Lawrence W. Newman

November 24, 2014 | New York Law Journal

In their International Litigation column, Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky write: Although the United States is not a party to any judgment enforcement treaty, courts in this country regularly enforce foreign judgments. Indeed, if jurisdiction in the foreign court is proper and service of process was accomplished appropriately, the expectation should be that the foreign judgment will be enforced. In the past few months, however, there have been two noteworthy cases in which enforcement of foreign judgments was refused.

By Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky

11 minute read

October 01, 2014 | New York Law Journal

In their International Dispute Resolution column, Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky write: The statute of limitations for enforcing international arbitration awards in the United States is shorter than that for enforcing judgments. If the former period has run, can one turn an arbitration award into a judgment outside the United States and then use the longer period to enforce the award that has now metamorphosed into a foreign judgment?

By Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky

9 minute read

July 24, 2014 | New York Law Journal

In their International Litigation column, Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky discuss issues of international dispute resolution in the context of recent decisions relating to the Alien Tort Statute, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act,enforcement of arbitral awards vacated abroad and manifest disregard of the law.

By Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky

11 minute read

May 22, 2014 | New York Law Journal

In their International Litigation column, Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky discuss how awards of interest, which can exceed the amount of compensation on the merits, have been made and how commentators have urged that they be made.

By Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky

10 minute read

March 20, 2014 | New York Law Journal

In their International Litigation column, Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky of Baker & McKenzie discuss jurisdiction of foreign corporations, explaining how the Supreme Court, in 'Daimler v. Bauman', recently undertook separating the standards for specific and general jurisdiction, giving prominence to a separate standard for general jurisdiction—the "at home" test.

By Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky

11 minute read

January 31, 2014 | New York Law Journal

In their International Litigation column, Baker & McKenzie's Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky use the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the Supreme Court's lone Section 1782 decision to discuss the significant uncertainty that remains concerning an issue spawned by that decision.

By Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky

11 minute read

November 20, 2013 | New York Law Journal

In their International Litigation column, Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky of Baker & McKenzie write: If an arbitration award is annulled in the courts of the country where the arbitration took place, can it nevertheless be enforced by the courts of another country? A recent decision in the Southern District of New York addressed and answered that very question.

By Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky

11 minute read

January 24, 2013 | New York Law Journal

In their International Litigation column, Lawrence W. Newman, of counsel at Baker & McKenzie, and David Zaslowsky, a partner at the firm write that a close analysis of the use of the manifest disregard doctrine in international arbitration cases reveals the fallacy in the criticism that the doctrine makes New York a jurisdiction that is unfriendly to international arbitration.

By Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky

11 minute read

November 30, 2012 | Daily Business Review

Traditionally, arbitrators have done their own work without help from associate attorneys or legal secretaries, but the practice is changing as mediation and arbitration-only firms grow and there are more cross-border arbitrations.

By Commentary by Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky

7 minute read

October 03, 2012 | New York Law Journal

In their International Litigation column, Baker & McKenzie's Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky analyze a recent Second Circuit decision that set out guidance on whether courts or arbitrators decide which particular disputes were intended by the parties to be heard in arbitration.

By Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky

9 minute read