Tag Law
Litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution

A Contract Made in Two Jurisdictions?

Contact: Adam Knee; Clarkslegal LLP (Reading, England)

In many disputes between parties based in different jurisdictions, one of the key battles will be over the place in which a dispute should be heard. This tactical battle will involve pragmatic considerations, such as convenience, cost and the presence of assets in a particular jurisdiction against which any subsequent judgment can be enforced. There may also be concerns about whether both parties will receive a fair hearing...

Extension of the Arbitration Clause to Group Companies

Contact: Ezgi Babur; Erdem & Erdem (Turkey)

The extension of the arbitration agreement to third parties has become a subject of interest in recent years. The extension of the arbitration agreement, which is signed by a company taking part in the same group of companies as the parent company, which is economically stronger, is preferable. Additionally, the extension is favorable for the claimant in recognition and enforcement proceedings, since it gives the opportunity to initiate recognition and enforcement proceedings against the parent company taking part in the same group of companies...

FINRA Issues "Expanded Expungement Guidance" To Arbitrators And Parties

Contact: Mark D. Knoll; Bressler, Amery & Ross, P.C. (New Jersey, USA)

On October 14, 2013, FINRA Dispute Resolution ("FINRA DR") issued a "Notice to Arbitrators and Parties on Expanded Expungement Guidance" that FINRA DR mandated arbitrators to read prior to considering expungement requests. The Expanded Expungement Guidance ("EEG") signals a push by FINRA DR to have arbitrators give closer scrutiny to, and more detailed explanations for, grants of expungement relief. However, the Expanded Expungement Guidance may go too far in grafting onto the relevant expungement rules and procedures additional conditions and requirements that are not in the plain text of the existing rules. Thus, arbitration practitioners should be cognizant of the increased scrutiny expungement applications will face going forward, but at the same time they should continue to press arbitration panels and FINRA DR to apply the expungement rules as they are written.

Read entire alert here.

No More Second Chances

Contact: Stephen James; Clarkslegal LLP (Reading, England)

Litigation is sometimes criticised as slow and expensive. The ‘Jackson Reforms’, which came into force earlier this year, are intended to get to grip with these issues.

The recent case of Dass –v- Dass gives an interesting insight into the court’s current approach to a failure by a party to adhere to the court timetable. Although heard in July 2013, Dass was decided under the previous, supposedly more lenient, rules and should serve as a warning to those considering dragging their heels in litigation.

Dass concerned a personal injury claim, arising from a serious car accident in August 2007. In November 2010 the court ordered that any further medical expert reports be filed and served by May 2011. This deadline came and went with no further expert evidence from the defendant. The claimant chased in March 2012 and again in February 2013.

Read the entire article.


Upon Further Review, the Ruling on the Field Stands: Standards of Appellate Review

Contact: J. Bradford McCullough; Lerch Early & Brewer (Maryland, USA)

Throughout the fall, many of us are glued to our televisions or sitting in stadiums, watching the latest NCAA or NFL football game. Invariably, there will be some close calls on the field that will cause controversy among the fans. Was that a fumble or was the ball carrier already down when he lost control of the ball? Did the receiver catch the ball or did the ball hit the ground first? Did the ball cross the goal line for a touchdown or did the defense stop the runner before he could score? In those situations, whatever the officials called on the field will be questioned. There will be further review – this time by looking at instant replay. While we fans wait for the outcome of that further review, announcers will tell us that – unless there is “incontrovertible visual evidence” that the call was wrong – the call on the field will not be reversed. If replay shows that the call was correct, that call is “confirmed.” If the replay clearly and indisputably shows that the call was wrong, the call is reversed. But if the replay does not provide indisputable evidence one way or the other, the call “stands,” i.e., it will not be reversed. This often frustrates fans who think that the call was probably wrong. Their frustration arises from a failure to understand the applicable standard of review...

<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Results 41 - 45 of 144 Entries
Featured Articles

Google+ LinkedIn facebook Twitter Vimeo Blogroll

TAGLaw members are experts
in a wide-variety of areas.

View our member blogroll.