Sometimes seemingly subtle policy wording differences can significantly affect the court’s analysis of key policy clauses. The significance of the wording subtleties sometimes is best seen by comparing the wording to equivalent provisions in different policies. That was the case in recent proceedings in which an excess insurer sought to compel arbitration of an underlying coverage dispute. As discussed below, the court found that the language of the specific arbitration provision in dispute did not apply either to the parties or the dispute involved in the underlying coverage lawsuit. The ruling, in which the court applied New York law, can be found here.Continue Reading Insurer Cannot Compel Arbitration in Reliance on Narrow Arb Clause Wording
A court in the Netherlands has ruled that a collective investor action against Petrobras and related entities pending in the court can go forward, notwithstanding the arbitration clause in Petrobras’s articles of association. The defendants had sought to argue that because of the arbitration clause the foundation that was pursuing the Dutch action on behalf of investors had no standing to pursue the claims. The Dutch court’s May 26, 2021 ruling rejecting the defendants’ argument will now permit the action to go forward. A copy of Petrobras’s May 27, 2021 press release about the court’s ruling can be found 
It is big news when one of the most successful plaintiff-side corporate and securities lawyers decides to walk away from the game, but that is exactly what Stuart Grant of Grant & Eisenhofer, the Delaware shareholder litigation firm, is going to do. According to Alison Frankel’s interesting June 25, 2018 Reuters article and interview (
For a while a few years ago, litigation reform bylaws were all the rage – including forum selection bylaws, fee shifting bylaws, even mandatory arbitration bylaws. More recently, discussion of the topic quieted down, in part because the Delaware legislature 
