A number of recent cases have signalled a change in approach by the courts when analysing non-reliance provisions in entire agreement clauses. Previously, these provisions were commonly regarded as capable of giving rise to an evidential estoppel (also known as an estoppel by representation). However, it was not always possible to establish this estoppel where it could be shown that the estoppel did not reflect the underlying factual position.

The turmoil in recent years in economic markets has not surprisingly resulted in a number of court cases concerning complex financial transactions, often with cross-border elements. Those transactions are commonly documented in a number of related agreements, whether entered into contemporaneously or over a period of time. Not uncommonly, by accident or design, those agreements contain different jurisdiction clauses. Which court has jurisdiction in these circumstances?

In recent months we have seen a number of interesting judgments relating to Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Part 36 encourages parties to settle their litigation by imposing unfavourable costs and interest consequences in the event that a party (whether claimant or defendant) refuses its opponent's Part 36 offer to settle but then fails to achieve a better result at trial. The most significant of these, in the joined appeals of Gibbon v Manchester City Council and LG Blower Specialist Bricklayer Limited v Reeves [2010] EWCA Civ 726, was handed down on 25 June.

A new Practice Direction (PD) and questionnaire will apply to the disclosure of electronic documents in multi-track cases started in the High Court on or after 1 October 2010. The new rules have developed out of a concern that existing provisions are not effective in forcing parties to litigation to address and correctly disclose electronic documents in evidence.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act represents one of the most comprehensive legislative overhauls of financial institution regulations in U.S. history, affecting a wide range of providers of financial products and services as well as business and consumer customers. In a webcast interview for The Wall Street Journal, Dechert partner Thomas P.

Poor performance, failure to meet deadlines, and failure to pay on time may all amount to breaches of contract. However, not all breaches of contract entitle the non-breaching party to treat the contract as terminated. In fact, doing so may, in itself, be a repudiatory breach entitling the other party to terminate and sue for damages. In this the ninth part of our 'before you charge in' series, we provide a guide to repudiatory breaches and relying on such a breach to treat the contract as at an end.

Public, political, and investor scrutiny on corporate governance and risk oversight has raised the bar on every public company board. Directors and general counsel are definitely in the hot zone, as our most recent national survey results show.www.fticonsulting.com/resources/documents/2010legalstudyresults-final.pdf

Included in this issue: - US “Ipso Facto” and UK “Anti-Deprivation”: the Lehman "Flip” Clause - Glimmers of Hope for Trademark Licensees - Revisions to Proposed Amendments to Bankruptcy Rule 2019 - Proceeds of D&O Insurance Policies: Property of the Estate? - “Silent Second Lender’s” Efforts to Seek the Appointment of an Examiner Are Sidelined by Its Prepetition Waiver - Automatic Stay may be Extended to Enjoin Non-Debtors - Avoidance Powers in Chapter 15 Proceedings - The Politics of Bankruptcy: California’s Struggle over Municipal Bankruptcy Access Read more:

Mexico - contributed by SAI Abogados In ruling on a judicial review claim, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has interpreted several fundamental aspects of arbitration. However, on many points the rationale on which the court relied is inconsistent with applicable doctrine and legislation; as such, it has confused rather than clarified issues that lie at the heart of arbitration's processes and philosophy. (Read article http://www.internationallawoffice.com/?i=1042182&l=7EG3S99)