Does the US need a dedicated court for complex financial disputes?
Justice William Blair, judge in charge of the Commercial Court, discusses the introduction of the new Financial List
September 28, 2016 at 05:17 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
As business disputes grow in size and complexity, would a specialised court with expert judges that is designed to speed up rulings and the appeals process be a good idea in the US? This was one of the topics at a recent discussion given by Sir William Blair, known in the courts as Justice Blair, at the New York offices of Brown Rudnick last week (22 September).
Blair – the older brother of former Prime Minister Tony Blair – explained the origin of the UK's Financial List, a specialist cross-jurisdictional list set up last year to address the particular business needs of parties litigating on financial matters.
It draws on the expertise of judges from both the Chancery and the Queen's Bench Divisions, with the objective of ensuring that cases that would benefit from being heard by judges with a specialism in financial markets work will be streamlined and managed by a single specialist judge.
The Financial List was created in October 2015 to hear and rule on complex business cases worth more than £50m, hearing disputes in areas such as equities, fixed income, foreign exchange, derivatives and the commodities markets, as well as complex banking transactions and sovereign debt.
"We thought it was right for us because we get a disproportionate number of financial disparities because we [London] are a financial centre," said Blair. "It's natural for us to think particularly of financial disputes because whereas here you have a vast economy that is generating commercial disputes right across the board, ours tend to be more specialised," he added.
The aim of the list is to resolve disputes quickly and definitely according to Blair, and an appeal can often be heard within days of the case's first ruling.
With cases heard at the Rolls Building in London, 12 judges sit on the bench, including five from the commercial courts, led by Justice Blair, and five from the Chancery Division.
"So far, the cases range from derivatives to sovereign debt to the rights of trustees in financial transactions. I wouldn't say there is a theme [to the Financial List cases] but there are quite a number of derivatives cases in our courts and in yours," added Blair.
Since its creation in 2015, the Financial List heard eight cases in its first year and has ruled on 13 cases so far this year.
"These are cases that demand a high degree of specialisation to decide," said Justice Blair.
Would a Financial List work in New York in the same way that it works in London? David Molton, a litigation and arbitration partner at Brown Rudnick, is doubtful.
"Here in the US I think often we learn from what happens in London and sometimes they learn from us as well. In terms of what Justice Blair said about the fact that London has a more particular need for a sophisticated specialised financial court, I think is probably true and less apparent here and less needful here," Molton said.
He added: "Our federal judges who get these cases all the time handle them quite competently and expertly. Also the commercial bench of the New York State Supreme Court does a terrific job dealing with these sort of cases. I think that likely the need for a specialised financial bench is less apparent here than it would be in England."
Neil Micklethwaite, a litigation and arbitration partner in Brown Rudnick's London and Paris offices, said the discussion was never meant to promote the idea of a Financial List in New York.
"I think [the meeting was inspired by] the connection between New York and London. Cooperation and exchange of knowledge is a very important part of that," said Micklethwaite. "It's for New York to decide whether it wants to say that this would work for them."
The Honourable Mr Justice Blair is the keynote speaker at the Legal Week Commercial Litigation & Arbitration Forum, which will take place in London on 3 November. Click here for full details.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllChicago Federal Court Offers Banks Relief From Illinois' Historic Credit Fee Curbs
4 minute readTrump Mulls Big Changes to Banking Regulation, Unsettling the Industry
Coinbase Justifies wBTC Delisting by Pointing to Justin Sun Connection
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250