Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea produced not only a geopolitical crisis but also a substantial wave of investor–state arbitration claims from Ukrainian businesses whose assets were located on the peninsula when Russian authorities assumed control. These claims have been brought under the 1998 bilateral investment treaty between the Russia Federation and Ukraine, which provides for arbitration of disputes between investors and the host state. The treaty-based arbitrations brought by Ukrainian investors against the Russian Federation…

Ambrosia v. Blazesoft Ltd., No. 25 C 1723 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 21, 2025)[1] Factual Background Vincent Ambrosia, Jr. and Robert Houpt were customers of online gaming websites who brought a class action lawsuit against the operators of those websites. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants preyed on them through addictive and illegal online gambling falsely marketed as free-to-play sweepstakes. Defendants moved to compel arbitration, relying on a broad arbitration agreement within the terms and conditions that Plaintiffs…

In Re: Amitiza, No. 21-11057-MJJ, (D. Mass. Jan. 27, 2025)[1] Factual Background In 2004, Sucampo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Sucampo”) entered into a marketing agreement with Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., and Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. (collectively, “Takeda”). The marketing agreement included a 16-year exclusive licensing arrangement for certain drugs, which came to include Amitiza. In 2012, a predecessor to Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (“Par”) had its application accepted to sell a generic version of Amitiza. Sucampo…