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

Introduction

The first step towards establishing an International Center of Finance in Istanbul was taken through a resolution of the Turkish Higher Planning Council[1]. One of the pillars of the Istanbul Finance Center and one of its priorities is the establishment of an independent and autonomous institutional arbitration center that is capable of competing internationally[2]. The Istanbul Arbitration Center (“ISTAC”) is established in line with these objectives to provide services for institutional arbitration.[3]This arbitration center is expected to be ahead of other arbitration institutions in matters such as speed and finalization of awards.

Read more: Istanbul Arbitration Center Rules of Arbitration


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

Evidentiary issues in international arbitration are of great importance, based on their impact on fulfilling the burden of proof, and consequently, on the decisions on merits. The taking of evidence is regulated under the International Bar Association (“IBA”) Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration (“IBA Rules” or, Rules”), which is referred to in many arbitral proceedings as a point of reference for evidentiary issues, both in the arbitrations conducted under institutional rules, and also in ad hoc arbitrations. The Rules provide for a helpful basis, especially if the parties and the arbitrators come from different legal systems.

In this article, we analyze the general framework and principles of the provisions of the IBA Rules on document production requests, while the grounds for objection to document production requests under Art. 9.2 of the Rules will be analyzed in our next article.

Read more: Document Production Requests pursuant to IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International...


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.