A 2009 article in The Business Lawyer proposed a similar proposal and a proposed clause.  Based on Professor Coyle`s latest article, I would offer a slightly revised version of this choice clause proposed in 2009 as follows: the specific problem highlighted in 2016 insights was the distinction between the choice of substantive law of the chosen court and the choice of procedural law of that court – a distinction between the law that governs the enforcement of a party`s rights (procedural law) and the law that governs the creation of these rights. (substantive law). Since limitation periods are generally considered a procedural right rather than a substantive right, many agreement professionals and their lawyers are often surprised to learn that the default choice clause only chooses the substantive and non-procedural law of the chosen jurisdiction. Accordingly, material rights available under New York law with a six-year limitation period may be subject to a three-year limitation period in an action in Delaware to enforce rights created by an agreement with a standard choice clause of New York law. However, by focusing on the actual language used in the choice of law clause, New York`s procedural and substantive law can effectively be chosen in a way that is also respected in a forum other than New York. Delaware courts traditionally had a more liberal view of the standard variety choice clause than many other courts and, in general, they held that a standard variety clause was sufficient to cover claims arising from an unlawful act that related to the contract and were not limited to contractual claims alone. The Delaware courts` argument is rendered by the participation of Strine, then Vice Chancellor, in Abry Partners V, LP v. F&W Acquisition LLC, 891 A.2d 1032, 1048 (Del Ch. 2006), in which a choice of standard variants similar to that described above was sufficient to cover both tortious and contractual rights arising from a disputed acquisition contract. According to strine, then Vice-Chancellor, the recent case of GDE LLC and another case against Anglia Autoflow Ltd  EWHC 105 drew attention to the importance of clarity in the conclusion of cross-border contracts and agreements. . .