Alexandra Dosman

September 24, 2018 | New York Law Journal

Third-party funding can be a powerful tool for entities with meritorious arbitration claims that do not have the financial wherewithal or inclination to self-fund arbitration proceedings. As international commercial arbitration in New York continues to grow, savvy claimants are likely to seek support from third parties in increasing numbers.

By Alexandra Dosman

6 minute read

March 30, 2015 | New York Law Journal

Edna Sussman of SussmanADR and Alexandra Dosman of the New York International Arbitration Center write: A review of information from the arbitral institutions reveals that parties are, in fact, using emergency arbitrator mechanisms, and that in certain circumstances the use of emergency mechanisms within the arbitral system will be preferable to going to a national court for interim relief.

By Edna Sussman and Alexandra Dosman

20 minute read

March 27, 2015 | New York Law Journal

Edna Sussman of SussmanADR and Alexandra Dosman of the New York International Arbitration Center write: A review of information from the arbitral institutions reveals that parties are, in fact, using emergency arbitrator mechanisms, and that in certain circumstances the use of emergency mechanisms within the arbitral system will be preferable to going to a national court for interim relief.

By Edna Sussman and Alexandra Dosman

20 minute read

August 20, 2007 | National Law Journal

Delaware courts will no longer uncritically defer to boards on so-called mergers of equals, especially when it seems to be an outright acquisition and gives huge benefits to officers and directors. While Delaware courts condemned unfair deals or terms in the past, this is a departure from the high business judgment rule deference accorded like transactions under Time Warner. Caremark reminds us that cases are decided on facts, and that bad facts can convert standard deal terms into offensive ones.

By Alan S. Goudiss and E. Alexandra Dosman

8 minute read

August 24, 2007 | Law.com

In February, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a ruling that has potentially broad practical and doctrinal implications, according to attorneys Alan S. Goudiss and E. Alexandra Dosman. While Delaware jurisprudence has allowed mergers of equals to be reviewed under a more deferential standard than mergers involving a change of control or breakup, the Caremark decision signals that Delaware courts may no longer routinely apply the higher deference standard, depending on a particular case's facts.

By Alan S. Goudiss and E. Alexandra Dosman

8 minute read