement, X may assert that it has fully performed to A.
4. The facts are the same as in Illustration 3, except that X can claim EUR 300,000 from A for the sale of office equipment. X exercises the right of set-off under Article 8.3. Its obligation under the loan agreement is extinguished not only vis-à-vis A but also vis-à-vis B and C.
b. Release and settlement (reference to Article 11.1.6)
Article 11.1.6 provides that “Release of one joint and several obligor, or settlement with one joint and several obligor, discharges all the other obligors for the share of the released or settling obligor, unless the circumstances indicate otherwise”. Similarly, release granted to the obligor by one of the obligees (or settlement with the obligor by one of the obligees) discharges the obligor towards the other obligees to the extent of the release or settlement.
Illustrations
5. Pamela, a famous race horse, has been sold by its co-owners A and B to buyer X. Concerning payment of the price, the contract provides that A and B are joint and several obligees. If A releases X from A’s share of X’s obligation, B’s claim against X is reduced by the amount of A’s share. A has no contributory recourse against B under Article 11.2.4 (see Article 11.1.6(2)).
6. The facts are the same as in Illustration 3, but A, whose share in the loan is EUR 100,000, settles with X, accepting a payment of EUR 60,000, i.e. an amount below its share. The joint and several claims of B and C against X are reduced by the full amount of A’s share, i.e. by EUR 100,000, and both remain X’s joint and several obligees for EUR 200,000. Settling obligee A has no recourse under Article 11.2.4 against B or C (see Article 11.1.6(2)).
As in Article 11.1.6, with appropriate adaptations, the reference to settlement concerns the special case where a separate settlement intervenes between the obligor and one of the joint and several obligees for the latter’s share. In this case the issue to be solved is that of the consequences of such a settlement for the other obligees’ claims.
In the more frequent situation where the settlement concerns all the joint and several claims, the consequences for the different obligees’ claims are determined by the terms of the settlement agreed by all parties and the contributory claims are adjusted accordingly.
c. Expiration of limitation periods (reference to Article 11.1.7)
Article 11.1.7 provides that the expiration of the limitation period of the obligee’s rights against one joint and several obligor affects neither (a) the obligations to the obligee of the other joint and several obligors, nor (b) the rights of recourse between the joint and several obligors under Article 11.1.10. Similarly, the expiration of the limitation period of one of the obligees’ rights against the obligor affects neither (a) the obligor’s obligations towards the other joint and several obligees, nor (b) the rights of recourse between the joint and several obligees under Article 11.2.4.
Illustration
7. Obligor X has three joint and several obligees, A, B and C. A’s claim against X is time-barred. This does not affect B and C’s claims against X. If B or C receives performance from X, A can claim its share from the co-obligee having received payment.
Article 11.1.7 also provides that if the obligee initiates proceedings under Articles 10.5, 10.6 or 10.7 against one joint and several obligor, the running of the limitation period is suspended also against the other joint and several obligors. Similarly, if one of the obligees initiates proceedings against the obligor, the running of the limitation period is also suspended in favour of the other joint and several obligees.
d. Effect of judgment (reference to Article 11.1.8)
Article 11.1.8 provides that a decision by a court as to the liability to the obligee of one joint and several obligor affect neither (a) the obligations to the obligee of the other joint and several obligors, nor (b) the rights of recourse between the joint and several obligors under Article 11.1.10. Similarly, a decision by a court as to the obligor’s liability towards one of the joint and several obligees affects neither (a) the obligor’s obligations towards the other joint and several obligees, nor (b) the rights of recourse between the joint and several obligees under Article 11.2.4.
Illustration
8. Obligor X has three joint and several obligees, A, B and C. A, acting alone, sues X for performance. The judgement grants A only part of its claim. Such judgment does not affect the obligations of X towards B or C, nor the recourses between the co-obligees under Article 11.2.4.
However, Article 11.1.8(2) also provides that the other joint and several obligors may rely on such a decision, except if it were based on grounds personal to the obligor concerned. In this case, the rights of recourse between the joint and several obligors under Article 11.1.10 are affected accordingly. Similarly, the other joint and several obligees may rely on the decision if they find it in their interest, except if it was based on grounds personal to the obligee concerned.
Illustration
9. The facts are the same as in Illustration 8. This time, however, the judgment gives full satisfaction to A, including the awarding of additional damages. The other obligees may avail themselves of this favourable decision.
(1) As among themselves, joint and several obligees are entitled to equal shares, unless the circumstances indicate otherwise.
(2) An obligee who has received more than its share must transfer the excess to the other obligees to the extent of their respective shares.
COMMENT
1. Presumption of equal shares
Joint and several obligees may each claim full performance of the whole obligation under Article 11.2.2. However, as among themselves, they are only entitled to their respective shares. These shares are presumed to be equal.
