Wir würden uns freuen, Sie zu dieser Veranstaltung - gerne auch mit Gästen - begrüßen zu dürfen.

Transkript

1 Bonn, Frankfurt/Main, im Februar 2011 DAJV-nkoordinator Carsten Flaßhoff, LL.M. Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, die DAJV-n Arbitration Litigation Mediation (ALM) Antitrust Regulated Industries Media (ARIM) Constitution Legislation Public Law Mergers & Acquisitions (M&A) Tax Law laden Sie zur diesjährigen gemeinsamen ntagung ein am Samstag, den 26. März 2011 von 9:30 Uhr - 17:00 Uhr im Institute for Law and Finance im House of Finance der Goethe-Universität Campus Westend Grüneburgplatz Frankfurt a.m. Die Tagung sieht getrennte Vorträge und Workshops der einzelnen DAJV-n vor, wobei Ihnen selbstverständlich alle einzelnen Veranstaltungen offen stehen. Wir würden uns freuen, Sie zu dieser Veranstaltung - gerne auch mit Gästen - begrüßen zu dürfen. Ihrer verbindlichen Anmeldung sehen wir bis spätestens zum 18. März 2011 entgegen. Arbitration Litigation Mediation nleiter: Dr. Rolf M. Winkler, LL.M. rmw@haver-mailaender.de nsekretär: Alexandra Diehl, LL.M. Alexandra.Diehl@cliffordchance.com Constitution Legislation Public Law nleiter: Dr. Günter Krings, LL.M. guenter.krings@bundestag.de Professor Dr. R. Alexander Lorz, LL.M. Al.Lorz@uni-duesseldorf.de Antitrust Regulated Industries Media nleiter: Dr. Ralph Sammeck, LL.M. ralph.sammeck@mediengruppe-rtl.de Dr. Jens Peter Schmidt jpschmidt@mayerbrown.com Mergers & Acquisitions nleiter: Dr. Michael R. Fischer, LL.M. nsekretär: Dr. Martin Schulte, LL.M. martin.schulte@dlapiper.com Tax Law nleiter: Dr. Friedrich E.F. Hey, LL.M. fhey@debevoise.com nsekretär: Dr. Daniel J. Weyde, LL.M. dweyde@cgsh.com Mit freundlichen Grüßen Dr. Ludwig Leyendecker Carsten Flaßhoff Vorsitzender n-koordinator

2 Arbitration/Litigation/Mediation Morning Session I: Antitrust Settlements: The US and EU Perspective (zusammen mit Antitrust/Regulated Industries/Media) Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, King & Spalding, Washington, D.C. Dr. Ulrich Soltész, Gleiss Lutz, Brüssel Rewards for admitting antitrust violations? Experts report and discuss on the basis of their own experience, the benefits and concerns of settlements inspired by the Plea Agreement system of the US Department of Justice which has also been introduced in 2008 into EU antitrust enforcement by a Commission Regulation and Notice on the conduct of settlement procedures in cartel cases. Dr. Jens Peter Schmidt, Mayer Brown, Brüssel Dr. Rolf M. Winkler, LL.M., Haver & Mailänder, Stuttgart Morning Session II: A Critical Stocktaking of the Current State of Investor-State Arbitration (zusammen mit Constitution/Legislation/Public Law) Dr. Freya Baetens, LL.M., University of Leiden Dr. Christoph Benedict, Alstom Germany AG, Mannheim Professor Doug Jones, Clayton Utz, Sydney Natalia Petrik, The Arbitration Institute of the Chamber of Commerce, Stockholm Arbitration of investment disputes is one of the fastest growing areas of international dispute resolution. The exponential growth of international investment especially in recent years has led to the signature of over two thousand bilateral investment treaties (BITs) between foreign states, in addition to a wealth of multilateral treaties and other forms of concession agreements. Disputes in this context are often resolved through the forum of international arbitration, and typically involve claims by an investor company for compensation when an investment has been illegally expropriated or adversely affected by the state's activities. The legal principles that have developed in this area are subject to intense debate and still in a state of flux. The participants of this panel will discuss these principles and whether arbitration is the proper method to resolve disputes of this kind. The latter idea is now increasingly called into question, mainly because of two reasons: first, states start to fear that they may be unduly restrained in the exercise of their police powers, and second, the explosion in numbers of arbitral awards all rendered by independent ad hoc tribunals has led to more and more conflicting decisions. Thus, possible topics or questions to be debated on this panel will be: Is there a backlash in investment arbitration? If so, why? Is there legal uncertainty because of contradictory awards? If so, what can we do about it? Would an appeals mechanism be appealing? Alexandra N. Diehl, LL.M., Clifford Chance, Düsseldorf

