1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |USTR Lead Negotiator and Experts Discuss the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) Negotiations

USTR Lead Negotiator and Experts Discuss the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) Negotiations

Event | 12.09.15, 7:30 AM EST - 9:00 AM EST

Address

Crowell & Moring LLP
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.

The Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) is an international agreement currently being negotiated by countries representing 75 percent of global trade in services to liberalize trade in services, including finance, investment, insurance, legal services, and other emerging issues such as restrictions on cross-border data flows that can disrupt financial and e-commerce services. The negotiating countries recently agreed to hold four more rounds of negotiations in an effort to conclude the agreement by July 2016. Come hear two leading experts on TiSA and the lead U.S. negotiator on TiSA, fresh from the November/ December negotiating round focused on financial services in Geneva, discuss and answer questions on the major outstanding issues.


This “Off the Record” luncheon program is sponsored by the International Investment and Finance Committee of the D.C. Bar International Law Section. Cosponsored by the International Securities Law Committee of the Corporation, Finance and Securities Section, the International Dispute Resolution Committee of the International Law Section, the International Trade Committee of the International Law Section, the American Bar Association International Trade Committee and the Virginia State Bar International Practice Section.


Benjamin Caryl is the Moderator and a speaker at this event.


For more information, please visit these areas: International Trade

Insights

Event | 12.04.25

ACI 30th Annual Conference on Drug & Medical Device Litigation

Dan Campbell with Speak on the panel "Mastering MDL Case Management: What Proposed Rule 16.1 Really Means for Consolidated Litigation."
Rule 16.1 attempts to guide early case management in MDLs, impacting litigation pace and costs. Permissive language like “should” instead of “must”, could lead to inconsistent applications. This panel will explore the rule’s anticipated impact and implications for procedures.