On May 1, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a noteworthy opinion in the consolidated cases of Abad v. Bayer Corp. and Pastor v. Bridgestone/Firestone. These consolidated appeals raise interesting issues regarding the application of the forum non conveniens doctrine in US courts.

In the Abad case, Argentinian plaintiffs filed products liability actions against American manufacturers for injuries sustained in Argentina.  Plaintiffs alleged that they (a group of hemophiliacs or their decedents) were infected with the AIDS virus because the defendant manufacturers of the clotting factor that hemophiliacs take to minimize bleeding failed to eliminate the virus from the donors’ blood from which the clotting factor was made.  The Pastor case was a wrongful-death suit growing out of a fatal auto accident in Argentina with a car equipped with tires manufactured by Bridgestone/Firestone.  In both cases, defendants moved the district court for dismissal under forum non conveniens and the district court dismissed the case in favor of the courts in Argentina.  On appeal, the Seventh Circuit, with Judge Richard Posner writing, applied the abuse of discretion standard and thus affirmed.

This opinion is interesting for at least three reasons.  First, appellants pressed the argument on appeal that federal district courts have the “virtually unflagging obligation . . . to exercise the jurisdiction given them.”  Colorado River Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976).  See slip op. at 2-3.  The court rejected that argument in favor of an abuse of discretion standard of review, which affords district courts substantial leeway in deciding to send international civil cases to a foreign forum.

Second, the court reaffirmed the discretion of district courts in applying the Gulf Oil factors, but with an interesting twist:  Judge Posner recognized that Gulf Oil represented an accommodation of state interests in an international world.  In his words, “[a]nd so the plaintiffs . . . argue that the United States has a greater interest in the litigation than Argentina because the defendants are American companies, while the defendants argue that Argentina has a greater interest than the United States because the plaintiffs are Argentines.  The reality is that neither country appears to have any interest in having the litigation tried in its courts rather than in the courts of the other country; certainly no one in the government of either country has expressed to us a desire to have these lawsuits litigated in its courts.”  Slip op. at 10 (emphasis added).  Has the Seventh Circuit opened the door for such submissions?  Should litigants, therefore, now seek to have governments file statements of interest in forum non conveniens cases?  If so, one is left to wonder how such a submission will matter and whether US courts will defer to them.

Finally, this case and others reported recently on this site confirm that forum non conveniens is being used frequently in international litigation in US courts.  With the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Sinochem (holding that district courts may determine forum non conveniens questions before ascertaining jurisdiction), are we seeing an increased usage of forum non conveniens in international civil cases?  If so, is this a good thing?

At bottom, the doctrine of forum non conveniens in the United States continues to evolve.

Recently, the May/June issue of the German legal journal “Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts” (IPRax) was released.

It contains the following articles/case notes (including the reviewed decisions):

• Peter Kindler: “Internationales Gesellschaftsrecht 2009: MoMiG, Trabrennbahn, Cartesio und die Folgen” – the English abstract reads as follows:

The article summarizes, in a European as well as in a German perspective, the recent developments for corporations in private international law in 2008. In German legislation, the law aiming at the modernization of the private company limited by shares (“MoMiG”) has abandoned the requirement for German companies of having a real seat in Germany, introducing at the same time stricter disclosure requirements in respect of branches of foreign companies in Germany. The German Federal Court, in a ruling of October 2008 (“Trabrennbahn”), has applied the real seat doctrine to companies incorporated outside the EU – in this case in Switzerland –, thus confirming the traditional approach of German courts since the 19^th century. Finally, in a European perspective, the article addresses the judgment of the EJC in case C-210/06 (“Cartesio”) referring to the extent of freedom of establishment in case of transfer of a company seat to a EU Member State other than the EU Member State of incorporation. The article concludes with the statement, inter alia, that EU Member States are free to use the real seat as a connecting factor in private international company law.

• Marc-Philippe Weller: “Die Rechtsquellendogmatik des Gesellschaftskollisionsrechts” – the English abstract reads as follows:

This article deals with the International Company Law in the aftermath of the judgments “Cartesio” from the ECJ and “Trabrennbahn” from the German Federal Court of Justice. There are three different sources of International Company Law. The sources have to be applied in the specific order of precedence stated by Art. 3 EGBGB:

(1.) The European International Company Law is based on the freedom of establishment according to Art. 43, 48 EC. The freedom of establishment contains a hidden conflict of law rule known as “Incorporation Theory” for companies that relocate their real seat in another EC-member state.

(2.) As part of Public International Company Law the “Incorporation Theory” is derived from various international treaties such as the German-US-American-Friendship-Agreement.

(3.) The German Autonomous International Company Law follows the “Real Seat Theory” when it is applied in cases with third state companies (e.g. Swiss companies). Therefore, substantive German Company Law is applicable to third state companies with an inland real seat. According to the so called “Wechselbalgtheorie” (Goette), foreign corporations are converted into domestic partnerships.

The German jurisdiction is bound to the German Autonomous International Company Law (i.e. the real seat theory) to the extent of which the European and the Public International Company Law is not applicable.

• Alexander Schall: “Die neue englische floating charge im Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts” – the English abstract reads as follows:

After Inspire Art, thousands of English letter box companies have come to Germany. But may they also bring in their domestic security, the qualified floating charge? The answer depends on the classification of the floating charge under the German conflict laws. Since German law does not acknowledge global securities on undertakings, the traditional approach was to split up the floating charge and to subject its various effects (e.g. security over assets, the right to appoint a receiver/administrator) to the respective conflict rules. That meant in particular that property in Germany could not be covered by a floating charge (lex rei sitae). This treatment seems overly complicated and not up to the needs of an efficient internal market. The better approach is to understand the floating charge as a company law tool, a kind of universal assignment. This allows valid floating charges on the assets of UK companies based in Germany. And while the new right to appoint an administrator under the Enterprise Act 2002 is part of English insolvency law, the article shows that this does not preclude the traditional right to appoint a (contractual or – rather – administrative) receiver for an English company with a CoMI in Germany.

