Contact: Christian D. Sheehan; Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP (Delaware & Pennsylvania, USA)


On January 21, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Gelboim v. Bank of America Group. The case presented a single question: Is a district court order dismissing all claims in an action that was consolidated with several others for pretrial purposes a final and immediately appealable order? In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Ginsburg, the Supreme Court said “Yes.”

Read more: Supreme Court Clarifies Application of Final Judgment Rule in MDL Proceedings, But Uncertainty...

Contact: William A. Goldberg; Lerch, Early & Brewer (Maryland, USA)

I often see attorneys make the mistake of filing "kitchen sink" complaints, that is, lawsuits containing redundant and/or superfluous causes of action, that turn what could be straightforward claims into messy, complicated quagmires. If your goal is to offer efficient, cost-effective litigation services for your clients that maximize their chances for recovery, "kitchen sink" pleading is almost never the way to go. Here are five reasons to avoid it:

Read more: The Five Perils of "Kitchen Sink" Pleading

Contact: Prof. Dr. H. Ercument Erdem; Erdem & Erdem (Turkey)

With respect to International Chamber of Commerce ("ICC") arbitration, consolidation is a procedural mechanism used when two or more pending arbitrations are merged into a single arbitration. Due to the current practice in international commercial transactions that require technical, commercial and financial specialization, the number of multi-party disputes has a tendency to increase. Consolidation may have advantages with regard to procedural efficacy, and may provide procedural economy and cost efficiency. It also lowers the risk of inconsistent decisions. Additionally, the fact-finding phase is facilitated and may be finalized more efficiently, with a more comprehensive presentation of legal and factual positions.

Read more: Consolidation of Arbitrations in ICC Arbitration

Contact: Att. Ezgi Babur; Erdem & Erdem (Turkey)

The determination of the seat of arbitration is of great importance, due to its consequences on the arbitration procedure. In the International Chamber of Commerce ("ICC") practice, cities as Paris, London, Geneva and Zurich are among the most popular arbitration seats. It is preferable that the seat is in a jurisdiction with a well-developed arbitration legislation. Courts experienced in arbitration issues and a tradition of supporting and respecting arbitration agreements and arbitral awards are also among the factors considered in the determination of the seat of arbitration. The location of the seat of arbitration and ease of access and convenience are also considered by the parties and practitioners in the choice of the seat of arbitration.

Read more: Current Practices on Determination of Seat of Arbitration in ICC Arbitration

Contact: Michael Bath, Special Counsel and Christian Breen, Senior Associate; Carter Newell (Queensland, Australia)


Class action proceedings against multiple respondents have been the subject of conflicting judicial authority and debate.1 The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in Cash Converters International Limited v Gray2 recently considered whether s 33C of the Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth) (FCA) requires each group member in a representative proceeding to have a claim against each respondent.

Seemingly resolving more than ten years of uncertainty, the Full Court held that it is not necessary for each group member to have a claim against each respondent.  In doing so, the Full Court thoroughly explored the legislative framework surrounding commencing a representative proceeding, as well as the legal authorities which have considered the issue.

To read the full article click here, or visit