<?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: Constellation Energy Commodities Group v. Transfield ER Cape Ltd.	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/08/04/case-of-the-day-constellation-energy-commodities-group-v-transfield-er-cape-ltd/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/08/04/case-of-the-day-constellation-energy-commodities-group-v-transfield-er-cape-ltd/</link>
	<description>The Blog of International Judicial Assistance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2024 17:13:44 +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: Greatship (India) Ltd. v. Marine Logistics Solutions, LLC &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/08/04/case-of-the-day-constellation-energy-commodities-group-v-transfield-er-cape-ltd/#comment-23825</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Case of the Day: Greatship (India) Ltd. v. Marine Logistics Solutions, LLC &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Dec 2024 18:38:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=1798#comment-23825</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] the New York Convention. I&#8217;ve posted on this a few times, but I&#8217;d point readers to the discussion of the Constellation Energy case, which has a link to a relevant report from the International Commercial Disputes Commitee of the [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] the New York Convention. I&#8217;ve posted on this a few times, but I&#8217;d point readers to the discussion of the Constellation Energy case, which has a link to a relevant report from the International Commercial Disputes Commitee of the [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Case of the Day: Greatship (India) Ltd. v. Marine Logistics Solutions, LLC &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/08/04/case-of-the-day-constellation-energy-commodities-group-v-transfield-er-cape-ltd/#comment-247</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Case of the Day: Greatship (India) Ltd. v. Marine Logistics Solutions, LLC &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 11:02:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=1798#comment-247</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] the New York Convention. I&#8217;ve posted on this a few times, but I&#8217;d point readers to the discussion of the Constellation Energy case, which has a link to a relevant report from the International Commercial Disputes Commitee of the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] the New York Convention. I&#8217;ve posted on this a few times, but I&#8217;d point readers to the discussion of the Constellation Energy case, which has a link to a relevant report from the International Commercial Disputes Commitee of the [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Case of the Day: Thai-Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co. v. Government of the Lao People&#8217;s Democratic Republic &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/08/04/case-of-the-day-constellation-energy-commodities-group-v-transfield-er-cape-ltd/#comment-246</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Case of the Day: Thai-Lao Lignite (Thailand) Co. v. Government of the Lao People&#8217;s Democratic Republic &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:02:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=1798#comment-246</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] Wood also turned away a forum non conveniens argument. (I&#8217;ve argued before that forum non conveniens should not be a defense to recognition and enforcement of an arbitral [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Wood also turned away a forum non conveniens argument. (I&#8217;ve argued before that forum non conveniens should not be a defense to recognition and enforcement of an arbitral [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