• Stefan Perner: “Das internationale Versicherungsvertragsrecht nach Rom I” – the English abstract reads as follows:

Unlike its predecessor – the Rome Convention –, the recently adopted Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) covers the entire insurance contract law. The following article outlines the new legal framework.

• Jens Rogler: “Die Entscheidung des BVerfG vom 24.1.2007 zur Zustellung einer US-amerikanischen Klage auf Strafschadensersatz: – Ist das Ende des transatlantischen Justizkonflikts erreicht?”
  This article deals with the service of actions for punitive damages under the Hague Service Convention. The author refers first to a decision of the Higher Regional Court Koblenz of 27.06.2005: In this case, the German defendant should be ordered to pay treble damages in a class action based on the Sherman Act.  Here, the Regional Court held that the Hague Service Convention was not applicable since the case did not constitute a civil or commercial matter in terms of Art. 1 (1) Hague Service Convention. The author, however, argues in favour of an autonomous interpretation of  the term “civil or commercial matter” according to which class actions directed at punitive/treble damages can be regarded as civil matters in terms of Art. 1 Hague Service Convention.Further, the author turns to Art. 13 Hague Service Convention according to which the State addressed may refuse to comply with a request for service if it deems that complicance would infringe its sovereignty or security. There have been several decisions dealing with the applicability of Art. 13 Hague Service Convention with regard to class actions aiming at punitive/treble damages. Those decisions discussed in particular whether Art. 13 corresponds to public policy. In this respect, most courts held that Art. 13 has to be interpreted more narrowly than the public policy clause. In this context, the author refers in particular to a decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court of 24 January 2007 (2 BvR 1133/04): In this decision, the Constitutional Court has held that the mere possibility of an imposition of punitive damages does not violate indispensable constitutional principles. According to the court, the service may be irreconcilable with fundamental principles of a constitutional state in case of punitive damages threatening the economic existence of the defendant or in case of class actions if – i.e. only then – those claims deem to be a manifest abuse of right. Thus, as the author shows, the Constitutional Court agrees with a restrictive interpretation of Art. 13 Hague Service Convention.

• Christian Heinze: “Der europäische Deliktsgerichtsstand bei Lauterkeitsverstößen”
  The article examines the impact of the new choice of law rule on unfair competition and acts restricting free competition (Art. 6 Rome II Regulation) on Art. 5 No. 3 Brussels I Regulation: The author argues that it should be adhered to the principle of ubiquity according to which the claimant has a choice between the courts at the place where the damage occurred and the courts of the place of the event giving rise to it. In view of Art. 6 Rome II Regulation he suggests, however, to locate the place where the damage occurred with regard to Art. 5 No. 3 Brussels I Regulation in case of obligations arising out of an act of unfair competition at the place where the competitive relations are impaired or where the collective interests of consumers are affected – if the respective measure had intended effects there. In case an act of unfair competition affects exclusively the interests of a specific competitor, the place should be determined where the damaging effects occur, which is usually the place where the affected establishment has its seat. With regard to the determination of the place of the event giving rise to the damage, the author suggests to apply a centralised concept according to which the place of the event giving rise to the damage is, as a rule, the place where the infringing party has its seat. Read more

The Chair of European Law of the Université Catholique de Louvain is seeking to recruit a postdoctoral fellow for next academic year.

This post is opened in the context of a research project on the relationship between private international law and competition law, which is financed by the European Commission. The work will predominantly focus on collective action/redress issues in civil litigation related to breach of competition law.

The application deadline is June 30, 2009 and the contract would start in September 2009.

Read more

Yesterday’s issue of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) contains an interesting article on the Google Book Search Settlement written by Prof. Burkhard Hess:

The settlement concerns a class action lawsuit between Google and – as plaintiffs – the Authors Guild, the Association of American Publishers as well as individual authors and publishers about books scanned for the Google Book Search without the authors’ consent. Basically, the proposal for the settlement provides on the one side the payment of compensation for class members and the establishment of a registry of rights to books while it contains on the other side an authorisation of Google to scan books, maintain an electronic database and to make worldwide commercial uses of books.

The problematic issue the present article is dealing with, is the opt-out-mechanism provided by the settlement: Authors who do not object within the opt-out deadline (which has been extended until 4 September 2009) will be bound by the settlement. Thus, authors are “compelled” to take action if they don’t want to be bound by the settlement. In other words – the opt-out mechanism is meant to substitute the authors’ consent in the digitalisation and marketing of their books.

Hess points out in his article that the strategy of an opt-out mechanism might involve difficulties in view of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works since this Convention guarantees a certain minimum standard of protection: In his article, Hess raises doubts whether the opt-out mechanism – which would lead to an automatic deprivation of the authors’ copyright – meets the requirements of this protection standard.

With regard to the fairness hearing – which will take place in New York on 3 September – Hess suggests that it is not only the concerned authors who should intervene – rather he suggests that also the German Federal Government could do so, as an amicus curiae, in order to submit the reservations against the settlement.

The article titled “Es wird Zeit, dass die Bundesregierung eingreift” can be found (in German) also online on the website of the FAZ.