On December 3, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Republic of Hungary v. Simon. The case involves Hungary’s theft of valuable items from Jewish families during the Holocaust. The plaintiffs sued the Republic of Hungary and its national railway in the United States, arguing that a federal court in Washington, D.C. could
Perhaps you represent a U.S. company that is entering into a contract with an overseas entity, or vice versa. You are contemplating whether the contract should provide for arbitration or litigation in the event of a dispute. In deciding that question, you may ask: if your client wins in the proceeding against the other party, is it easier to enforce a non-U.S. court judgment or a non-U.S. arbitration award in the United States?
As it turns out, each scenario presents unique challenges. There is no uniform U.S. law governing the recognition of non-U.S. judgments, but rather a patchwork of varying state laws, which can make recognition more complicated. Confirmation of non-U.S. arbitration awards, on the other hand, is governed by a single, uniform federal statute in the United States. Even so, U.S. proceedings to confirm an arbitration award have to be made on a shorter timetable than proceedings to recognize a non-U.S. judgment, and confirmation of arbitration awards can raise other, complicated issues.
Dispute resolution provisions in contracts are often treated as “boilerplate,” but the choice between arbitration and litigation can be an important one. Lawyers drafting contracts involving both U.S. and non-U.S. parties should think carefully about the differences between enforcing judgments and arbitration awards in the United States to decide whether court or arbitration proceedings are the right choice for their clients.Continue Reading Judgment Gymnastics: Enforcing Overseas Judgments and Arbitration Awards in the U.S.
This post has been cross-posted from Seyfarth’s Employment Law Lookout blog.
Welcome to Decoding Appeals, where Seyfarth’s Appellate Team brings to in-house counsel our insights and expertise from the front lines of the appellate courts. Throughout this short video series, we break down the nuances of appellate advocacy, sharing tips and lessons we’ve learned
This blog has been cross-posted to Seyfarth’s Gadgets, Gigabytes & Goodwill site.
A whole host of creators have filed suit in the U.S. alleging that AI companies improperly used the creators’ content to train AI programs (if you need to catch up on these lawsuits, we recommend our video blog here). In most
The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 23, 2023, majority decision in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, Case No. 22-105 requires a stay of district court litigation if a party loses a motion to compel arbitration and pursues the right of interlocutory appeal granted by 9 U.S.C. § 16(a). Section 16(a) is the provision of the Federal Arbitration
There is a little-known provision of the Lanham Act (the US Trademark Act) that packs a potentially big punch. 15 USC § 1051(e) provides that if a non-U.S. entity registers for a trademark in the United States without designating a United States resident for service of “notices or process in proceedings affecting the mark” (a
Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S., aka Halkbank v. United States.[1] This groundbreaking case represents the first known attempt by the United States (or likely any state in modern history) to indict and criminally-prosecute the agency or instrumentality of a foreign state. The Supreme Court held that
As we’ve previously written, complications arise for foreign sovereigns (States) and private companies when they structure commercial transactions. States prefer to hold as much of their immunities as is possible, while private companies prefer the State waive all immunities. This is particularly true with respect to execution on a judgment for breach of the
On June 1, 2022, Bill 96, an act passed by the Québec legislature, became law. In general, Bill 96 broadens French language requirements, affecting many aspects of commercial, governmental, and public life in Québec. Sanctions for non-compliance can include fines ranging up to $7,000 per day for individuals and up to $30,000 per day for entities, with increased fines for repeat offenders.
Bill 96’s new requirements include the following:Continue Reading New Law in Québec Will Impact Businesses And Trademarks
As we’ve previously written (most recently here), 28 U.S.C. § 1782 is a useful federal statute that allows overseas litigants to obtain discovery through U.S. federal courts for use in the overseas litigation. With respect to adjudication of Section 1782 applications, some federal courts have disagreed about whether such are “dispositive” or “non-dispositive” matters when the application is decided by a federal magistrate judge, as opposed to a federal district judge. The distinction is relevant because federal district judges review magistrate judges’ reports and recommendations on “dispositive” matters de novo, but review magistrate judges’ rulings on “non-dispositive” matters only to determine whether the ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.[1]
In a recent decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Section 1782 applications are “dispositive” for purposes of a magistrate judge’s ruling on the issue.[2] The Ninth Circuit reasoned that the matter was “dispositive” because “the magistrate judge’s order denied the only relief sought by [the applicant] in this federal case: court-ordered discovery.” The court distinguished the situation from the types of discovery matters typically heard by a magistrate judge because those discovery matters are usually in the context “of an ongoing civil case in that same federal court for monetary damages, injunctive relief, or the like.” In the Section 1782 context, however, there is no ongoing federal civil case: the Section 1782 application is the only relief sought in, and the only purpose for having commenced, the action.[3]Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Weighs In On Section 1782 Issue That Has Split Federal Courts