Illustration
1. Co-owners A and B have sold their factory for SFR 10,000,000, and they are joint and several obligees for the payment of the price. However, once the buyer has paid SFR 10,000,000, each co-owner will be entitled to receive its share in the final allocation. In principle, the shares are considered to be equal. Each co-owner should receive SFR 5,000,000.
However, the circumstances may indicate otherwise.
Illustration
2. The facts are the same as in Illustration 1, except that the shares of co-ownership of the factory were not equal, but 75% for A and 25% for B. This will indicate that A should receive SFR 7,500,000 and B SFR 2,500,000.
2. Transfer of excess received
It will usually happen that the co-obligee claiming payment receives more than its share, as it is entitled to claim full performance under Article 11.2.2. When an obligee has received more than its share, it must transfer the excess to the other obligees to the extent of their respective shares.
Illustration
3. The facts are the same as in Illustration 1. A has been paid the full price of the factory, i.e. SFR 10,000,000, and its share of co-ownership was 50%. A must transfer SFR 5,000,000 to B.
Whether the claim of the other obligees to the sums in excess is a property right or merely a personal claim against the obligee who received more than its share is outside the scope of the Principles.
Professor Iacopo Donati is the UNIDROIT/Bank of Italy Chair Holder and is mainly responsible for assisting in the Bank Insolvency project. He is Professor of Corporate and Insolvency Law at the University of Siena, and coordinates the research project ‘Pro.Re.Ba.’ (Proportionating rules on bank crisis prevention and management to the case of retail banks), which has received funding from the Italian Ministry of University. He has previously taught corporate law at the University of Venice ‘Ca’ Foscari’, at the University of Florence and at the University of Rome ‘Tor Vergata’.
Professor Donati is the author of several publications on corporate law, restructuring, insolvency law, and bank crisis management. On the same topics, he has been invited as a speaker to various international and national conferences and participated in some high-impact international, European, and national research projects. Professor Donati’s education includes a Ph.D. in Corporate Law (University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’), an LLM in Corporate Governance (Stanford Law School), and a Law Degree with honors (University of Florence). He is qualified as an attorney in Italy and in the State of New York (USA).
Ms Olga Fonotova is an Associate Professor of the Faculty of Law (Department of Legal Regulation of Business) at the Russian National Research University “Higher School of Economics” in Moscow. She holds a PhD degree cum laude in private law / private international law from the Lomonosov Moscow State University (2006). Her academic and teaching interests cover private international law, international and national commercial law, with a focus on unified and non-state legal regulation of cross-border commerce.
Olga is a Russian law qualified practicing lawyer in the sphere of national and international commercial and corporate law with 20+ years’ experience in leading law firms. As part of her legal practice, she has advised multinational corporations on the setting up of multi-jurisdictional commercial relations, on the formation / termination of international joint ventures, restructuring of assets, and financing / refinancing of projects. For her work on commercial and corporate legal matters she was included in the international rating of leading lawyers “The Best Lawyers® in Russia” (2018 – 2022).
She is a UNIDROIT alumna (2011) and a Correspondent of UNIDROIT in Russia (2023 – 2025). From 2016 to 2021 Olga was a member of the ICC Commission on Commercial Law and Practice (ICC CLP) and a member of the Association of European Business (AEB) in Moscow.
Allan M. Mukuki, PhD Candidate (Navarra, Spain), LLM (Groningen, Netherlands), PGDip (KSL), LLB (Hons) (UoN), ACIArb (London), Advocate of the High Court of Kenya.
Allan Mukuki is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya as well as a Commissioner for Oaths. He is presently a PhD Candidate at the University of Navarra in Spain. He is also a holder of an LL.M in International Law and the Law of International Organizations, from the University of Groningen in the Netherlands. He has an LL. B (Hons) from the University of Nairobi, he is a Member of the Cha
rtered Institute of Arbitrators (London). He further holds a post-graduate diploma in law from the Kenya School of Law. Allan is also a scholar from the Hague Academy of International Law.
Some of his many roles in the legal profession include Director of International Partnerships; a Doctoral Fellow; member of the Management Committee and moot court coordinator, all for Strathmore Law School; Research Fellow for the African Region (Kenya), for the European Research Council Grant Project on the interpretation of customary international law; and Acting Director for the Strathmore Institute of Advanced Studies in International Criminal Justice (SIASIC)
Allan has previously worked at A.F Gross Advocate; in various legal institutes; in governmental agencies and in the Judiciary of Kenya. He was also a Legal researcher in the Office of the Solicitor General, Kenya, for the Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya), a case that was before the International Court of Justice. His main areas of specialization include Public International Law, The Law of International Organizations, International Humanitarian Law, International and Regional (EAC) Refugee Law and Legal Policy Development.
