Worldwide: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

For hundreds of years, the world’s sovereign nations refused to allow any other foreign sovereign to be sued in their courts without the sovereign’s consent. The guiding principle was “absolute sovereign immunity,” an outgrowth of the ancient legal precept rex non potest peccare, understood to mean “the king can do no wrong.” The principle also was recognized as wise foreign policy because it extended "grace and comity" to other sovereigns.

Recent federal court decisions are reshaping the landscape of personal jurisdiction and enforcement of international arbitration awards following the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization. The DC and Ninth Circuits have issued critical opinions clarifying how Fifth Amendment due process standards apply differently than traditional Fourteenth Amendment minimum contacts analysis, particularly in cases involving foreign sovereigns and international arbitration. These deve

The Texas Supreme Court's decision in Paxton v. City of Austin reveals a procedural trap for businesses suing the government: winning the right to be heard can paradoxically freeze the entire case. When governmental defendants challenge a court's jurisdiction and lose, they can immediately appeal, putting all proceedings on hold—potentially for months or years.

States across the country are expanding anti-SLAPP protections, with nine states enacting or strengthening laws since 2025. Most have adopted the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), giving defendants new tools to seek early dismissal of lawsuits.

A federal court has awarded Blake Lively over $400,000 in attorneys' fees and costs under California's new anti-SLAPP statute after dismissing a defamation claim brought against her for speaking out about workplace harassment. This landmark ruling marks the first fee award under California Civil Code section 47.1, which protects communications about sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation—raising critical questions about the financial risks employers face when responding to workplace allega

A recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision examines the boundaries of social media criticism in development disputes, addressing when heated online debate crosses into actionable defamation. The case explores how courts balance freedom of expression against reputational harm when Facebook posts allege corruption and misconduct, and clarifies the costs consequences for unsuccessful anti-SLAPP motions where malice may be present.

Under Washington State law, failing to act in a timely manner at any stage of a lawsuit, from pre-suit initiation through active litigation to post-judgment proceedings, can carry severe procedural and substantive consequences. These consequences range from the absolute bar of a claim or defense to monetary sanctions, evidentiary exclusions, dismissal of the action, and the loss of the right to appeal or collect on a judgment.

Recent trade secret case law reveals critical standards for proving misappropriation, from the Ninth Circuit's reversal of a $57 million judgment over incorrect jury instructions on the "not readily ascertainable" element, to the Eighth Circuit's requirements for adequate trade secret identification. Courts continue to refine extraterritorial application of the DTSA and standards for demonstrating actual use of allegedly misappropriated information.

A Michigan cannabis grower proved its case. A jury found that the buyer breached its supply agreement and awarded the grower $31.8 million in damages. But the grower still walked away without an enforceable verdict.

Under Washington State law, failing to act in a timely manner at any stage of a lawsuit, from pre-suit initiation through active litigation to post-judgment proceedings, can carry severe procedural and substantive consequences. These consequences range from the absolute bar of a claim or defense to monetary sanctions, evidentiary exclusions, dismissal of the action, and the loss of the right to appeal or collect on a judgment.

In-house counsel face critical decisions at the outset of internal investigations that determine the credibility and defensibility of the entire process. This guide examines the strategic questions around scope, privilege protection, external support, and documentation that must be addressed early—often under pressure and before the facts are fully known.

For many people in Ontario family court, the first case conference can feel uncertain. You may wonder whether anything meaningful can happen at this early stage, especially if disclosure is missing, support is needed, or temporary arrangements are required. While a case conference is not a trial, it can still be an important step in getting the case organized and moving forward.