Skip to main content

Home/ 28 USC § 1782/ Group items tagged Operadora

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Lars Bauer

Judge Finds Panel Does Not Qualify As Foreign Tribunal Under Section 1782 (Operadora DB... - 0 views

www.mealeysonline.com/...articleSearch.do

28-USC-1782 arbitration cases Operadora

shared by Lars Bauer on 27 Aug 09 - Cached
  • Judge Finds Panel Does Not Qualify As Foreign Tribunal Under Section 1782, ORLANDO, Fla. -, Mealey's International Arbitration Report, August 2009, 24-8 Mealey's Intl. Arb. Rep. 8 (2009), Volume 24, Issue #8
  • Lars Bauer on 27 Aug 09
     
    Mealey's International Arbitration Report, Volume 24, Issue 8, August 2009, p. 8 -- ORLANDO, Fla. - A Florida federal judge on Aug. 4 refused to adopt a portion of a magistrate judge's recommendation that the court order discovery for use in an arbitration proceeding over franchise rights in Mexico, finding that the private arbitral panel did not qualify as a foreign or international tribunal under 28 U.S. Code Section 1782 (In re: Application of Operadora DB Mexico S.A. DE C.V., No. 6:09-cv-383-Orl-22GJK, M.D. Fla.; 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68091)
Lars Bauer

Moore: A Sea Change in 28 U.S.C. § 1782 Cases? U.S. Fifth Circuit and Two Dis... - 0 views

www.klgates.com/...Detail.aspx

28-USC-1782 arbitration USA case-notes

shared by Lars Bauer on 23 Jan 10 - Cached
  • Lars Bauer on 23 Jan 10
     
    by Abram I. Moore (Chicago) - Note on El Paso Corp. v. La Comision Ejecutiva Hidroelectrica Del Rio Lempa (5th Cir. Aug 6, 2009) and the two district court decisions in In re: Application of Operadora DB Mexico, S.A. de C. V. (Fla.) and In re An Arbitration in London, England (Ill.)
Lars Bauer

Born: More Uncertainty about § 1782's Extension to International Arbitral Pro... - 0 views

kluwerarbitrationblog.com/...rnational-arbitral-proceedings

law arbitration discovery 28-USC-1782 Winning-Case case-notes

shared by Lars Bauer on 12 Jun 10 - Cached
  • While the court in Chevron said little else about the applicability of § 1782, an opinion issued by a federal magistrate judge in the Southern District of Florida one week before, in In re Winning (HK) Shipping Co. Ltd., offered a detailed approach to determining whether a private international arbitral tribunal is a foreign tribunal that qualifies for judicial assistance under § 1782. Specifically, the court in Winning discussed a functional test for determining whether an international arbitral tribunal qualifies as a foreign tribunal under § 1782.
  • The Winning opinion is yet another addition to the growing body of conflicting case law on whether, and if so when, judicial assistance under § 1782 is available to parties in international arbitral proceedings – a body of conflicting case law that ultimately will need to be clarified by the federal appellate courts and possibly by the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • should analyze, among other things, whether the tribunal: (1) has the ability to gather evidence; (2) is obligated to apply the law to the facts in an impartial manner; (3) has the authority to issue a binding decision; (4) will issue opinions that are judicially reviewable; and (5) is state-sponsored or purely private.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • the issue of whether a decision is judicially reviewable is of decisive importance
  • the Winning court concluded that “to the extent the arbitration forum at issue is subject to the Arbitration Act 1996 (of England) or . . . the rules of the London Maritime Arbitrators Association, Winning is proceeding before a ‘foreign tribunal.’”
  • Under the functional test applied by the Winning and Operadora courts, only private arbitrations sited in jurisdictions where awards can be judicially reviewed qualify as “foreign tribunals” under § 1782. It is not clear, however, when exactly an arbitral award can be said to be judicially reviewable for the purpose of this functional test.
  • the current variance in opinions on the applicability of § 1782 to international arbitration suggests that it is unlikely that a uniform approach will emerge any time in the near future.
  • strengthens the case for why the federal appellate courts – and, if a circuit split emerges, the U.S. Supreme Court – should address sooner rather than later whether, and if so when, § 1782 extends to cover proceedings before international arbitral tribunals.
  • Lars Bauer on 12 Jun 10
     
    Note by Gary Born (WilmerHale) on Application of Winning (HK) Shipping Co. Ltd., 2010 WL 1796579 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 30, 2010)
Lars Bauer

US courts interpret the scope of 28 U.S.C. s1782 | Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garr... - 0 views

arbitration.practicallaw.com/7-422-4955

28-USC-1782 cases arbitration

shared by Lars Bauer on 21 Oct 09 - No Cached
  • The court found that the source of the ICC panel's authority (private agreement between the parties) and its purpose, as an alternative to governmental or state-sponsored proceedings, militate against classifying it as a foreign or international tribunal.
  • on 1 August 2009, in In Re Application of Operadora DB Mexico, 6:09 CV 383 (M.D. Fl. 2009)
  • On 3 August 2009, in Comision Ejecutiva Hidroelectrica del Rio Lempa v. Nejapa Power Company, No. 08-3518 (3rd Cir. 2009)
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • On 6 August 2009, in El Paso Corporation v. La Comision Ejecutiva, No. 08-20771 (5th Cir. 2009)
  • held that a private arbitral tribunal constituted under the International Chamber of Commerce International Court of Arbitration (ICC) does not qualify as a foreign or international tribunal under § 1782
  • Lars Bauer on 21 Oct 09
     
    "In a number of recent rulings, US courts have interpreted the scope of 28 U.S.C. s. 1782 (...). These rulings, which all resulted in dismissing s.1782 applications, may suggest a growing trend towards narrowly interpreting the statute."
1 - 4 of 4
Showing 20▼ items per page