In this inaugural issue of GLOBALitigation: USA, viewers will read about the positive effect of using interpreters in U.S. litigation processes, new standards for arbitrator disclosures, a discussion of warfare and litigation principles, and an update on a significant case involving personal jurisdiction and beneficially-held corporations.
- September 6, 2007
Effective Use of Interpreters Can Dramatically Improve U.S. Litigation Results
The use of interpreters in U.S. litigation is more art than science. The right interpreter can translate into greater success in the courtroom. Witnesses are more comfortable—and therefore more effective—when they testify in their native language. In court, the interpreter also becomes the voice of the witness in a very real way. Through decades of trial experience, we have developed techniques for working with interpreters that lawyers and clients can use to improve the testimony of foreign witnesses.
Richard E. Donovan - September 5, 2007
U.S. Federal Court Establishes New Standard for Arbitrator Disclosure
In a decision issued in New York this summer in Applied Industrial Materials Corp. v. Ovalar Makine Ticaret Ve Sanayi, A.S., 492 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2007), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit established new disclosure rules applicable to arbitrators faced with a potential conflict of interest. The ruling may impact any arbitration—including those held entirely outside the United States—which may at some point be subject to review in the federal courts located within the Second Circuit (most notably, those in New York).
Philip D. Robben - September 3, 2007
Litigation and the Principles of Warfare
Although many litigators in the United States are eager to compare litigation to warfare, that comparison is misleading. However, certain principles of warfare can still serve as guideposts in planning how to deal with litigation issues. This article briefly outlines those principles of warfare and discusses how those principles of warfare have applied to achieve successful outcomes in international litigation.
William R. Golden Jr., Matthew D. Marcotte - September 1, 2007
Child Jockeys' Suit Against UAE Sheikhs Dismissed: Acts of "Beneficially Held" Corporations Not Sufficient For Personal Jurisdiction Over Individuals
In the recent case of Mother Doe I ex rel. R.M. v. Al Maktoum, Case No. 06-22253-CIV-ALTONAGA/Turnoff, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54918; 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 988 (S.D. Fla. July 30, 2007), the plaintiffs, consisting of former child jockeys and their parents, brought an action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that the defendants, Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the vice president and prime minister of the United Arab Emirates ("UAE"), and Sheikh Hamdan Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, the finance minister of the UAE, were allegedly involved in kidnapping young boys to serve as jockeys in camel races in the UAE. The truth of these allegations was not before the court and no decision as to the truth of the allegations was made. The decision hinged on jurisdiction principles and underscores the importance of maintaining corporate formalities to protect against exposing non-U.S. persons to litigation in U.S. courts.
Clifford Katz - August 29, 2007
Supreme Court's Twombly Decision Should Benefit Defendants in Many Commercial Cases
The Supreme Court's recent opinion in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, involving an antitrust conspiracy, tightens the standards for pleading many commercial claims. Partner Richard Donovan wrote an article in Metropolitan Corporate Counsel (a leading publication for in-house lawyers in the East Coast) which discusses how the Twombly opinion affects pleadings of commercial claims.
Richard E. Donovan
