Securities litigation—international Q&A guides

When dealing with litigation in various different jurisdictions, the Lexology Panoramic Guide provides guidance, by way of a series of questions and answers. In the case of securities litigation, the Lexology Panoramic Guide offers important legal insight into the securities litigation in various jurisdictions, including England and Wales. In doing so, it addresses various issues, including the nature and extent of securities litigation available in the jurisdiction, the proof required in such cases, the different elements of a claim and what is required eg defences, remedies, who a claim can be brought against and how the courts deal with multiple securities claims in different jurisdictions.

International comparator tool

The International comparator tool is designed to allow lawyers to compare legal differences across two or more jurisdictions in any given practice area. Using information from the Lexology Panoramic Guides, it can generate answers to your comparison requests. This is a valuable aid to uncover issues in cross-border matters and multi-jurisdictional disputes. See Practice Note: International comparator tool.

The questions raised in the security litigation guide

The guide addresses the following issues for each of the jurisdictions

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Dispute Resolution News

The English Court’s powers to issue injunctive reliefs aimed at preserving arbitral confidentiality. (A Corporation v Firm B and another)

Arbitration analysis: This case arises from the claimant’s application for interim injunctive reliefs (the ‘Application’) seeking, among others, to restrain the first defendant (‘Firm B’), including any of its branches from (i) acting for Corporation C in an ongoing arbitration against Corporation D (the ‘Second Arbitration’); and (ii) providing any confidential information from a previous arbitration between the Claimant and Corporation B (the ‘First Arbitration’), to Corporation C. In determining the Application, the Court considered the principles governing the grant of interim reliefs as established in American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd. The court also considered the boundaries of arbitral confidentiality by considering what documents and information the obligation of arbitral confidentiality covers, and the relevant exceptions to this obligation. The court concluded that the claimant was not entitled to the requested reliefs. After examining the claimant's allegations of breaches of arbitral confidentiality, the court found no breach, except for some limited settlement information from the First Arbitration. The court was also not persuaded that there was a real risk of confidential information being transferred between Firm B’s London and Asia offices. Consequently, the court decided that granting the injunction would significantly prejudice Firm B and Corporation C, while not granting it would cause no prejudice to the claimant and only minimal prejudice to Corporation D. Written by Dr. Ademola Bamgbose, solicitor advocate and senior associate at Hogan Lovells, London and IfeOluwa Alabi, associate at Hogan Lovells, London.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

Popular documents