Parties who wish to retain the Tribunal`s jurisdiction to enforce their transaction agreement may do so by explicitly leaving the Tribunal in the order of reference. Although this is the best, simplest, of course, the inclusion of the terms of the settlement agreement in the dismissal order also creates jurisdiction. In the latter case, the breach of the transaction agreement is contrary to the Tribunal`s order, which creates an ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the agreement.27 Failure to retain jurisdiction is not sufficiently absent from the termination order which expressly retains that jurisdiction.28 Although a termination decision attached to the transaction contract may make the judge`s conscience and consent known to the transaction, it does not « include » the agreement in the provision sought by Kokkonen; In other words, there is no tacit initiation.32 Even if a permanent injunction is taken in accordance with the regulations, judicial law will not be required to issue a permanent injunction imposing any aspect of the transaction contract that the parties have not declared. The agreement and court order in which it is incorporated must meet the requirements of Rule 65 (d)35 for the protection of omission (which detail the specific conduct to be issued and the reasons for the injunction) 36 If the transaction contract has been included in a judgment and provides for liquidated damages in the event of an infringement, The Tribunal may impose « sanctions in the form of liquidated damages » for non-compliance with the transaction agreement and the resulting judgment.37 Unlike a transaction concluded after the adoption of the proceedings, where the parties agree to settle their dispute before the proceedings are opened, there is no proceedings that must be stayed or closed. Therefore, there is generally no obligation to incorporate the transaction in a judgment or order. The issues raised by the application of the terms of the comparison are therefore different. If evidence outside the protocol impairs the applicability of a transaction agreement reached in court (for example. (B) additional references that are not mentioned in court), counsel should seek evidence under Rule 43 (c))64. Thus, « i) if the transaction agreement is ambiguous, the interpretation of the agreement is a question of fact that cannot be resolved by a request for dismissal. » 60 However, if the procedure has already been initiated, see practical note: Execution of the transaction agreements concluded after the opening of the procedure. Some states have passed fast-track laws in which transaction agreements are transformed into binding arbitration judgments or awards.

The Swiss Code of Civil Procedure (Article 217) and the Italian Decree on Mediation in Civil and Commercial Disputes (28/2010) are both good examples of this type of right of authorisation. Whether the legislation in question covers the IMSA will depend to a large extent on the legislation in question. 1. Romén-Oliveras v. Puerto Rico Elec. Power Auth. (PREPA), 797 F.3d 83, 86-87 (1st Cir. 2015) (enforcement power of a binding oral regulation before dismissal); Hensley v.

Alcon Labs., Inc., 277 F.3d 535, 540 (4 cir. 2002); Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1078 (9th Cir. 1978). 2. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.

of America, 511 U.S. 375, 378 (1994); Langley v.