We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 583

New York state court decision raises issues concerning the drafting of arbitration clauses
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • September 20 2010

By Design, LLC terminated the employment of Oded Nachmani, who claimed he was wrongfully dismissed in violation of his employment contract and certain discrimination laws


Last week in DC: the healthcare reform debate December 14, 2009
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • December 14 2009

Debate on healthcare reform legislation continued on the Senate floor last week, while behind the scenes a tentative agreement was reached among Democrats on the controversial public insurance option


Credit Suisse to settle Iran sanctions claims
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • Iran, USA
  • December 16 2009

Credit Suisse announced on December 15, 2009 that it is nearing a $536 million settlement with the New York County District Attorney's office and the US Department of Justice, Federal Reserve Board, Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC


Federal court finds that the proper venue for a motion to confirm an arbitration award is the district in which the hearing was held, not where the award was signed
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • October 15 2010

NGC Network Asia, LLC (“NGC”) and Pacific Group International, Inc. (“PAC”) were parties to an arbitration held in New York


Court denies Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • June 10 2010

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California recently granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss a class action brought by a class of purchasers of mortgage pass-through certificates


Illinois federal court rules that reinsurer’s motion to vacate arbitration award is untimely under the Federal Arbitration Act
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • November 4 2010

R&Q Reinsurance Co. v. American Motorist Ins. Co., involved a dispute arising under a series of reinsurance treaties entered into by the parties


Connecticut trial court holds that “general business practice” element of an unfair settlement practice claim requires multiple acts of misconduct against multiple insureds
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • February 5 2010

A Connecticut trial court recently held that the “general business practice” element of an unfair settlement practice claim under the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. 38a-816(6) (“CUIPA”) requires that a plaintiff prove multiple unfair practices by an insurer against more than one insured


Second Circuit: distinguishing between policy definitions subject to NY Insurance Law 3420(d)(2)’s timely disclaimer requirement as an exclusion and those that are not
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • June 16 2010

In a decision issued on February 1, 2010, the United Stated Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit confirmed that under New York law some policy provisions, although placed outside of the policy's "Exclusions" section, may nonetheless be considered an exclusion and, therefore, subject to the timely disclaimer and denial requirement of NY Insurance Law 3420(d)(2


Connecticut Appellate Court holds substantial factor test remains unchanged in workers’ compensation cases
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • January 22 2010

The Connecticut Appellate Court recently held that the "substantial factor test" for causation remains unchanged and that traditional causation rules apply to workers’ compensation cases


California federal court holds that D&O insurer is permitted to rescind policy based on nondisclosure in application
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • November 11 2009

In a recent decision by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, the court held that an insurer does not have to provide D&O insurance coverage to a group of bondholders who took on the responsibilities of the bankrupt insured