Insights

New York – August 22, 2025: Crowell & Moring lawyers Randa Adra, Joshua Lindsay, Edmund Northcott, and Evelien Van Espen authored a chapter in the sixth edition of Global Arbitration Review’s The Guide to Construction Arbitration. Their chapter explores the allocation of risk in construction contracts, including covering issues like cost overruns, design errors, unforeseen conditions, and delays.

New York – August 19, 2025: Crowell & Moring represented Halda Therapeutics in a strategic research collaboration, worth over $1 billion in total potential value, with VantAI to discover next-generation RIPTAC (Regulated Induced Proximity Targeting Chimeras) medicines.

Washington – June 26, 2025: Crowell & Moring has been recommended in eight practice areas in the 18th edition of the Legal 500 United States. In addition, partner Daniel Forman, co-chair of the firm’s Government Contracts Group, has been named to the Legal 500’s “Hall of Fame” for Government Contracts.

On December 15, 2022, in Raad v. Bank Audi SAL, Case No. 21-2612, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the Southern District of New York’s decision to dismiss the breach of contract case on forum non conveniens grounds. In its Summary Order, the Court of Appeals found that the forum selection clause in the General Agreement between the depositors and the bank did not contain language directing that Beirut courts have exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising from their agreement. While this decision gives a glimmer of hope to these account holders, the Summary Order certainly does not ensure victory for the Raads just yet. Importantly, the ruling also does not have precedential effect, meaning it will provide limited support for others seeking to bring claims against Lebanese banks for refusing to release their funds. Nonetheless, this decision demonstrates that persons and entities with funds locked behind capital controls instituted unilaterally by Lebanese banks due to the ongoing Lebanese financial crisis may still have a path to redress in U.S. courts.

Can a party in an international arbitration compel a person in the United States to provide testimony or produce documents? For decades, the answer to this question has been “maybe, depending on where the person is located.” Today, the Supreme Court definitively and unanimously answered this question, and the answer may leave some pleased and others disappointed.

On March 31, 2022, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Badgerow v. Walters, ruling that federal courts may not “look through” to the underlying dispute to determine whether there is federal jurisdiction over requests to confirm or vacate arbitral awards under Sections 9 and 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”).  This decision establishes that petitions to confirm or vacate arbitral awards will be subject to a different, more traditional jurisdictional analysis⸺and are more likely to be heard in state court⸺than petitions to compel arbitration under Section 4 of the FAA, which instructs federal courts to employ the “look through” approach. See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 50 (2009).

This panel will provide an update on issues related to current topics in arbitrating international disputes in MENA:

This webinar will discuss various new developments in International Disputes. Panelists will discuss Qatar's ratification of the Singapore Convention on Mediation and other emerging trends.

During New York Arbitration Week, ArbitralWomen and Crowell & Moring will host a substantive discussion and reception entitled “The Case for Diverse Attorneys: Improving Retention and Fostering Professional Development.

15801 Michigan Avenue,Dearborn, MI 48126