Companies negotiating a dispute settlement should ensure that, from an objective point of view, it is clear at each stage whether the negotiated terms are „contrary“ to the contract or not. In addition, transaction agreements can be concluded by e-mail, intentionally or unintentionally. While a federal court may, according to the doctrine of the subsidiary court, remain competent to apply a concordat agreement,12 its decision to do so is discretionary.13 A federal court may therefore retain jurisdiction to the extent requested by the parties; 2) refuse the exercise of subsidiary jurisdiction as a whole or 3) change the scope of the subsidiary jurisdiction requested by the parties.13 Suppose that: the Tribunal decides to retain jurisdiction for the enforcement of the transaction. it must decide on the duration of this reservation of jurisdiction. The government has announced laws to combat the misuse of confidentiality agreements in the workplace, including clauses. There was an inconclusive „no prejudice“ meeting between the parties, which was held on the basis that any agreement reached had to be „recorded in writing and signed by the parties before it could enter into force“, i.e. the negotiations at the meeting were „contrary to the treaty“. No agreement was reached at the meeting or in „biased“ emails exchanged later that day. The subcontractor suspended work at midnight that night. The third circle adopted a strict interpretation of cocoons in Phar-Mor, Inc. Securities Litigation,10 where it found that the inclusion of the phrase „in accordance with the terms of the transaction“ in the termination order was not sufficient to confer factual jurisdiction for the application of the settlement agreement11 In Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Company, however, clarified to the Supreme Court that a federal district court may exercise subsidiary jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement only if the obligations of the parties to compliance with the concordat agreement was either: (1) by an explicit provision in the Ordinance, or (2) by the express inclusion of the Concordat Agreement in the Ordinance8.

a settlement agreement, but the agreement and the termination order did not refer to the settlement agreement between the parties or to the Tribunal`s continued jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. In antading the District Court`s decision that it had the „inherent power“ to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement, the Supreme Court decided that the District Court had neither subsidiary jurisdiction nor inherent power to enforce the settlement agreement if it was not mentioned in the order. . . .