The importance of interim and conservatory measures ordered by arbitrators has been widely recognized in international arbitration, since the important sets of rules regulating arbitrations set forth provisions enabling the arbitral tribunal to rule on these measures. Interim and conservatory measures are more commonly used in practice, with the adoption of fast-track proceedings by the important set of rules regulating arbitration. As there is a possibility that the parties will not abide by these measures in all of the cases, there is an emerging need to enforce these measures outside of the seat of the arbitration.

Read more: Enforcement of Interim and Conservatory Measures Ordered by Arbitrators


Introduction

In July 2013 the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (“UNCITRAL”) adopted rules for Treaty-based Investor- State arbitration to provide transparency (“Rules”). The rules came into force on April 1, 2014. The Rules are considered as an important step taken in the evolving field of investment arbitration considering that previous versions of UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules do not refer to issues of transparency even in cases of strong public policy.

Read more: UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-Based Investor- State Arbitration


Contact: Theresa E. Loscalzo and Rachel A.H. Horton; Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP (Delaware & Pennsylvania, USA) 

This week, the Third Circuit altered the legal landscape for civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claims against pharmaceutical companies. The ruling in In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices & Product Liability Litigation allows the plaintiffs’ RICO claims to proceed; in their suit, the plaintiffs allege that GlaxoSmithKline LLC (GSK) engaged in a marketing campaign to minimize the side effects of Avandia, a drug prescribed to treat Type II diabetes, and thereby increase sales at a higher price than it otherwise would have been sold. 

Please click here to read the full Alert.  


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

Lawyers are taught to follow the rules, and that includes local rules of trial courts and individual judges. But a recent Second Circuit decision adds an important caveat to that lesson: beware of local rules that can lead to forfeiture of appellate rights. In Weitzner v. Cynosure, Inc., No. 14-723-cv (Sept. 16, 2015), the court dismissed an appeal as untimely when the appellant’s late filing was caused by compliance with a trial judge’s local rule.

Please click here to read the full Alert.


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.