-
Case of the Day: Kerajaan Republik Demokratik Rakyat Laos v. Hongsa Lingitwe Co.
I have an update on the Thai-Lao Lignite case today. Here is my description of the case from a prior post: Lignite is a low-quality coal used for generating electricity. The Hongsa region of Laos, near the Thai border, has it, and in the early 1990s, Thailand needed to import electricity. And so a joint……
-
Case of the Day: Commissions Import Export S.A. v. Republic of the Congo
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……
-
Case of the Day: First Investment Corp. of the Marshall Islands v. Fujian Mawei Shipbuilding
We return today to the case of the day from March 20, 2012, First Investment Corp. of the Marshall Islands v. Fujian Mawei Shipbuilding. In that decision, an action for confirmation of an English arbitral award, the judge found that he lacked personal jurisdiction over a Chinese state-owned enterprise, Fujian Mawei Shipbuilding, Ltd., and thus……
-
Case of the Day: Sonera Holding BV v. Çukurova Holding AŞ
The case of the day is Sonera Holding BV v. Çukurova Holding AŞ (S.D.N.Y. 2012). The decision does not set out the facts of the underlying case, but an earlier decision by the Court confirming the underlying arbitral award explains that the dispute arose out of a share purchase agreement requiring Çukurova to deliver to……
-
Case of the Day: Concesionaria Dominicana de Autopistas y Carreteras v. Dominican Republic
Welcome back, and happy new year! The case of the day is Concesionaria Dominicana de Autopistas y Carreteras v. Dominican State (D.D.C. 2012). In 2001, the Concesionaria Dominicana de Autopistas y Carreteras (CODACSA) entered into a contract with the government of the Dominican Republic to develop several highways. Under the contract, CODACSA was entitled to……