Further, Allan has been involved in various national and international legal consultancies and projects; he has published several peer reviewed legal articles, a legal monograph and presented several legal papers in international conferences around the world. He has also developed several policy documents for Strathmore University as well as (currently operational) manuals and laws for the operation of the Judiciary as well as governmental agencies and regional agencies such as IGAD.
ANDREA SANTACOLOMA
Director
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE
Andrea Santacoloma is a Panamanian lawyer that focuses her practice on international commercial arbitration.
Prior to joining Adell & Merizalde, Andrea was the Deputy Director for Latin America of the ICC International Court of Arbitration for 5 years. In this role, she gained vast experience in the internal functioning of the ICC’s Secretariat and Court and saw first-hand the work of hundreds of arbitrators and ICC Court Members in the region. Andrea was also in charge of identifying new opportunities and potential users of the ICC Dispute Resolution Services (ICC DRS) in Latin America, in liaison with the ICC National Committees and other institutions in the region. She also worked as a lawyer advising local and international clients on business and corporate law and M&A in 3 Panamanian law firms.
She is currently the Executive Director of the Latin American Arbitration Association (ALARB), one of Latin America’s leading associations gathering practitioners and arbitrators, which seeks to encourage the use of arbitration and foster initiatives for the development of international arbitration in the region.
In July 2022, the G
overning Council of the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) appointed Andrea as a Correspondent for Latin America. Namely, Andrea was appointed as a Correspondent for the Republic of Panama for the period 2022-2025.
EDUCATION
• American University Washington College of Law, LL.M. in International Arbitration and Business Law
• International Training Centre of the International Labor Organization (ILO) jointly with the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), Università degli Studi di Torino, and University Institute of European Studies (IUSE), LL.M. in International Trade Law & Dispute Resolution
• Universidad Católica Santa María La Antigua, LL.M. in Corporate Law
• Universidad Católica Santa María La Antigua, Degree in Law and Political Science
• Centro de Estudios Regionales de Panamá, Diploma in Entrepreneurship and Management of Small and Medium Enterprises
Bar admissions
Republic of Panama
Languages
Spanish, English, Italian (intermediate)
asantacoloma@adellmerizalde.com
+507 370 4155
NAME: PROF. DR. HERNANY VEYTIA (LL.M. YALE)
AFFILIATION DIRECTOR BNM-CAMBRIDGE STUDY CENTRE ON SUSTAINABLE INVESTMENTS
PRESENTATION
Professor of law, international strategic consultant, arbitrator, and entrepreneur. Hernany Veytia is very comfortable with complex, high-profile and confidential transactions. Her consulting experience as partner of BNM and Deloitte enables her to focus on and add value to the sustainable and commercial aspects of each deal. Frequently she leads transdisciplinary teams to deliver fact findings and legal opinions, feasibility studies and turn-key projects for banks, governments, international organisations, and corporations willing to expand or withdraw operations in other jurisdictions.
In Prof Veytia’s experience UNIDROIT works have been very useful to understand not only the foreign law, but also to recognise the cultural, political, and economic factors at play, and the way national and international regulators operate-and cooperate. In her opinion, UNIDROIT instruments have been of utmost importance for the legal strategies she designed for:
• DANPREIT (Dispute Analytics Platform for Real Estate Investment Trusts in the Agriculture, Construction and Mining industries).
• TELEKAIROS, innovative methodology that incorporates the use of space assets.
• Corporate art collections, restitutions, including donations, sponsorships, and loans to museums.
• Contracts used by a German waterworks company willing to grow in all the Caribbean and Central American countries.
• Liquidation of commercial and investment banks
• IPOs and reverse mergers for companies in the extraction industries (Canadian stock exchange), ILS listed in Bermuda and African sovereign funds listed in London.
• Franchising and other commercial contracts in the food & drinks, health, aero-space, and automotive industries.
In the last three decades Prof. Veytia has lived, and successfully completed investments and disinvestments in more than forty countries in the five Continents. She is frequently appointed as arbitrator and invited as speaker on risk transfers at international industry conferences in fields of her expertise: energy (both renewable and traditional), artificial intelligence, infrastructure, mining, real estate, agriculture, rail, space, automotive, and franchising. She sits in the board of directors of companies in Europe including the United Kingdom.
Anna Veneziano is the Deputy Secretary General of the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT). She is a Professor of Comparative Law at the University of Teramo, Italy, where she was formerly the Director of the Department of Private Law. She has also formerly been a tenured Professor of European Property Law at the University of Amsterdam (UvA). Her education includes a Law Degree with honours from the University of Rome La Sapienza, an LL.M degree from the Yale Law School funded by a Fulbright scholarship, and a PhD degree from the University of Florence (Italy).
