Earlier this month, I had written about the Russian Arbitrazh court’s judgment before the Munich Court of Appeals (Oberlandesgericht) – the Munich court held that a Russian Arbitrazh Court is not an arbitral tribunal, and its judgment can not be recognized as an arbitral award under the New York Convention. The question then was asked whether in the alternative, the judgment of the Aribtrazh Court could have been recognized in Germany as a judgment of a state court. My short answer was that it could not, for lack of reciprocity. But the status quo has now been challenged. Continue reading
“The questionnaire – which is for in-house counsel in both the private and public sectors – includes questions about your personal experience of mediation, as well as your views on the outsourcing of cases and opportunities for collaborative working within dispute resolution. Your responses will be collated with others and will be made available in the early spring.”
As it happens, my partner Axel Bösch is working on a joint project with Bucerius Law School in Hamburg with a similar focus, for which they conducted extensive interviews with in-house counsel across Germany. First findings were presented at Bucerius’ 2012 Conflict Management Coference.
Issues of international service are often rather mundane, not to say, boring technicalities. Nevertheless, in international litigation, service abroad is the eye of the needle through which every dispute must go. A recent judgment by the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) is therefore highly welcome, as it addresses technicalities such as the interpretation of a certificate of service from the Chinese Central Authority under the Hague Service Convention, and the extent to which documents that support a statement of claim (Klageschrift) must be translated into the Chinese language, in order for service in China to be effective. Continue reading
According to press reports, some sixty retail investors are suing Barclays in Frankfurt over certificates issued by Barclays that related to Helmut Kiener’s Ponzi scheme. Similar actions are being brought in Munich. If I am not mistaken, then this is the first large-scale litigation where the German plaintiff bar tries to establish a model procedure under the extended scope of the revised Capital Market Investors’ Model Proceedings Act (KapMuG) that came into force in November 2012 – or perhaps even the first one overall. Continue reading