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 209

A Look Back at Some Recent Highlights
  • McGuireWoods LLP
  • USA
  • August 16 2016

One of our long-standing objectives for this blog is to provide in-depth analysis of recent court rulings and developing trends that impact class

International arbitration newsletter- July 2016
  • Latham & Watkins LLP
  • USA, United Kingdom, European Union, Global, Iran
  • July 13 2016

Non-exclusive” arbitration clauses provide that disputes “may” be referred to arbitration (rather than “shall” or “should” be so referred). The Privy

Eighth Circuit affirms enforcement of class action waivers and explores case disposition issus
  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • USA
  • September 13 2011

In a terse but well-reasoned decision, the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed the grant of a motion to compel arbitration and enforced a class action waiver despite arguments that it was unenforceable under Minnesota law.

How long do I have to challenge an award?
  • RPC
  • United Kingdom
  • October 7 2009

In Jim Ennis Construction Limited v Premier Asphalt Limited 2009 EWHC 1906 (TCC), the TCC had to decide, for the first time, the issue of the nature and date of accrual of the cause of action where a losing party to an adjudication brought under Part II of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (HGCRA) subsequently commences court proceedings to seek a final determination of the matters decided by the adjudicator, with a view to recovering monies paid to the winning party in compliance with the adjudicator’s decision.

Arbitration clause ‘arising out of’
  • Reed Smith LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • February 6 2007

In Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation & 20 Ors v Yuri Privalov & 17 Ors Lawtel 24.1.07, the question before the Court of Appeal was whether a claim by the respondent shipowners to rescind certain charterparties on grounds of bribery should be stayed for arbitration by virtue of the arbitration clause in the charters.

Jonathan W. Hew
  • Latham & Watkins LLP

Nathan P. Viebrock
  • Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP