Contact: Bruce P. Merenstein; Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP (Delaware & Pennsylvania, USA

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently issued a rare opinion addressing the analysis courts should undertake when considering a request to stay a trial court judgment or order pending appeal. The four-part test for evaluating a stay request is well-established. Courts consider: (1) whether the party seeking a stay has made a strong showing of likely success on appeal; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured if a stay is not granted; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure other parties in the case; and (4) where the public interest lies. But most appellate rulings on stay requests consist of short, non-precedential orders granting or denying the stay without any analysis. The court therefore used this recent decision to explain how the four-part test should be applied.

Please click here to read the full Alert.

This Alert was republished in Law360. Click here to read the full article.


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

Introduction

Arbitration agreements are the essential basis of international arbitration. A successful arbitration starts with a successful arbitration agreement. The arbitration agreement reflects the parties’ consent to submit present or future disputes to arbitration. Unsuccessfully drafted arbitration agreements can face enforcement difficulties, IBA Guidelines for Drafting International Arbitration Clauses (“Guidelines”) high and unnecessary costs, and delays. The Guidelines are designated to provide assistance for the drafting of efficient and enforceable arbitration agreements. The Guidelines provide basic and optional rules for the drafting of arbitration agreements, multi-tier clauses, and multi-party agreements.

The arbitration agreement can be in the form of an arbitration clause inserted in the underlying agreement, or in a separate submission agreement.

Read the entire article.


Steven Boyles of Hemming Morse, LLP (San Francisco, California, USA - TIAG) recently authored an article titled "Get the Most Value From Your Damages Expert" which was recently featured in The Recorder.

In disputes with an economic damages element, the involvement of your damages expert (e.g., economic, valuation, or accounting expert) will be among the more important components of your case, particularly those that go to trial. It is therefore imperative that attorneys engage experts very early in the process. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for this important step to happen too late in the litigation process, creating potentially harmful effects to you and your client's success.

Read more: Get the Most Value From Your Damages Expert


Contact: Ian Skuse, Blake Morgan (Southampton, England)

Van der lans v. KLM – Decision of the European Court 

Community airlines and all carriers leaving an EU airport are obliged to comply with European Regulation EC 261/2004 (“the Regulation”).  This provides for minimum levels of compensation payable to passengers for flights which are delayed, causing a late arrival at their eventual destination in excess of 3 hours, and on a sliding scale of €250/€400 or €600 Euros depending on the length of journey.  Similar compensation is available for passengers on cancelled flights or where there is denied boarding. 

Read more: Last chance saloon for the "technical delay" defense


Contact: Boodle Hatfield LLP (London, England)

If you are a party to litigation in England and Wales, you may hear one or more of the following statements from your adviser:

  1. It is unlikely that the claim, if issued, will ever reach a trial.
  2. If there is a trial, it will be at least a year from issuing the claim before it takes place.    
  3. If parties agree to attempt the mediation of the dispute, it is likely that the mediation will result in a settlement (either at the mediation, or shortly thereafter).

I have been guilty of asserting these statements to be true, without considering the evidence supporting them. Fortunately, we live in an age of relative openness and there is plenty of data available to test these statements. Please note that the following analysis looks at data available in relation to civil claims and then some specific data relating to my area of practice, which primarily includes claims in the Chancery Division of the High Court, i.e., of relatively high value (worth more than £100,000) or complex claims relating to trusts, wills and probate matters.

(What follows comes with the (statistically unsupported) health warning that lawyers are generally more comfortable with words than with numbers!)

Read more: Litigation in England and Wales: A numbers game?