Commercial parties worldwide have long struggled to enforce cross-border arbitration awards and judgments in the Middle East.
However, recent decisions of the UAE courts have signaled that the tides may be turning more in creditors’ favor. which can inform how they may approach enforcement against a sovereign debtor.
Our team explains recent updates advancing cross-border judgment enforcement efforts in the region.
Over the past few years, Kobre & Kim has successfully enforced cross-border judgments and arbitration awards collectively valued valued in the hundreds of millions of US dollars.
Many of the firm’s engagements have involved judgments and awards valued in the billions or even tens of billions of US dollars.
Large monetary judgments or awards cannot be successfully enforced by a strategy that solely focuses on pursuing assets worldwide.
The U.S. Department of Justice announced a new policy promising companies leniency if they report uncovered misconduct within six months of a merger or acquisition.
Though this may at first appear to be “good news,” it demonstrates the DOJ’s increasing aggressiveness to companies – including non-U.S. companies – that did not commit any wrongdoing.
We look at why companies should be wary of cooperation, and how they can approach the DOJ more prudently.
It is commonly assumed that it is difficult and impractical to enforcement judgments in the United Arab Emirates.
However, this is increasingly untrue – even when no bilateral enforcement treaty exists, creditors can obtain recognition of their common law judgments.
A recent Kobre & Kim case shows how that can happen.
U.S. government antitrust agencies – including the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division and Federal Trade Commission – have become increasingly aggressive in their enforcement.
While this puts more multinational companies with U.S. links at risk, it could also present an opportunity.
Our team explains how the changing antitrust enforcement environment can provide tools for companies to keep their competitors in check.
Recent comments by top U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) officials seem to signal an emphasis on leniency programs for companies cooperating on corruption and bribery investigations.
However, non-U.S. companies should not let their guard down – the DOJ continues to stretch the bounds of its jurisdiction to aggressively prosecute companies beyond the U.S.
We unpack counteroffensive strategies at-risk companies should consider to stand up to DOJ overreach and drive successful outcomes.
The U.S. Department of Justice has released new guidelines that signal their aggressive prosecution of individuals and companies outside the U.S.
At-risk non-U.S. companies must understand the potential implications of the DOJ’s new position.
Our global Government Enforcement Defense team explains why internationally based former U.S. government lawyers are best positioned to address the issues.
A new Multilateral Framework on Procedures in Competition Law Investigation and Enforcement (MFP) is being finalized.
Although the new MFP will not be binding on all enforcement regimes, the MFP’s compliance mechanisms should incentivize agencies to comply with the common commitments.
This announcement raises five key questions about the future of global antitrust enforcement.