Her main research and publication areas are on secured transactions as well as international, comparative, and European contract and sales law. Before joining UNIDROIT she was a member of the Italian delegation with respect to the Cape Town Convention on International Interests on Mobile Equipment and its Aircraft Protocol as well as its Space Protocol. She was also a member of the Study Group on a European Civil Code and of the Compilation and Redaction Group on a Draft Common Frame of Reference on European Private Law (DCFR), and of the restricted Expert Group set up by the European Commission on a common European law on sales.
P
rofessor Ignacio Tirado was appointed Secretary-General by the Governing Council at its 97th session, and officially took office on 27 August 2018. A national of Spain, Professor Tirado (Commercial, Corporate and Insolvency Law, Universidad Autónoma of Madrid, Spain) holds a PhD from the Universities of Bologna and Autónoma de Madrid and an LLM from the University of London. Professor Tirado has been a Senior Legal Consultant at the World Bank’s Legal Vice-Presidency and Financial Sector Practice for more than nine years, having also consulted for the IMF on insolvency related matters as well as for the Asian Development Bank on commercial legal reform.
Amongst other accolades to his professional experience, Professor Tirado is a founding member of the European Banking Institute, an International Fellow of the American College of Bankruptcy and has been Director and Academic Co-Chair of the International Insolvency Institute.
A Swedish national, Ms Lena Peters grew up in Italy where she attended an English school. In 1978 she took her Juris Kandidatexamen at Stockholm University followed by a Master of Laws from King’s College, London (1979). Since 1985 she has been with UNIDROIT, first as Research Officer, lastly as Principal Legal Officer, her main duties being Secretary to the Working Group for the Preparation of Principles of International Commercial Contracts, Secretary to the Study Group on Franchising, Secretary to the Committee of Governmental Experts on Franchising.She also collaborated on the project for the preparation of the ELI-Unidroit Model European Rules of Civil Procedure. She is currently Managing Editor of the Uniform Law Review and responsible for publications at UNIDROIT.
Marina Schneider is Principal Legal Officer and Treaty Depositary at UNIDROIT. She studied law at the University of Strasbourg (France) and Paris I – Panthéon Sorbonne. She joined the UNIDROIT in 1987 and was involved in the elaboration and French versions of most UNIDROIT instruments since. She is in charge of the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects and of the UNESCO-UNIDROIT Model Provisions on State Ownership of Undiscovered Cultural Objects. She is the author of the Explanatory Report of the 1995 Convention and many articles on the Convention and other international instruments in the field. Ms Schneider is also responsible for the project on private collections and for the UNIDROIT Convention Academic Project (UCAP). She is member of the Board of the International Society for Research on Art and Cultural Heritage Law (ISCHAL).
Professor of Commercial Law, Carlos III University of Madrid. Currently, Sir Roy Goode Scholar at UNIDROIT, Rome, 2021-2022. Chair of Excellence 2017-2018 at University of Oxford (Uc3m- Santander Program), affiliated to Harris Manchester College. Previously Distinguished Visiting Professor and fellow of a number of Academic Institutions. Arbitrator of Madrid Court of Arbitration. Member of ELI (European Law Institute) Council and Executive Committee. Member of the Expert Group of the European Commission on Liability and New Technologies and member of the Expert Group of the European Observatory of Platform Economy; the International Academy of Commercial and Consumer Law; the expert group of the Inclusive Global Legal Innovation Platform for Online Dispute Resolution – UNCITRAL and Hong Kong Department of Justice. Expert of the UNIDROIT Study Group on the MAC Protocol of the Cape Town Convention on International Interests. Delegate of Spain to UNIDROIT for the adoption of the Protocol, delegate of Spain in Working Group VI of UNCITRAL on secured transactions and in Working Group IV on Electronic Commerce. Member of UNIDROIT Working Groups on Enforcement and Warehouse Receipts.
William Brydie-Watson is an Australian lawyer who specialises in secured transactions law and private international law. Before joining UNIDROIT, William was a government lawyer in the Private International Law and International Arbitration section of the Australian Attorney-General’s Department, where he worked primarily on treaty negotiation and the implementation of private international law treaties in Australia. At UNIDROIT, he is primarily responsible for the implementation of the Mining, Agriculture and Construction (MAC Protocol) to the 2001 Cape Town Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment and the development of a Model Law on Factoring. William also serves as UNIDROIT’s liaison with the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum and as manager of the Institute’s Scholarship and Internship Programme. Admitted to practice in New South Wales and the High Court of Australia, he has a Bachelor of Arts (honours), a Bachelor of Laws and a Master of Laws from the Australian National University. William also lectures on International Secured Transactions Law at the Eotvos Lorand Faculty of Law in Budapest.
