Author: Tilbe Birengel 


The International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) Commission Report on Financial Institutions and International Arbitration (“Report”) was released on November 9th, 2016[1]. The Report focuses on the view and expectations of financial institutions in the field of international arbitration. In this manner, the Commission’s Task Force worked on arbitral awards, doctrine, and policies, in addition to the surveys made on banking counsel and financial institutions and, hence, developed significant findings and recommendations. The Report covers an assessment on a wide range of banking and financial activities that could be subject to international arbitration, which will be covered in this article.

Read more: International Arbitration in Banking and Finance Sector within the Context of the ICC Commission...

Author: Fatih Isik


The ICSID tribunal, comprised of Veijo Heiskanen (president), Carolyn B. Lamm (appointed by the Claimant), and Phillippe Sands, QC (appointed by the Respondent), has dismissed the USD 570 million claim of İçkale İnşaat Limited Şirketi (a Turkish construction company, which will be referred to as “Ickale”) against Turkmenistan, through the award rendered on March 8, 2016, where the claims are found to be without merit. Carolyn B. Lamm and Philippe Sands issued partially dissenting opinions on the decision.

Ickale has requested supplementary decision, and rectification of the award on April 6, 2016, and these requests were denied, with some minor exceptions, on October 4, 2016.

Read more: ICSID Tribunal’s Decision on the Claims of İçkale İnşaat against Turkmenistan

Author: Patrick G. Murphy 

Indiana Code § 32-21-7-1 provides a party claiming title through adverse possession must demonstrate that he or she paid taxes on the disputed land.Wetherald v. Jackson, 855 N.E.2d 624, 641 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). There is an exception if the adverse possessor believes payment was made, but the belief must be reasonable. Fraley v. Minger, 829 N.E.2d 476, 493 (Ind. 2005).

In Fraley, the Supreme Court reiterated that Indiana law requires that a claimant comply with the adverse possession tax statute. It is not enough to demonstrate all the common law elements of adverse possession (control, intent, notice, duration). Moreover, the party attempting to claim adverse possession must demonstrate the elements by the heightened “clear and convincing evidence” standard, not the typical “preponderance of the evidence” standard, usually applicable to civil cases. In Fraley, the parties claiming adverse possession had met all of the elements but had not demonstrated that they had paid taxes on the disputed parcel.

Read more: Paying Property Taxes is a Prerequisite to Obtaining Real Estate Through Adverse Possession


  • Relationship between Arbitrability and Public Policy in Light of the Decisions of the Court of Cassation
  • Challenging Decisions of the Regional Courts of Appeal
  • Soft Law in International Arbitration

Read more: Turkish Litigation & ADR Update

Schnader’s Richard A. Barkasy and Daniel M. Pereira authored “Will other courts give ‘disclosure only’ settlements closer scrutiny like Delaware?” published in Westlaw Journal Delaware Corporate in January, 2017.

Shareholder complaints quickly followed by disclosure-only settlements have become standard operating procedure in the corporate merger context. These suits typically result in modest supplemental disclosures in exchange for a broad release of claims and attorneys’ fees for plaintiffs’ counsel.

Read more: "Will other courts give 'disclosure only' settlements closer scrutiny like Delaware?"