International Litigation & Arbitration Newsletter|May 2006|Volume 5 Issue 4|

International Litigation & Arbitration

 Newsletter

 North America
Baker & McKenzie

Welcome to the May 2006 issue of the International Litigation and Arbitration Newsletter. This newsletter is an electronic bi-monthly publication distributed by Baker & McKenzie's North American Litigation Practice Group that provides summaries of recent decisions and other matters of interest in the area of international litigation and arbitration.

If you have any questions about the matters discussed below, or suggestions for improving the Newsletter, please forward any comments to us by clicking on one of our email links below.

If you would like to subscribe to other Baker & McKenzie newsletters, please click on the "subscribe" link to the left and select the newsletters that interest you.

Regards,

David Zaslowsky
Co-Editor

Grant Hanessian
Co-Editor


Seminar
FREE CLE SEMINAR FOR IN-HOUSE COUNSEL, "DRAFTING EFFECTIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION CLAUSES FOR INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS," MAY 31, 2006.

To view the seminar details and registration, click here.

 

> Back to Top


Articles
Manifestations of the Doctrine of Manifest Disregard

Vacating an arbitral award on grounds of manifest disregard of the law is largely a creation of the U.S. courts. Our first featured article looks at the development and current status of this doctrine. The article was written by Michael Morkin (Chicago office) and Saralyn Ang-Olson (San Francisco office).

 

> Read More     > Back to Top


Case Summaries

Antidumping. Eighth Circuit affirms $35 million antidumping award against Japanese printing press manufacturer.
> Read More

 

Arbitration Agreement. District court dismisses motion to confirm award because there was no "agreement in writing."
> Read More

 

Arbitration. Manifest Disregard. Eleventh Circuit refuses to vacate arbitration award under manifest disregard of the law standard and threatens sanctions in the future for parties seeking to vacate arbitration awards without a sound basis in law.
> Read More

 

Arbitration. Manifest Disregard. Fourth Circuit vacates district court refusal to vacate arbitration award where arbitrator unilaterally imposed limitations period not provided for in the applicable arbitration agreement and dismissed proceedings as untimely.
> Read More

 

Attachments in Aid of Admiralty Litigation. Ex parte maritime attachment order vacated upon Plaintiff's inability to show that the attachment was necessary to obtain jurisdiction or secure damages.
> Read More

 

Arbitration - Discovery Sanctions. Unauthorized Practice of Law. Massachusetts held that arbitration award could not be vacated based on out-of-state attorney's representation of party to arbitration proceeding or because monetary sanctions were awarded for failure to comply with discovery.
> Read More

 

Bankruptcy Code. Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933. SEC Rule 144A. U.S. Bankruptcy court holds that Argentine court may hold "fairness hearing" required under Section 3(a)(10) in a dispute between an Argentine cable company and holders of notes that the company issued in the United States.
> Read More

 

Choice of Law. Shipowner's limitation of liability for maritime incident deemed procedural rather than substantive and thus governed by U.S. law.
> Read More

 

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Attachments in Aid of Admiralty Litigation. District Court determines that the FSIA did not apply to an entity that was neither created pursuant to an international agreement nor wholly owned by foreign sovereigns, and that Rule B attachments could be issued to aid in international admiralty litigation, provided that admiralty jurisdiction was proper.
> Read More

 

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Only the sovereign itself can assert the immunity from attachment provided for under the FSIA.
> Read More

 

Forum Non Conveniens. District Court dismisses case against American manufacturers of blood-clotting products on grounds of forum non conveniens
> Read More

 

Forum Non Conveniens. Third Circuit holds that district court must ascertain status of personal jurisdiction before engaging in a forum non conveniens analysis in an international shipping dispute.
> Read More

 

Securities Law. District court dismisses for lack of subject matter jurisdiction that portion of the case in which there was no conduct in the U.S. and no substantial effect in the U.S.
> Read More

 

Securities Law. District court dismisses putative class action on grounds that federal securities laws did not apply extraterritorially to Plaintiffs' claims.
> Read More

 

Service of Process on a Foreign Corporation. New York district court dismisses complaint against certain Defendants based on insufficient service of process and lack of personal jurisdiction over Korean company.
> Read More

 

Trademark. Copyright. Injunction granted to prevent sale of U.S. products in Europe where products, as modified for the European market, were inferior to consumer expectations.
> Read More

 

Whistleblower Provision of Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Extraterritorial Application. First Circuit holds that Congress did not intend extraterritorial application of whistleblower protection provision contained in Title VIII, Section 806, of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

 

> Read More    > Back to Top

Privacy Policy

 

This e-mail was sent by:
North American Litigation Practice Group
130 E. Randolph Drive
Chicago, IL 60601

Baker & McKenzie International is a Swiss Verein with member law firms around the world. In accordance with the common terminology used in professional service organizations, reference to a "partner" means a person who is a partner, or equivalent, in such a law firm. Similarly, reference to an "office" means an office of any such law firm.

This may qualify as "Attorney Advertising" requiring notice in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.


Before you send e-mail to Baker & McKenzie, please be aware that your communications with us through this message will not create a lawyer-client relationship with us. Do not send us any information that you or anyone else considers to be confidential or secret unless we have first agreed to be your lawyers in that matter. Any information you send us before we agree to be your lawyers cannot be protected from disclosure.

If you wish to opt out of these communications, visit: http://bakerxchange.com/vtu/75308831KWXJ8431z78