Kevin Mohr

Kevin is a partner at King & Spalding in Houston. He represents clients in business litigation and arbitration, specializing in the complex cross-border disputes that are becoming increasingly common in today's global economy. For over 15 years, Kevin has represented clients in litigation, arbitration, and appellate proceedings in more than 40 state and federal jurisdictions in the U.S. and courts and arbitral tribunals around the world. Those disputes have arisen from six continents, and have involved a diverse array of business sectors (including oil and gas, professional services, and finance). The issues in those disputes have been just as diverse, involving questions of investment treaty protection, business tort, intellectual property, corporate governance, class certification, and many more. Some highlights of his career include obtaining the largest-ever arbitration award under the Energy Charter Treaty on behalf of a European independent oil and gas company, and obtaining two ground-breaking decisions from U.S. appellate courts in the area of class certification. Drawing on his extensive background in both U.S. litigation and international arbitration, Kevin specializes in cross-border disputes that require a broad understanding of both national and international legal systems. He has extensive experience in court proceedings related to international arbitration (including actions to stay and compel arbitration, actions for discovery in support of arbitration, and actions to enforce arbitral awards), as well as in business disputes that span multiple countries and raise questions of dueling jurisdiction and applicable law. Kevin recognizes that international disputes present unique legal, logistical, and cultural challenges, and he enjoys working with his client's legal and business teams to develop a comprehensive global strategy for complex international disputes.

Practice Area

Panel

  • Contributing Author

1 Contributions by Kevin Mohr

United States class action arbitration: consent, class waivers, AAA/JAMS rules, key Supreme Court cases and current circuit splits on arbitrability and delegation
PRACTICE NOTES
United States class action arbitration: consent, class waivers, AAA/JAMS rules, key Supreme Court cases and current circuit splits on arbitrability and delegation
Class action litigation has long been a fixture of US courts, its modern trajectory often linked to the US Supreme Court’s decision in Green Tree Financial Corp v Bazzle, 539 U.S. 444 (2003) (Bazzle). US case law recognises that class disputes may proceed in arbitration where an arbitration agreement allows it. Persistent uncertainties remain, however, about what amounts to consent to class arbitration and whether that gateway issue is for a court or an arbitral tribunal to decide. Nevertheless, several prominent arbitral institutions have introduced rules addressing class arbitration. Note: the US judgments mentioned in this Practice Note are not reported by LexisNexis UK. What is class action dispute resolution? Class actions were created to manage alike claims held by many claimants within a single proceeding. A representative plaintiff brings the case on behalf of others in comparable positions and applies to the court to ‘certify’ the matter as a class action. Certification is governed by established criteria and is generally warranted only where numerous claimants assert similar claims against the same defendant, and where issues common to the class are shown to ‘predominate’...
Arbitration
Expert page AD
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.