The Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention: History, Interpretation, and Application describes in detail the drafting history of the public policy exception of Art. V (2) (b) of the New York Convention in order to determine the purpose the signatory states wanted to achieve with this clause. The book also explains how this clause is applied by the courts in many economically relevant states, and especially in Brazil, Russia, India, and China. In September 2012, the Indian Supreme Court, in a case entitled Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Service, Inc., announced a long expected decision practically reversing the judgments of Bhatia International and Venture Global and holding that Indian Courts are not permitted to set aside foreign arbitral awards. In this Revised Edition, the author explains and explores the reasoning of the Indian Supreme Court in this landmark decision and discusses the practical implications and consequences. Public Policy Exception under the New York Convention: History, Interpretation, and Application is of importance for all internationally active companies as well as for lawyers and courts. The book aids lawyers and companies in drafting arbitration clauses and in enforcing foreign arbitral awards. Often, judgments will not be enforced abroad; this is especially true with respect to an enforcement of foreign judgments in the BRIC countries. Therefore, internationally active companies and their advisors need guidance if and where foreign arbitral awards in their favor will be enforced abroad.
See also Country Community Timberlake Village v. HMW Special Utility District of Harris, 438 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. Ct. App. 2014) (holding that a neighboring ...
After Justin Timberlake exposed Janet Jackson's pierced nipple on national television for 9/16ths of a second, the FCC received over 540,000 complaints.
Volume III: The Chesapeake and New England, 1660-1750 William E. Nelson ... Decision of Law, Surry County Ct. 1673/74, in Eliza Timberlake Davis ed., ...
E. Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941), 66 Edwards v. Housing Authority of City of ... Timberlake, 148 Ind. 38,46 N.E.339 (1897), 69,70 Graves v.
Fitzgerald, 4.08[B][2], 5.05[D] Fitzgerald v. ... Mastrapa-Font, 7.03[A][3] Fontaine, In re, 5.05[D] Fontenette v. ... Frost, 5.05[A] Formato v.
The sole remedy is avoidance, however; damages cannot be claimed under s. ... 17, it places a great deal of power in the hands of insurance companies to ...
Normally, a mate«s receipt would later be given up for a bill of lading, ... they necessarily prejudice the rights of those who deal in the goods ...
27 257 U.S. 184, 42 S. Ct. 72, 66 L. Ed. 189 (1921). ... 38 Argensinger, “Right to Strike”: Labor Organization and the New Deal in Baltimore, 78 MD . HIST .
704 Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017, s. 80. 705 Leith v. Gould [1986] 1 NZLR 760. It is not clear how a New Zealand court would deal with a case such ...
... to meet the reasonable expectations of claimants about how the corporation should deal with them, by, inter alia, ... 7 Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, s.