Month: August 2011

  • Case of the Day: Lantheus Medical Imaging, Inc. v. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.

    H/T to Antonin Pribetic for a pointer to the case of the day, Lantheus Med. Imaging, Inc. v. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (Ontario Super. Ct. of Justice 2011). In the underlying case, Lantheus Med. Imaging, Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., pending in the Southern District of New York, Lantheus sued Zurich, its insurer,……

  • Case of the Day: Continental Transfert Technique Ltd. v. Nigeria

    The case of the day is Continental Transfert Technique Ltd. v. Federal Gov’t of Nigeria (D.D.C. 2011). An earlier decision provides the factual background. In 1999, Continental contracted with the Nigerian government to produe computer-compatible identification cards. The contract contained an interesting arbitration clause, providing that any dispute shall be referred to arbitration in accordance……

  • Case of the Day: Tang v. CS Clean Systems AG

    In the case of the day Po-Hi Tang v. CS Clean Systems AG (S.D. Cal. 2011), the plaintiff transmitted a summons and complaint to the German central authority for service.  When trouble arose, the court authorized service of process by alternate means, namely, on a US lawyer who had previously represented the defendant is US……

  • Case of the Day: Constellation Energy Commodities Group v. Transfield ER Cape Ltd.

    The case of the day is Constellation Energy Commodities Group Inc. v. Transfield ER Cape Ltd. (S.D.N.Y. 2011).It raises the question whether forum non conveniens should be a defense to a petition to confirm an arbitral award. I think the answer should be no. Constellation was a Maryland corporation, and Transfield ER Cape Ltd. was……

  • Case of the Day XCentric Ventures, LLC v. Karsen, Ltd.

    The case of the day, XCentric Ventures, LLC v. Karsen, Ltd. (D. Ariz. 2011), is another example of a plaintiff’s ex parte motion to approve its efforts to serve process on the defendants. As I have previously commented, I question whether these kinds of motions are justiciable—why should the court give what is essentially an……