International Litigation & Arbitration Newsletter|September 2005|Volume 4 Issue 6|

International Litigation & Arbitration

 Newsletter

 North America
Baker & McKenzie

September 2005
Volume 4, Issue 6


In this Issue

 

Articles

Case Summaries

Contributors

 

View Entire Newsletter

 

 

Related Links

North American Litigation Practice Group Web Site


Welcome to the September 2005 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


Articles


Obtaining Evidence From Third-Parties for Use in International Arbitration


Our first featured article focuses on the often overlooked issue of obtaining evidence from non-parties for use in arbitration. It was written by Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky of our New York office.

> Read More   

 

Striking a Balance for Court Intervention in Arbitration Disputes:  The Decision in Cetelem S.A. v. Roust Holdings Limited[i]


Our second featured article discusses a recent English Court of Appeals decision that addressed the debate and uncertainty concerning the extent to which the English courts should provide interim relief to a party in urgent cases notwithstanding the existence of an arbitration agreement. The article was written by Christopher Newmark and Thomas Yates of our London office.

> Read More 

 

> Back to Top


Case Summaries

 

Alienage Jurisdiction. Fraudulent Joinder. In determining whether the exercise of federal jurisdiction was appropriate in a removal case, court finds that certain defendants had been fraudulently joined to defeat diversity and alienage jurisdiction.   

> Read More 

 

Anti-Suit Injunction. District court enjoins Plaintiff from proceeding with a duplicative lawsuit in Mexico.

> Read More 

 

Arbitration. Confirmation of Award. Petitioners' confirmation of an arbitral award against respondent Uruguay would not subject Uruguay to inconsistent court orders, where, in a separate action, a Uruguayan Court had issued an order attaching the proceeds of Petitioners' suit.

> Read More 

 

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Alien Tort Claims Act. Torture Victim Protection Act. Seventh Circuit affirms holding that individuals connected to the government are not entitled to immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and remands for decision on whether plaintiffs should be allowed to amend their complaint to state a claim under the Torture Victim Protection Act.

> Read More 

 

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. D.C. Circuit holds that state agency is not a "person" for purposes of the due process clause and, therefore, no need to establish minimum contacts

> Read More 

 

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Fifth Circuit affirms district court's decision that, after dismissing a garnishment action on the grounds that the debtor was entitled to immunity under the FSIA, district court properly applied Texas law regarding the award of attorneys' fees.

> Read More 

 

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Filing of action while res was in the United States satisfied requirement of FSIA expropriation exception that property be present in the United States.

> Read More 

 

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Waiver. Foreign state did not waive its sovereign immunity from suit for malicious prosecution by bringing underlying action.

> Read More 

 

Forum Non Conveniens. New York State court dismisses suit on grounds of forum non conveniens.

> Read More 

 

New York Convention. District court holds that an unambiguous arbitration clause was not enforceable under the Convention because it was between two U.S. parties and did not relate to any foreign state.

> Read More 

 

International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Ninth Circuit holds that American citizen's guarantees of payments that furthered a trade agreement with an Iranian company were unenforceable.

> Read More 

 

Political Question Doctrine. D.C. Circuit holds that claims against the United States and Henry Kissinger arising out of 1970 Chilean coup involved non-justiciable political questions of foreign policy.

> Read More 

 

Preliminary Injunction. Lanham Act. Trademark Infringement. Preliminary injunction granted preventing Internet sale of grey market pet medications into United States where material differences between foreign and U.S. products was likely to cause confusion.

> Read More 

 

Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgment. An action in the Southern District of New York was precluded because it would be deemed precluded under Singapore law by an order dismissing a prior Singapore action.

> Read More 

 

Service of Process. District court grants Plaintiff's motion for an order approving service of process on Defendant's attorney where Plaintiff was unable to locate non-resident Defendant's address and it was reasonable to infer that Defendant either had or would receive sufficient notice of the case.

> 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/z70g9170kb8190dqe