Browse the archives

Browse the articles in this issue.

• EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS
  By a 5 to 4 vote, U.S. Supreme Court holds that President’s complex but voluntary international arrangements to compensate Holocaust victims for insurance assets confiscated by Nazi regime preempts California statute designed to compel European insurance companies either to divulge records of insurance policies they sold in Europe between 1920 and 1945 or to forfeit their state licenses
• INSURANCE
  In litigation over interpretation of high risk insurance policies to cover cinematic loans made by J.P. Morgan Chase, House of Lords decides as matter of law that policies in question would exempt Chase from liability for its brokers’ negligent misrepresentations but not for their fraudulent non-disclosures
• INTERNATIONAL SALES
  Ninth Circuit rules that, under international sales convention, sales contract between Canadian company on one side as buyer and French corporation and its wholly-owned American subsidiary on other side as sellers did not incorporate French forum selection clauses on sellers’ invoices
• MUTUAL LEGAL COOPERATION
  EU approves agreements with U.S. on extradition and mutual legal assistance in criminal matters
• SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
  D.C. Circuit dismisses lawsuit by former hostages in Iran who were held beginning in 1979 for 444 days
• SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
  D.C. Circuit dismisses lawsuit by Kenyan victims of 1998 bombing of U.S. Embassy in Nairobi
• TAXATION
  In case where U.S. defendants illegally sold liquor in Canada and avoided Canadian taxes, Fourth Circuit, in matter of first impression in the Circuit, disagrees with other precedent and finds that the common law revenue rule does not preclude prosecution under the wire fraud statute
• TRADEMARKS
  In trademark infringement litigation brought in Germany by California clothing firm, European Court of Justice answers question of law referred by Bundesgerichtshof by ruling that protection of free movement of goods dictates that defendant who shows risk of partitioning of national markets if it has burden of proof justifies imposing burden on copyright owner to show that it initially marketed its product outside European Economic Area (EEA) and, to counter this showing, defendant would undertake burden of proving owner’s consent to later marketing of product in EEA