3 Arbitration/Litigation/Mediation Afternoon Session: A Special Case of Investor-State Arbitration: NAFTA Arbitration (zusammen mit Constitution/Legislation/Public Law) David M. Bigge, U.S. Department of State, Washington, D.C. Wade M. Coriell, King & Spalding, Houston NAFTA Arbitration is the type of investment arbitration most intensively debated in the United States. NAFTArelated fears stem from both sides of the political spectrum on the left mainly voiced by the unions which are afraid of losing jobs to competitors, on the right driven by the feeling that U.S. sovereignty may be infringed. They reached a crescendo when arbitrators asserted jurisdiction in over a pair of huge Canadian cases against the United States: a $970 million claim from Methanex Corporation and a $725 million claim from The Loewen Group, Inc. David M. Bigge and Wade M. Corriell will take stock of 16 years of NAFTA arbitration and also look into the future of this subtype of investment arbitration. It will be especially interesting to assess which lessons can be drawn from NAFTA experience for international (investment) arbitration in general. Possible topics or questions in this context will be: Do we need more transparency in UNCITRAL arbitration, especially when it comes to NAFTA disputes? Have NAFTA arbitration awards shaped US and Canadian BIT practice? Do NAFTA panels rule in a consistent manner? Prof. Dr. R. Alexander Lorz, LL.M., Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Düsseldorf ZEITPLAN: Arbitration/Litigation/Mediation 11:15 12:30 Morning Session Teil II 12:30 14:00 Mittagessen 14:00 15:15 Afternoon Session 15:15 15:45 Kaffeepause

4 Antitrust/Regulated Industries/Media Rewards for admitting antitrust violations? Experiences from settlements with the antitrust authorities in the US, EU and Germany Billigticket für geständige Kartellsünder oder hocheffizientes Verfahren, das aufwändige Verfahrensschritte und nachfolgende Gerichtsverfahren vermeidet? Während das Bundeskartellamt ohne gesetzliche Regelung seit 2007 eine Reihe von Kartell-verfahren einvernehmlich beendet hat, hat die Europäische Kommission vor gut zwei Jahren eine durch das amerikanische Plea Bargaining inspirierte Settlement-Regelung eingeführt, die sich noch in der Praxis beweisen muss. Auf der Grundlage ihrer eigenen praktischen Erfahrungen berichten und diskutieren Experten aus den U.S.A., aus Brüssel, Deutschland und dem Bundeskartellamt. Morning Session I: Antitrust Settlements: The US and EU Perspective (gemeinsam mit Arbitration/Litigation/Mediation) Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, King & Spalding, Washington, D.C. Dr. Ulrich Soltész, LL.M., Gleiss Lutz, Brüssel Dr. Jens Peter Schmidt, Mayer Brown, Brüssel Dr. Rolf M. Winkler, LL.M., Haver & Mailänder, Stuttgart Morning Session II: Antitrust Settlements: The German Perspective (gemeinsam mit Arbitration/Litigation/Mediation) Christof Vollmer, Bundeskartellamt, Bonn Dr. Ulrich Schnelle, LL.M., Haver & Mailänder, Stuttgart Dr. Christa Pfeil-Kammerer, LL.M., Bundeskartellamt, Bonn Afternoon Session: Antitrust Settlements: Panel Discussion (gemeinsam mit Arbitration/Litigation/Mediation) Teilnehmer: Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, King & Spalding, Washington, D.C. Dr. Ulrich Soltész, LL.M., Gleiss Lutz, Brüssel Christof Vollmer, Bundeskartellamt, Bonn Dr. Ulrich Schnelle, LL.M., Haver & Mailänder, Stuttgart Dr. Olaf Christiansen, LL.M., Bertelsmann, Gütersloh, Brüssel (Moderation) ZEITPLAN: ARIM 11:15 12:30 Morning Session Teil II 12:30 14:00 Mittagessen 14:00 15:15 Afternoon Session

