Group items tagged

In re an Arbitration in London, England between Northfolk Southern Corp. et al v. ACE Bermuda LTD (Northern District Ill., June 15, 2009). -- With link to fulltext PDF of the decision

Note by Gary Born (WilmerHale) on Application of Winning (HK) Shipping Co. Ltd., 2010 WL 1796579 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 30, 2010)

"Recent decisions on section 1782 could put US companies at a disadvantage in international arbitration." - Short overview of case law from Intel to Roz Trading.

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.)

Note on In re Application of Chevron Corp., Misc. No. 19-111 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2010) with link to the not-officially-published decision

A party to a lawsuit in Germany may obtain documents from its adversary in the United States for use in the German litigation, according to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The Court's recent decision in Applications of Heraeus Kulzer, GmbH, for Orders Compelling Discovery for Use in a Foreign Proceeding v. Biomet, Inc., (7th Cir. Jan. 24, 2011), highlights the usefulness of the federal statute 28 U.S.C. § 1782 as a means of obtaining documents, testimony and other evidence from opposing parties or third parties located in the United States to support foreign litigation (and possibly arbitration).

Oliver L. Knöfel, Journal of Private International Law, Volume 5, Number 2, August 2009, pp. 281-309 Abstract: Until today, a variety of mechanisms of State courts assisting foreign arbitral tribunals in the taking of evidence has been developed in international legal practice. Unfortunately, none of the legal avenues nowadays available to arbitrators presents a coherent or convincing picture. One has to explore a wealth of diverse and scattered sources when an arbitral tribunal needs or wishes to obtain evidence abroad. What is more, it is often considered excessive to oblige a State to lend assistance to arbitral proceedings held outside its own territory. In 2004, however, the US Supreme Court decided to examine the concept of "tribunal" as used in 28 U.S.C. section 1782 under a functional lens. In the wake of this decision several US District Courts have been reading section 1782 to authorise subpoenas in aid of foreign arbitrations. The new US jurisprudence offers a unique opportunity to reinvent the US-German relationship under the Hague Evidence Convention of 1970. This article aims at broadening the scope of international judicial assistance in its entirety. The plan is to begin by exploring the legal avenues by which arbitral panels can obtain evidence abroad and seek judicial assistance of foreign States' courts de lege lata. Then the impact of the newly established, arbitration-friendly US case-law on judicial assistance as granted under 28 U.S.C. section 1782 will be studied. Finally, the new US jurisprudence will be used as the basis to argue for a different attitude towards arbitration proceedings than that now prevailing under the Hague Evidence Convention of 1970 and under the European Evidence Regulation of 2001. Both instruments should be interpreted to encompass international arbitral tribunals.

Note on El Paso v. La Comision Ejecutiva Hidroelectrica del Rio Lempa, No. 08-20771 (5th Cir. Aug 6, 2009) with PDF of decision

Notes on Babcock Borsig and the two Comision Ejecutiva cases

Notes on Babcock Borsig and the two district court decisions in Comision Ejecutiva

In a decision that appears to swim against the tide, a US district court in Chicago has refused to compel Scott Carey, a potential witness in a London arbitration, to give a deposition.

by Abram I. Moore - short notes on Hallmark Capital, Babcock Borsig and the two decisions in Comision Ejecutiva (Delaware and Texas)

"A subpoena for the testimony of Russian Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin was withdrawn after a US State Department opinion that Mr. Kudrin was a part of a special diplomatic mission at the time. In withdrawing the subpoena, it is important to note that this decision leaves open the possibility of future subpoenas when special diplomatic circumstances do not apply."

Marubeni America Corporation v. LBA Y.K., Case No. 08-3282 (2d Cir., June 17, 2009)

March 17, 2009 - Daniel Schimmel (Partner) and Melissa E. Byroade (Associate) for Kelley Drye; PDF download (Manuskript); Publikation in: International Arbitration 2009, Volume 1, published by the Practising Law Institute "The chapter focuses on Section 1782 of Title 28 of the United States Code and international arbitration. It addresses the questions: "First, do international arbitration tribunals with a foreign situs constitute 'foreign tribunals' within the meaning of § 1782?.... Second, is § 1782 actually helpful to international arbitration?" The authors also discuss the Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. case and its impact on subsequent decisions regarding "foreign discoverability" requirements."

Note on In re Arbitration in London, England between Norfolk Southern Corp. et al. and Ace Bermuda Ltd., No. 1:09-cv-03092 (N.D. Ill. Jun 15, 2009) (An appeal from that decision is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit)

Marks & Sokolov Article | United States Law Office Philadelphia Pennsylvania | Russian Law Office Moscow | Ukraine Law Office Kyiv