quinn emanuel
quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp | business litigation report
INSIDE
Second Circuit Claries
Process for Enforcement of
Nondomestic Arbitral Awards
Against Alter Egos of Award
Debtor
Page 4
Practice Area Updates:
Regulatory Litigation
Update
Page 6
International Trade Update
Page 7
Entertainment Litigation
Update
Page 8
Structured Finance Win and
Other Victories
Page 10
Attorney Advertising
April 2017
los angeles | new york | san francisco | silicon valley | chicago | washington, d.c. | houston | seattle | tokyo | london
mannheim | hamburg | munich | paris | moscow | hong kong | sydney | brussels | zurich | shanghai | perth
(continued on page 2)
Renegotiation of, or Withdrawal from, NAFTA: Context and Possible
Consequences
Introduction
e North American Free Trade Agreement
(“NAFTA”) is a trade agreement signed by Canada,
Mexico, and the United States that came into force
on January 1, 1994. Its goal was to eliminate barriers
to trade and investment, creating one of the largest
free trade zones. Since NAFTA came into eect, trade
among the NAFTA countries has more than tripled,
reaching US $1.1 trillion in 2016 (James McBride
and Mohammed Aly Sergie, NAFTA’s Economic
Impact, e Council on Foreign Relations, January
24, 2017, available at http://www.cfr.org/trade/naftas-
economic-impact/p15790). NAFTA also provided
a mechanism for investor-state dispute resolution,
which led to a proliferation of investments in all three
countries (NAFTA Investment Law and Arbitration,
xxiv (Todd Weiler ed. 2004)). Indeed, the record
shows that NAFTA has led to at least 80 investment
arbitrations against NAFTA Parties and has resulted in
a perfect win-loss record for the United States (Todd
Weiler, naftaclaims.com (March 12, 2017), http://
www.naftaclaims.com/).
NAFTA has not been without critics, however.
Most recently and perhaps most critical for NAFTA’s
longevity, President Trump has pledged to renegotiate
NAFTA, and if renegotiation is not possible, then to
withdraw from NAFTA altogether. Modication of
or withdrawal from NAFTA could have a number of
serious consequences for investments and investors.
For example, Mexico already has experienced a
Firm Retained in the Top Two Most Signicant Cases in the
UK for 2017
Two of the rm’s cases, Walter Hugh Merricks CBE v. MasterCard Inc & Ors and
Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc v. Ukraine, were named as the top two cases in
e Lawyer’s list of “Top 20 Cases of 2017” in the UK. Seen as cases “which will
become the most high-value and explosive claims of the next 12 months”—e
Lawyer acknowledged both the valuation and importance of these matters. e rm’s
settlement of the claims of a number of the largest institutional claimants in the RBS
Rights Issue litigation is also listed in the Top 20, as well as the rm’s work on behalf of
Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation (ENRC) in respect of a Serious Fraud Oce
investigation.
Law360
Names Three Quinn Emanuel Groups as “Practice
Groups of the Year”
Law360 named Quinn Emanuel’s Banking, Intellectual Property, and White Collar
Practice Groups to its listing of 2016 “Practice Groups of the Year.” e groups were
identied based on the importance and size of the matters the rm worked on and the
excellence of the results.
Q
Q
Lazar Raynal Joins Chicago Oce
Lazar P. Raynal has joined Quinn Emanuel as a partner based in the Chicago oce.
Lazar was formerly a partner at McDermott Will & Emery where he was global chair
of the rm's litigation practice and co-chair of the Trust & Estate Controversy Practice.
Lazar is an experienced trial lawyer who tries high-stakes cases in state and federal
courts and in domestic and international arbitrations around the world. He has also
represented clients in numerous internal investigations in response to governmental
investigations and civil suits. Lazar received his J.D. from University of Notre Dame
Law School cum laude and is admitted to practice in Illinois.
Q
