Inter alia meaning

John Lapaglia v Valve Corporation Case No: 3:25-cv-00833-RBM-DDL What are the practical implications of this case? In the US, parties attempting to overturn an arbitration award must first establish an independent basis for federal jurisdiction—either the existence of a federal question or satisfaction of diversity jurisdiction requirements. Jurisdiction is a threshold issue; unless one of these grounds is shown, the court will not hear the case. Allegations about artificial intelligence (AI), even when cast as excess of authority or manifest disregard of law under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), will not be reached until that jurisdictional hurdle is cleared. In this dispute, even had the court found it could hear the matter, vacatur under the FAA would still be far from a ‘slam-dunk’. The parties must, inter alia, prove that the deployment of AI amounted to a manifest disregard of the law, or that AI led the arbitrator to act ultra vires by exceeding the authority conferred in the arbitration agreement. To avoid ‘surprises’ regarding potential FAA vacatur,...

Summary of the case Factual and procedural background The dispute originated from a contract for the purchase and provision of surface treatment services agreed between a surface treatment company (the ‘Claimant’) and a manufacturer of lifting and handling equipment (the ‘Respondent’). Under this arrangement, the Claimant performed surface treatments on metal profiles. After the Respondent terminated the contract, the Claimant brought proceedings before the Paris Commercial Court, seeking compensation for contractual breaches and for the sudden cessation of the commercial relationship. The Respondent, inter alia, raised a plea to jurisdiction, asserting that the Commercial Court lacked authority due to an arbitration agreement within the contract. On 4 July 2022, the Paris Commercial Court dismissed the Respondent’s jurisdictional objection and rejected the Claimant’s claims on the merits. The Claimant appealed to the Paris Court of Appeal. The parties’ arguments A central question on appeal was whether the Commercial Court ought to have declined jurisdiction in view of the arbitration agreement, or whether that agreement was manifestly null...

Antitrust The application has been made public in Case C- 341/25 Sintexcal, a preliminary request from Italy asking whether, among other matters, Article 101 TFEU and Directive (EU) 2019/1 bar domestic rules that set inflexible procedural deadlines for launching competition investigations, which could trigger automatic annulment or place the evidential burden on the enforcement authorities even where no concrete prejudice to rights of defence is shown—see further, application. NOTE—For all live national references before the Court of Justice, see further, Court of Justice national references—ongoing cases tracker State aid The application has been published in Case C- 309/25 Enefit Green, a national reference from Latvia seeking guidance on whether, inter alia, a measure granted to a State-owned company constitutes State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU, particularly in light of the private market operator principle, the notion of economic advantage, and the treatment of public service compensation—see further, application. NOTE—For all live State aid national references before the Court of Justice, see further, Court of Justice State aid...

Client guides Client guides comprise template letters covering a broad spectrum of family law matters, suitable for sending directly by the family practitioner to the client. Each guide also features drafting commentary for practitioners and hyperlinks to relevant connected materials, such as Practice Notes, forms, authorities, precedents and legislation. For procedural guides offering step-by-step direction on, inter alia, domestic abuse, asset preservation, relationship breakdown, cohabitants, private children, financial provision, international cases and enforcement, refer to Practice Note: Family procedural guides...

CASE HUB NOTE-appeal lodged before the Court of Justice in Case C‑297/22 ARCHIVED This archived case hub reflects the position as at the judgment dated 23 February 2022; it is no longer maintained. For more, see the timeline and relevant/related cases. Case facts Outline: Two separate claims sought monetary compensation for economic harm allegedly arising from the Commission’s decision of 30 January 2013 banning the United Parcel Services/TNT Express merger (Case M.6570). Latest developments On 23 February 2022, the General Court delivered its judgments, rejecting the damages actions in their entirety. In Case T‑834/17, the Court held, amongst other matters, that UPS had not shown that any violation of its procedural rights during the merger review was the determining cause of the categories of loss asserted. It also found that UPS failed to establish that the Commission directly induced payment of the break‑fee to TNT, a term negotiated by UPS itself. In Case T‑5401/8, the Court concluded, inter alia, that ASL...

