White & Case
Our lawyers share their expertise through by-lined articles in leading legal, business and scholarly journals and through White & Case newsletters, updates and white papers.

* - Please fill out date fields in mm/dd/yy form.
PDF President Signs Russia Sanctions Law But Does Not Intend To Impose New Sanctions At This Time
December 2014
Richard J. Burke, Nicole E. Erb, Kristina Zissis, Claire A. DeLelle, Cristina Brayton-Lewis, Tanya Hanna, James R.M. Killick, Sara Nordin, Genevra Forwood, Charlotte Van Haute, Fabienne Vermeeren

On December 18, 2014, President Obama signed into law the Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014 (the "Act"), authorizing sanctions related to Russia's defense, energy, and financial sectors. The Act is the latest in US sanctions emanating from the Ukraine crisis, following the Support for the Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic Stability of Ukraine Act of 2014 and three Executive Orders imposing sanctions on Russian and Ukrainian individuals and entities. The President has indicated in an official statement that he does not intend to impose the sanctions in the new bill at this time, but will instead continue the Administration's current sanctions policy which has been coordinated closely with US allies. The President's statement illustrates the divergent views of the White House and Congress on Russia sanctions policy.
PDF EU extends Crimea sanctions: broad ban on investment, exports and tourism
December 2014
James R.M. Killick, Sara Nordin, Genevra Forwood, Charlotte Van Haute, Fabienne Vermeeren, Richard J. Burke, Nicole E. Erb, Kristina Zissis, Claire A. DeLelle, Cristina Brayton-Lewis, Tanya Hanna

The EU has extended its sanctions against Crimea and Sevastopol with the aim of reinforcing its policy of not recognizing Russia’s annexation of the peninsula in March 2014.
PDF Where next for EU climate change policy? From Lima to Paris
December 2014
Jacquelyn F. MacLennan, Genevra Forwood, Emma Bichet, David Strelzyk-Herzog

2014 ended with a number of significant developments affecting EU climate change policy. In October 2014, the EU agreed on its 2030 'Climate and Energy Goals' and, in the same month, the European Commission ("Commission") published its annual progress report on climate action. Both of these reports were optimistic on the EU's level of ambition and achievement of its climate change goals. On 1 November 2014, the new Commission took office, with Miguel Arias Cañete being appointed the new Commissioner for Climate Action and Energy. He has reaffirmed the EU's commitment to climate change policy and greenhouse gas reduction. Most recently, from 1-14 December 2014, the Conference of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change ("UNFCCC") took place in Lima, where the EU was represented by Commissioner Arias Cañete and the Italian Minister of the Environment. The level of international ambition was somewhat muted, in what was generally agreed to be a weak agreement. This alert rounds up these key recent developments for EU climate change policy.
PDF The United States Supreme Court Holds That a Defendant's Notice of Removal Need Only Include a "Plausible Allegation" That the Amount in Controversy Exceeds the US$5 Million Jurisdictional Threshold
December 2014
Jaime A. Bianchi

On December 15, 2014, the US Supreme Court issued its opinion in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC, et al. v. Owens. Writing for the 5 – 4 majority, Justice Ginsberg held that a defendant’s notice of removal pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”) “need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Accordingly, defendants need not offer evidence in their notices of removal establishing that the amount in controversy exceeds US$5 million. Rather, just as a “plaintiff’s amount-in-controversy allegation is accepted if made in good faith,” a defendant’s amount-in-controversy allegation should also “be accepted when not contested by the plaintiff or questioned by the court." And since “a dispute about a defendant’s jurisdictional allegations cannot arise until after the defendant files a notice of removal containing those allegations,” evidence submitted by defendants after the notice of removal is timely. Thus, it was error for the district court to remand the Dart Cherokee case to state court based on the lack of an evidentiary submission in the notice of removal, and an abuse of discretion for the Tenth Circuit to decline review of the remand order.
PDF APCOA – The Key Highlights of 2014’s Most Discussed Scheme
December 2014
Laura Prater, Christian Pilkington, Hayley Mitchinson, Kevin Heverin

On 30 October 2014, the English High Court sanctioned the second scheme of arrangement for the APCOA group (the "Scheme"). APCOA has been one of the hottest names in the restructuring market in 2014. First, it broke new ground in relation to an "amend and extend" scheme in early 2014 when it established sufficient connection to England off the back of a change in governing law. Second, the Scheme was aggressively opposed and its sanction by the High Court was appealed to the Court of Appeal (although ultimately the appeal was withdrawn).