2008 Articles

Crowell & Moring International Group partner Matthew P. Jaffe gives his insight on United States trade laws in The International Contract Manual. The article focuses on five key U.S. trade laws that may impact imports of products into the United States: antidumping duty law; countervailing duty law; Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended; Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended; and global and special safeguard proceedings.

Crowell & Moring International Dispute Resolution Group co-chair Arif Hyder Ali and associate Kassi D. Tallent write about the U.S. judiciary's approach to arbitration and arbitral rewards.

Crowell & Moring Government Contracts Group partner Robert Nichols writes about U. S. government prime contractors, and the steps they should take when determining which Federal Acquisition Regulation clauses to flow down to non-U.S. subcontractors.

Crowell & Moring Antitrust and Health Care Group partner Karen A. Gibbs, and associate David E. Crowe, write about the implications to consider when applying the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, and the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Cascade Health Solution v. PeaceHealth to bundled cases.

Baiju Simal Vasani and Daniel E. Vielleville, both counsel in Crowell & Moring's International Dispute Resolution Group, write about the pros and cons of sovereignty over natural resources, and the rights under investment contracts.

Crowell & Moring International Dispute Resolution Group co-chair Arif Hyder Ali, and counsels Katherine J. Nesbitt and Jane Wessel, discuss anti-suit injunctions in support of international arbitration in the United Sates and the United Kingdom.

Crowell & Moring Insurance/Reinsurance Group partner Jonathan H. Pittman and counsel Paul Alp examined the Texas Supreme Court's January 11, 2008 rejection of an appeal in AIG Aviation Inc. v. Holt Helicopters Inc., involving a helicopter accident for which an insurer denied coverage. The piece examines insurance policies that routinely contain explicit provisions that establish the scope of the risk insured. According to Pttman and Alp, "such clauses are not to be taken lightly because they establish the fundamental nature of the risk that the insurer agrees to cover - the basis of the bargain for which the policyholder pays its premium."

At a recent group purchasing organization (GPO) ethics forum in Washington, D.C., Dr. Kirk Hanson, Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, Santa Clara University, led a lively ethics discussion based on a hypothetical situation he characterized as ‘‘the perfect storm.’’ The point of the hypothetical situation is that the serious ethical failures of a few can bring the ethics of the entire healthcare supply chain into question.

Crowell & Moring Government Contracts partner Angela B. Styles writes about the recent Federal Acquisition Regulatory (FAR) Council final rule mandating contractor compliance programs and the proposed rule regarding new requirements on federal contractors, including an obligation to disclose criminal conduct to the government.

Crowell & Moring partner William L. Anderson writes about the any exposure theory of causation and how it has affected asbestos litigation cases. The theory states that any exposure to asbestos during a persons lifetime can contribute to disease. The article addresses the fact that "Courts must exercise control over the current state of litigation and the assertion of the any exposure theory."

Crowell & Moring Government Contracts Group partner Andy Liu and Labor & Employment Group associate Jane Foster write about the U.S. Government’s revised interim rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation which implemented the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003, as amended by the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005. The revised interim rule imposes far-reaching and potentially onerous obligations on Government contractors. To avoid the remedies for noncompliance—including termination, suspension and debarment—Liu and Foster write that contractors must, at a minimum, establish policies and procedures that effectively notify employees of the zero tolerance policy and the consequences for violating that policy. Contractors also must follow through with disciplining employees who violate the policy and notify a CO of any alleged violation.