WTO to arbitrate in U.S.-EU aircraft case
The World Trade Organization (WTO) has just stepped into an epic legal clash between the U.S. and the European Union (EU).
December 23, 2011 at 06:30 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The World Trade Organization (WTO) has just stepped into an epic legal clash between the U.S. and the European Union (EU).
Yesterday, the WTO launched an arbitration process to examine a U.S. request for between $7 billion and $10 billion in retaliatory sanctions against the EU for providing purportedly illegal subsidies to European aircraft manufacturer Airbus SAS.
The arbitration process is the latest phase in the drawn-out legal squabble that the U.S. and the EU have been waging on behalf of the aircraft companies Boeing Co. and Airbus, respectively, since 2004. Each side accuses the other of unfairly supporting its own airplane maker.
In June 2010, WTO judges found that the EU had provided Airbus with billions of dollars in illegal subsidies, which adversely affected Boeing, and ordered the group of nations to stop providing illegal aid to the European aviation company.
On Dec. 9, the U.S. claimed the EU was still giving illegal subsidies to Airbus and said it wanted to impose sanctions of up to $10 billion a year on the EU. The U.S. claims the amount represents the value of lost exports of U.S. aircraft, but the EU challenged the sanctions and asked for the matter to be referred to independent arbitration.
The WTO arbitration talks are scheduled for early next year. Arbitrators have 60 days to make a decision on whether to authorize the U.S. sanctions against the EU for allegedly failing to comply with the June 2010 ruling.
Read Businessweek for more about the U.S.-EU legal debacle.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) has just stepped into an epic legal clash between the U.S. and the European Union (EU).
Yesterday, the WTO launched an arbitration process to examine a U.S. request for between $7 billion and $10 billion in retaliatory sanctions against the EU for providing purportedly illegal subsidies to European aircraft manufacturer Airbus SAS.
The arbitration process is the latest phase in the drawn-out legal squabble that the U.S. and the EU have been waging on behalf of the aircraft companies
In June 2010, WTO judges found that the EU had provided Airbus with billions of dollars in illegal subsidies, which adversely affected
On Dec. 9, the U.S. claimed the EU was still giving illegal subsidies to Airbus and said it wanted to impose sanctions of up to $10 billion a year on the EU. The U.S. claims the amount represents the value of lost exports of U.S. aircraft, but the EU challenged the sanctions and asked for the matter to be referred to independent arbitration.
The WTO arbitration talks are scheduled for early next year. Arbitrators have 60 days to make a decision on whether to authorize the U.S. sanctions against the EU for allegedly failing to comply with the June 2010 ruling.
Read Businessweek for more about the U.S.-EU legal debacle.
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
© 2025 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 AllCoinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
- 1Winston & Strawn Snags Sidley Austin Cross-Border Transactions Partner in Miami
- 2U.S. Attorney Markenzy Lapointe Stepped Down
- 3Slideshow: Judges Who've Retired But Didn't Step Down
- 4Husch Blackwell Hires Former Adobe Counsel to Oversee AI Advisory Offering
- 5CFPB Finalizes Rule Removing Medical Debt From Credit Reports
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