Inside Stibbe

Jan Bogaert appointed professional mediator by Shenzhen Commercial Legal Service Center

Jan Bogaert appointed professional mediator by Shenzhen Commercial Legal Service Center

26.02.2016 BE law

On 26 February 2016, Jan Bogaert was the first non-Chinese lawyer to be appointed as professional mediator by the Shenzhen Commercial Legal Service Center, a dispute resolution center set up and supported by the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (Shenzhen).

Related news

14.03.2018 EU law
The Court of Justice of the European Union Rules that Intra-EU Investment Arbitration is Incompatible with EU Law: Reflections and Consequences for the Energy Charter Treaty

Articles - On the 6th of March 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held in a case between the Slovak Republic and Achmea (Case C-284/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:158) that investment arbitration on the basis of the Netherlands-Slovakia Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) is incompatible with EU law, in particular Arts. 267 and 344 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). 

Read more

05.03.2018 EU law
8 & 9 March 2018: Jan Bogaert speaks on shareholder activism

Conference - The International Bar Association organizes the 3rd IBA Asia-based International Financial Law Conference. The conference attracts  industry leaders, regulators, in-house counsels (including Alibaba, Ant Financial, Tencent, CICC etc) and leading practitioners from across Asia, Europe and the US.

Read more

08.03.2018 NL law
Dutch courts can reduce contractually agreed penalties to an amount that is not unacceptable

Short Reads - You think you have made clear arrangements about the exclusivity of your supplier's services. The supplier has agreed to service your company only. You have even agreed unequivocal penalty clauses under which the supplier pays a penalty for every breach and another one for every day the breach continues. Unfortunately, the supplier breaches the exclusivity clause, forcing you to claim the full amount of penalties due. And then the supplier refuses to pay them because he finds them unreasonable. Now what?  

Read more

23.02.2018 NL law
Can acts and statements from an unauthorised representative qualify as acknowledgment of liability and interrupt a limitation period?

Short Reads - On 26 January 2018, the Supreme Court delivered a judgment (ECLI:NL:HR:2018:108) about the interruption of the limitation period for a claim for damages. The key element in this case was whether the acts and statements of an insurer and a loss adjuster qualified as an acknowledgement of liability and, if so, whether this acknowledgement could be attributed to the liable party

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring