Month: February 2013

Update: Arbitrator’s Nightmare: When Procedural Orders Backfire – Flex-n-Gate v. GEA

In November 2012 I posted on the Gea v. Flex-n-Gate decision of the Frankfurt Court of Appeals (Oberlandesgericht) that treated procedural orders as Agreements between the parties and that had been upheld by the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof). The piece was cross-posted at the Kluwer Arbitration Blog, were it sparked some debate. In the most recent issue of the German Arbitration Journal (Zeitschrift für Schiedsverfahren) Gerhard Wagner and Maximilian Bülau discuss the case in detail. Read More

Presentation of the MAL Digest/UNCITRAL Rules – Berlin Conference, March 1, 2013

The German Institution of Arbitration (DIS) is organizing, jointly with UNCITRAL, Humboldt-University Berlin and the German Ministry of Justice, a conference “Presentation of the MAL Digest / UNCITRAL Rules” to be held in Berlin on March 1, 2013. The event will cover two topics: The presentation of the digest of case law on the UNCITRAL Model Law on the one hand, and the 2010 UNCITRAL Rules and their administration by DIS on the other hand.

Van Gend & Loos: 50th Anniversary of ECJ Landmark Case

Today is the 50th anniversary of Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen, one of the landmark cases of the European Court of Justice. It’s so famous that it has even got its own Wikipedia entry. In short, the Van Gend en Loos judgment established the principle of direct effect: Provisions of the European Economic Community Treaty, as it then was, are capable of creating rights for individuals, and these rights can be enforced by these individuals in the courts of member states. Read More

Porsche Hedge Fund Litigation: U.S. Claims Consolidated in Germany

Porsche announced yesterday that it has reached an agreement with 26 hedge funds who had sued Porsche in U.S. courts for damages allegedly suffered by Porsche’s shorting of Volkswagen shares in 2008. Under the agreements, “plaintiffs have agreed to waive any appeal of the decision of the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court dismissing their complaints, and Porsche SE has agreed not to raise any statute of limitations defense with respect to claims filed by Plaintiffs before a court in Germany within 90 days.” This agreement comes after the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court at the end of December 2012 had found in favour of Porsche. It had reversed an earlier denial of Porsche’s motion to dismiss the U.S. lawsuits by the New York State Supreme Court, finding that New York is not an appropriate forum for the resolution of the hedge funds’ claims. Porsche appeared to be in a comfortable position, so why this agreement? Read More