<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Case of the Day: Yugraneft Corp. v. Rexx Management Corp.	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/01/20/case-of-the-day-yugraneft-corp-v-rexx-management-corp/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/01/20/case-of-the-day-yugraneft-corp-v-rexx-management-corp/</link>
	<description>The Blog of International Judicial Assistance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2024 21:49:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Case of the Day: Commissions Import Export S.A. v. Republic of the Congo &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/01/20/case-of-the-day-yugraneft-corp-v-rexx-management-corp/#comment-23276</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Case of the Day: Commissions Import Export S.A. v. Republic of the Congo &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Dec 2024 02:33:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=128#comment-23276</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] The case of the day is Commissions Import Export SA v. Republic of the Congo (D.D.C. 2013). The case deals with local statutes of limitations applicable to recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, a topic we saw in the discussion of Yugraneft Corp. v. Rexx Management Corp., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 649 (Can.), the case of the day from January 20, 2011. [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] The case of the day is Commissions Import Export SA v. Republic of the Congo (D.D.C. 2013). The case deals with local statutes of limitations applicable to recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, a topic we saw in the discussion of Yugraneft Corp. v. Rexx Management Corp., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 649 (Can.), the case of the day from January 20, 2011. [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Greatest Hits: January to April 2011 &#171; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/01/20/case-of-the-day-yugraneft-corp-v-rexx-management-corp/#comment-31</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Greatest Hits: January to April 2011 &#171; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Apr 2011 11:13:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=128#comment-31</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] Yugraneft Corp. v. Rexx Management Corp. (Canada S. Ct. 2010). This was the Canadian case holding that the forum&#8217;s statute of limitations provided grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Yugraneft Corp. v. Rexx Management Corp. (Canada S. Ct. 2010). This was the Canadian case holding that the forum&#8217;s statute of limitations provided grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award. [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
