Contact: Reid and Riege, P.C. (Connecticut, USA)

When acquiring a business that has environmental issues, or title to a contaminated property, the buyer will often establish a corporation or a limited liability company (LLC).  Officers, directors, members or managers operating within the corporate or LLC structure believe that such structures will insulate them from personal liability.  The responsible corporate officer (RCO) doctrine, however, has eroded (if not eradicated) that liability protection.  Under that doctrine, any officer, director, member or manager who is responsible for influencing company policies can be held personally liable as an RCO for environmental violations committed by anyone in the company.  The liability arises simply if there is a connection between the environmental violation and the policies the RCO enacted, or failed to enact.  In a corporation or LLC with only a few officers, directors, members or managers, those few people will always be responsible for setting policy.  In other words, they will always be an RCO.   As a result, when you are considering acquiring a business or real property that has an environmental risk component, you must consider how best to protect your personal assets from RCO liability.

Read more: Reid and Riege Attorneys Author Article in American Bar Association Environmental Litigation...


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

Introduction

In accordance with International Arbitration Act numbered 4686 (“IAA”), the only legal remedy for arbitral awards is the action to set aside. One of the most significant aspects of selecting arbitration as a dispute resolution method is that most of the legal systems lack regulations regarding the legal remedy to appeal arbitral awards. By means of its article 15, the IAA solely enables actions to set aside arbitral awards. As a consequence of such, examination of the merits of arbitral awards in courts is precluded. There are also Courts of Cassation resolutions in this regard[1].

Read more: Action to Set Aside as per the International Arbitration Act


Contact: Theresa E. Loscalzo and Rachel A.H. Horton, Schnader (Delaware & Pennsylvania, USA)

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that class-action defendants may not moot a named plaintiff’s claim simply by extending an offer of judgment that satisfies the putative lead plaintiff’s demand for damages. The opinion, Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, settled a circuit split on the issue of whether a plaintiff’s claim is no longer viable once he or she has refused to accept an offer of judgment. The Court’s opinion also left several unresolved questions, at least one of which might provide a strategy for defendants wishing to avoid potential class action litigation. 

Please click here to read the full Alert.


Contact: Lee C. Schmeer and Jonathan M. Stern, Schnader (Delaware & Pennsylvania, USA) 

New regulations governing National Transportation Safety Board investigative hearings, meetings, reports and petitions for reconsideration are set to go into effect on January 25, 2016. In general, the new regulations streamline the organization of Part 845 by condensing and eliminating some previous sections. By the addition of a new section on proceedings meant to address negative trends or other identified problem areas without the need for an underlying accident or incident, the thrust of these changes seems aimed at increasing both the education and involvement of the public in the NTSB’s processes.

Please click here to read the full Alert.


As per the arbitration and civil rules in the UAE, the arbitration rules shall be governed by the Terms of Reference. The Terms of Reference is a document used within international arbitration law. Its main purpose is to ensure the fast and efficient progress of arbitration proceedings. The agreement is drawn and signed by mutual consent of the parties and arbitrators.

Read more: Arbitration Article Series: III. Terms of References