CASE HUB ARCHIVED This archived case hub records the state of play as at the judgment of 25 February 2021 and is no longer updated. For further details, see the timeline. Case facts Outline Case C‑857/19, Slovak Telekom-a reference from Slovakia seeking guidance on whether, amongst other issues, Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU also covers administrative infringements consisting of abuse of a dominant position under Article 102 TFEU, where the Commission and a Member State authority have, independently and separately, imposed penalties in exercising their powers under Article 11(6) of Regulation 1/2003. Latest developments On 25 February 2021, the Court of Justice delivered its ruling, finding, inter alia, that Slovak Telekom-already held by the Commission to have abused a dominant position in relation to certain telecommunications services-could likewise be penalised by the Slovak competition authority for the same type of abuse affecting other telecommunications services. Parties Applicant: Slovak Telekom (ST) Respondent: Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej...

Agreement in relation to [ insert brief details of the works/project ] at [ insert address of works ] ( incorporating (inter alia) the JCT Intermediate Sub-Contract with sub-contractor’s design Agreement 2024 (ICSub/D/A 2024) and JCT Intermediate Sub-Contract with sub-contractor’s design Conditions 2024 (ICSub/D/C 2024) as modified and supplemented in the manner indicated in this Agreement and the Schedules hereto ). This Agreement is entered into on the [ insert number ] day of [ insert month ] 20[ insert year ]. Parties [ insert name of the Contractor ] (company registration number [ insert number ]) whose registered office is located at [ insert address of the Contractor ] (‘the Contractor’); [ insert name of the Sub-Contractor ] (company registration number [ insert number ]) whose registered office is located at [ insert address of the Sub-Contractor ] (‘the Sub-Contractor’). It is hereby mutually agreed that: 1 Interpretation In this Agreement, words and phrases shall carry the definitions...

This Agreement is entered into on [ date ] Parties [ Insert name of Publisher ], a company incorporated in [ England ] with registered number [ company number ], whose registered office is at [ address ] (Publisher); and [ Insert name of Writer ] of [ insert address ] (Writer). Background The Writer composes musical works and/or authors lyrics of literary works; The Publisher operates in the field of music publishing throughout the Territory and has, inter alia, facilities for the administration and exploitation of musical works; and The Publisher seeks to obtain, and the Writer agrees to grant to the Publisher, the exclusive right to the Writer’s share of the Compositions, subject to this Agreement. It is agreed as follows: 1 Definitions and Interpretation 1.1 In this Agreement: Accounting Period means each six-monthly period ending on 30 June and 31 December; Advance means all monies...

Power of attorney—private M&A—share purchase—share rights—corporate seller 1 Appointment and powers We, [ insert company name ], a company incorporated in [ England and Wales OR [ insert other country of incorporation ] ] under registration number [ insert company registration number ] with its registered office at [ insert registered address ] (the Seller), acting under a share purchase agreement (the SPA) dated [ insert date ] made between [ , inter alia, ] the Seller [ insert name ] (the Seller) and [ insert name of buyer and its registered number ], whose registered office is at [ insert registered address ] (the Buyer), concerning [ insert number and type of shares ] (the Shares) held by the Seller, both legally and beneficially, in [ insert name of target company and its registered number ], whose registered office is at [ insert registered address ] (the Company), hereby constitute and appoint the Buyer [ and each of its directors for the time being, severally, each ] as...

Major revisions to the section 21 framework followed the Deregulation Act 2015 (DA 2015), which, inter alia, amended the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988), the Housing Act 2004 and the Assured Shorthold Tenancy Notices and Prescribed Requirements (England) Regulations 2015 (ASTN Regs 2015), SI 2015/1646. By s 37 DA 2015, section 21 gained an enabling power for regulations to stipulate the prescribed form of a section 21 notice, and the ASTN Regs 2015, SI 2015/1646 were made accordingly. Under reg 1 of the ASTN Regs 2015, SI 2015/1646, the regime applies to an assured shorthold tenancy (AST) of a dwelling-house in England granted on or after 1 October 2015; however, it does not extend to a tenancy which arises on or after that date upon the termination of an AST that had been granted before then...