April 29, 2003 | New York Law Journal
International LitigationBy Lawrence W. Newman And David Zaslowsky
10 minute read
March 24, 2011 | New York Law Journal
Soft Law Guides Parties on Procedures in International ArbitrationIn their International Litigation column, Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky, members of Baker & McKenzie, write that arbitration, compared to proceedings in courts, is almost free of procedural rules, leaving much to the parties and the arbitrators to determine how proceedings are conducted. In an effort to provide some guidance, a number of groups of experienced practitioners have published checklists, prescriptive statements and "best practices" that can benefit those planning for and managing arbitration proceedings.
By Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky
10 minute read
July 30, 2007 | New York Law Journal
International LitigationLawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky, partners at Baker & McKenzie, write that a recent decision now on appeal may force the Second Circuit to answer certain interesting questions that the court has heretofore saved for another day concerning jurisdictional requirements that must be met in seeking to enforce a non-U.S. arbitral award against a foreign sovereign.
By Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky
12 minute read
January 27, 2011 | New York Law Journal
Do Corporations Now Have Less Risk Under the Alien Tort Statute?In their International Litigation column, Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky, members of Baker & McKenzie, write that the question of whether corporations can be subject to liability under the ATS has been an open one for decades. Recently, however, the Second and Ninth circuits have answered the question by holding that corporations may not be sued under the ATS or the TVPA, reasoning that those statutes are not intended to address wrongs committed by companies.
By Lawrence W. Newman and David Zaslowsky
11 minute read
June 21, 2006 | Corporate Counsel
Racing for Jurisdiction in the European UnionThe 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
International LitigationLawrence 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
International LitigationBy Lawrence W. Newman And David Zaslowsky
11 minute read
April 01, 2002 | New York Law Journal
International LitigationD oes one have to worry about jurisdiction and forum non conveniens when enforcing a foreign arbitral award in the United States under the New York Convention? Does the doctrine of forum non conveniens apply under such circumstances? Does it matter if the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act is implicated because a foreign state is a defendant? A recently decided case in the Southern District of New York dealt with issues implicated by these questions.
By Lawrence W. Newman
13 minute read
May 08, 2002 | New York Law Journal
International LitigationI t is not unusual for testimony in United States cases to be taken through depositions outside its borders. Frequently, witnesses whose testimony is taken are those who are willing to present themselves voluntarily. As a result, no elements of compulsion are needed. In rarer cases, testimony must be taken pursuant to court order, including an order of the court where the reluctant witness resides.
By Lawrence W. Newman
11 minute read
May 27, 2008 | New York Law Journal
International LitigationLawrence 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