5 Constitution, Legislation, Public Law Morning Session I: Klimaschutz nach der Konferenz in Cancún: Chimäre oder realistisches Ziel? (geplant) MinDirig Franzjosef Schafhausen, Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit, Berlin N.N., Vertreter aus dem Bereich der Energiewirtschaft/Rechtsberatung Die Klimaschutzpolitik ist einer der traditionellsten transatlantischen Zankäpfel, und es ist nicht abzusehen, daß sich das ändern könnte. Während die Europäer nicht zuletzt unter der Führung Deutschlands und seiner Bundeskanzlerin großen Wert auf dieses Thema legen und sich ehrgeizige Ziele setzen, finden sich unsere amerikanischen Partner eher im Bremserhäuschen. Der letzte Klimagipfel in Cancún hat dies wieder einmal unter Beweis gestellt und dennoch zugleich ein hoffnungsfrohes Signal gesetzt. Das Panel soll einmal aus politischer und einmal aus wirtschaftlicher Perspektive die rechtliche Weiterentwicklung der Klimaschutzregulierung analysieren und einen Ausblick in die Zukunft wagen. Prof. Dr. Günter Krings, LL.M., Deutscher Bundestag, Berlin Prof. Dr. R. Alexander Lorz, LL.M., Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Düsseldorf Morning Session II: A Critical Stocktaking of the Current State of Investor-State Arbitration (zusammen mit Arbitration/Litigation/Mediation) Dr. Freya Baetens, LL.M., University of Leiden Dr. Christoph Benedict, Alstom Germany AG, Mannheim Professor Doug Jones, Clayton Utz, Sydney Natalia Petrik, The Arbitration Institute of the Chamber of Commerce, Stockholm Arbitration of investment disputes is one of the fastest growing areas of international dispute resolution. The exponential growth of international investment especially in recent years has led to the signature of over two thousand bilateral investment treaties (BITs) between foreign states, in addition to a wealth of multilateral treaties and other forms of concession agreements. Disputes in this context are often resolved through the forum of international arbitration, and typically involve claims by an investor company for compensation when an investment has been illegally expropriated or adversely affected by the state's activities. The legal principles that have developed in this area are subject to intense debate and still in a state of flux. The participants of this panel will discuss these principles and whether arbitration is the proper method to resolve disputes of this kind. The latter idea is now increasingly called into question, mainly because of two reasons: first, states start to fear that they may be unduly restrained in the exercise of their police powers, and second, the explosion in numbers of arbitral awards all rendered by independent ad hoc tribunals has led to more and more conflicting decisions. Thus, possible topics or questions to be debated on this panel will be: Is there a backlash in investment arbitration? If so, why? Is there legal uncertainty because of contradictory awards? If so, what can we do about it? Would an appeals mechanism be appealing? Alexandra N. Diehl, LL.M., Clifford Chance, Düsseldorf

6 Constitution, Legislation, Public Law Afternoon Session I: A Special Case of Investor-State Arbitration: NAFTA Arbitration (zusammen mit Arbitration/Litigation/Mediation) David M. Bigge, U.S. Department of State, Washington, D.C. Wade M. Coriell, King & Spalding, Houston NAFTA Arbitration is the type of investment arbitration most intensively debated in the United States. NAFTArelated fears stem from both sides of the political spectrum on the left mainly voiced by the unions which are afraid of losing jobs to competitors, on the right driven by the feeling that U.S. sovereignty may be infringed. They reached a crescendo when arbitrators asserted jurisdiction in over a pair of huge Canadian cases against the United States: a $970 million claim from Methanex Corporation and a $725 million claim from The Loewen Group, Inc. David M. Bigge and Wade M. Coriell will take stock of 16 years of NAFTA arbitration and also look into the future of this subtype of investment arbitration. It will be especially interesting to assess which lessons can be drawn from NAFTA experience for international (investment) arbitration in general. Possible topics or questions in this context will be: Do we need more transparency in UNCITRAL arbitration, especially when it comes to NAFTA disputes? Have NAFTA arbitration awards shaped US and Canadian BIT practice? Do NAFTA panels rule in a consistent manner? Prof. Dr. R. Alexander Lorz, LL.M., Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Düsseldorf ZEITPLAN: Constitution Legislation Public Law 11:15 12:30 Morning Session Teil II 12:30 14:00 Mittagessen 14:00 15:15 Afternoon Session Teil I 15:15 15:45 Kaffeepause

