Skip to main content

Home/ 28 USC § 1782/ Group items tagged presentations

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Lars Bauer

Judicial Assistance in the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Aid of Arbitration: A... - 0 views

www.ingentaconnect.com/...art00004

arbitration evidence legal-assistance 28-USC-1782 germany usa

shared by Lars Bauer on 08 Sep 09 - Cached
  • Lars Bauer on 08 Sep 09
     
    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.
Lars Bauer

Does 28 U.S.C. § 1782 Allow U.S. Courts to Order Discovery for Use in Private... - 0 views

www.pbi.org/...3%2024%2009_1130_Schimmel.pdf

28-USC-1782 arbitration presentations

shared by Lars Bauer on 11 Apr 09 - No Cached
  • Lars Bauer on 11 Apr 09
     
    Daniel Schimmel (Kelley Drye), PLI, International Arbitration 2009 (March 2009) - PDF einer kurzen Powerpoint-Präsentation; nichts Neues
Lars Bauer

Obtaining US Discovery Is Not Imperiled When Pursuing Foreign Recovery | International ... - 0 views

www.internationalassetrecoverylaw.com/...pursuing-foreign-recovery.html

28-USC-1782 discovery canada cases

shared by Lars Bauer on 25 Jul 09 - Cached
  • In many foreign jurisdictions, discovery can be onerous from non-parties. For instance, in Canada, discovery will only be allowed if a) the moving party has been unable to obtain the information from other persons, b) it would be unfair to require the moving party to proceed to trial without the opportunity to obtain the discovery and c) the discovery will not entail unreasonable expenses or unfairness to the non-party.
  • Canadian courts have viewed the use of Section 1782 favorably in proceedings pending there.
  • In CC Chemicals Ltd. v. Sternson Ltd., (1980) 116 D.L.R. (3d) 239 (S.C.), the court permitted Section 1782 to fill a procedural gap since it did not otherwise interfere with the Canadian action.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • In Penty v. Law Society of British Columbia, (1999) 69 B.C.L.R. (3d) 159 (S.C.), the court concluded that a Canadian court will generally be reluctant to prevent a party from gathering evidence extraterritorially. Efforts to gather evidence in the US did not present a comity concern nor an overriding issue of unfairness.
Lars Bauer

More U.S. Courts Permit Discovery in Aid of Foreign Arbitrations, But Texas D... - 0 views

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

28-USC-1782 arbitration case-notes newsletters

shared by Lars Bauer on 02 Jul 09 - Cached
  • In the Summer 2007 edition of Arbitration World, we noted that, after Intel, federal courts in New Jersey (In re Oxus Gold) and Georgia (In re Roz Trading) had interpreted Section 1782 to apply to international arbitrations. Recently, courts in Minnesota, Massachusetts and Delaware have followed suit, while a court in Texas has disagreed.
  • Although the weight of post-Intel legal authority suggests that participants in foreign arbitrations can now successfully apply for discovery in the U.S. under Section 1782, there remains a conflict in the federal district courts. Until the scope of Section 1782 is clarified by Circuit Courts of Appeals or the United States Supreme Court, a party to foreign arbitration who hopes to discover evidence in the U.S. cannot predict with certainty whether it will meet the first requirement: a recognition of the arbitral body as a “tribunal.” However, based upon the recent trend, it is likely that this hurdle will be cleared – unless the evidence lies in Texas
  • Lars Bauer on 02 Jul 09
     
    by Abram I. Moore - short notes on Hallmark Capital, Babcock Borsig and the two decisions in Comision Ejecutiva (Delaware and Texas)
Lars Bauer

Crowell & Moring: Düsseldorf International Arbitration School - 0 views

www.crowell.com/...Event.aspx

28-USC-1782 arbitration discovery presentations events education

shared by Lars Bauer on 16 May 09 - Cached
  • Birgit Kurtz will speak on September 23rd concerning discovery/disclosure and the related U.S. statute 28 U.S.C. § 1782.
1 - 5 of 5
Showing 20▼ items per page