David Zaslowsky

June 21, 2006 | Corporate Counsel

The European Union is making a "race to the courthouse" a real necessity. An EU Council Regulation provision essentially grants the court in which a dispute is first filed the right to decide the case, to the exclusion of other member countries' courts. And it hasn't mattered if parties have selected a different country in a contractual choice-of-forum clause. In international transactions, U.S. companies should keep the provision in mind during contract negotiations -- and during any disputes.

By Lawrence W. Newman And David Zaslowsky

9 minute read

March 25, 2010 | New York Law Journal

Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky, members of Baker & McKenzie, write: Should one's ability to remove a case to federal court to enforce/challenge an international arbitration award under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of June 10, 1958 depend on whether one is seeking to confirm or vacate the award? In some courts it does, and in others, it does not.

By Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky

10 minute read

June 09, 2003 | New York Law Journal

By Lawrence W. Newman And David Zaslowsky

11 minute read

May 27, 2008 | New York Law Journal

Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky, partners at Baker & McKenzie, write that replacing the direct testimony of witnesses in hearings with detailed written statements of the testimony of each witness is a widely accepted practice in international arbitrations. The written pages can be, and often are, carefully crafted by lawyers and are therefore unlikely to contain the human stumbling and groping that is sometimes heard in direct oral testimony. But, in their zeal to present statements by witnesses that provide the maximum support for the case they are representing, some lawyers squeeze the humanity out of the witness statements and may even go so far as to repeat verbatim, from one witness statement to another, precisely the same language.

By Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky

11 minute read

September 27, 2007 | New York Law Journal

Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky, partners at Baker & McKenzie, write that a recent Second Circuit decision sheds some light on the extent to which information bearing on possible arbitrator bias must not only be disclosed but also ferreted out by the arbitrator possessed of information suggesting possible conflicts of interest with either of the parties.

By Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky

11 minute read

January 30, 2006 | New York Law Journal

Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky, partners at Baker & McKenzie, write that it seems an opportune time to share with readers some observations concerning changes they perceive have taken place in international arbitration. They also hazard guesses as to future trends in international arbitration.

By Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky

11 minute read

February 08, 2005 | New York Law Journal

Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky, partners with Baker & McKenzie, write that American courts sometimes find themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to pass judgment on the adequacy or fairness of courts of other countries.

By Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky

10 minute read

July 31, 2006 | New York Law Journal

Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky, partners at Baker & McKenzie, look at the application by U.S. courts of the "manifest disregard of the law" standard for vacating arbitral awards in light of recent decisions in which two circuit courts seem to have gone in opposite directions.

By Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky

10 minute read

March 31, 2006 | New York Law Journal

Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky, partners at Baker & McKenzie, look at a provision of an EU Council Regulation that essentially grants to a court first seized of a matter the right to decide the case to the exclusion of courts in other member countries.

By Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky

10 minute read

March 31, 2008 | New York Law Journal

Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky, partners at Baker & McKenzie, write that, based on a recent federal appellate ruling, a challenge to an award based on arbitrators' misfeasance is going to be able to be pursued only in the country where the award was made. This is yet another reason why, at the time that an arbitration clause is being included in a contract, it is imperative that close attention be given to the country that will be the situs of the arbitration.

By Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky

11 minute read