7 Mergers & Acquisitions Morning Session I: Stakebuilding Schaeffler/Conti, VW/Porsche and Beyond N.N. Case Studies Schaeffler/Conti und VW Porsche Dr. Hartmut Krause, Rechtsanwalt, Partner Allen & Overy, Frankfurt am Main Die zukünftige Rechtslage nach dem Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Stärkung des Anlegerschutzes und Verbesserung der Funktionsfähigkeit des Kapitalmarkts Patrick Kenadjan, Of Counsel, Davis Polk and Wardwell, Frankfurt am Main Stakebuilding Rules in the Williams Act Dr. Michael Fischer LL.M., Rechtsanwalt und Attorney-at-Law (NY), Head of Legal, UBS Deutschland AG, Frankfurt am Main Morning Session II: Bank Resolution Transactions Approach in the UK and in Germany Charles Randell, Partner, Slaughter and May, London Banking Resolution pursuant to the UK Banking Act of 2009 Dr. Dirk Bliesener, Partner, Hengeler Mueller, Frankfurt am Main Banking Resolution nach den Neuregelungen im KWG / Restrukturierungsgesetz Dr. Michael Fischer, LL.M., Rechtsanwalt und Attorney-at-Law (NY), Head of Legal, UBS Deutschland AG, Frankfurt am Main

8 Mergers & Acquisitions Afternoon Session I: M&A-Standards vor, in (und nach?) der Finanzkrise Dr. Oliver Thurn LL.M. (LSE), Rechtsanwalt, Partner CMS Hasche Sigle, München CMS European M&A Study Der europäische M&A-Markt stabilisiert sich N.N. Beobachtungen aus der Sicht eines international aufgestellten M&A-Beratungsunternehmens anschließend Erfahrungsaustausch auf dem Podium und mit allen Teilnehmern Dr. Martin Schulte, LL.M. (Berkeley), Rechtsanwalt und Attorney-at-Law (NY), Partner DLA Piper UK LLP, Köln Afternoon Session II: M&A-Standards vor, in (und nach?) der Finanzkrise Dr. Christopher C. King, JD (UCLA), Rechtsanwalt, Solicitor (England & Wales), Attorney-at-Law (CA, PA, NY), General Counsel Hunter Douglas N.V., Luzern / Rotterdam Die Bilanzgarantie im Unternehmenskauf N.N. MAC & Co. - Risikoverteilung hinsichtlich Änderungen zwischen Signing & Closing Dr. Martin Schulte, LL.M. (Berkeley), Rechtsanwalt und Attorney-at-Law (NY), Partner DLA Piper UK LLP, Köln ZEITPLAN: Mergers & Acquisitions 11:15 12:30 Morning Session Teil II 12:30 14:00 Mittagessen 14:00 15:15 Afternoon Session Teil I 15:15 15:45 Kaffeepause 15:45 17:00 Afternoon Session Teil II

9 Tax Law Morning Session: Der lange Arm des amerikanischen Fiskus Von UBS bis FATCA Kristofer Hess, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, New York Einführung in den Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) und den Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Acccounts (FBAR)" Dr. Carsten Schmidt, Commerzbank AG, Frankfurt am Main Praxisprobleme deutscher Banken mit der Umsetzung von FATCA Celine Maassen, EFAMA, Brüssel (angefragt) Praxisprobleme von Publikums-Investmentfonds mit der Umsetzung von FATCA Dr. Matthias Geurts, Deutsche Bank AG, Frankfurt am Main Die Überprüfung der Europäischen Zinsbesteuerungsrichtlinie Dr. Friedrich Hey, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, Frankfurt am Main Dr. Daniel Weyde, Cleary Gottlieb Steen Hamilton LLP, Frankfurt am Main ZEITPLAN: Tax Law 11:15 13:00 Morning Session Teil II 13:00 14:00 Mittagessen (Vortragssprache Englisch)