Two recent private international law articles were published by International and Comparative Law Quarterly:

B Marshall, “Asymmetric Jurisdiction Clauses and the Anomaly created by Article 31(2) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation”

The English Court of Appeal and German Bundesgerichtshof recently decided that Article 31(2) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation applies to asymmetric jurisdiction clauses. This article contends that while this conclusion is sound, separating the ‘clause’ into two ‘agreements’ to reach it is not. This disaggregation prevents a solution to the anomaly that Article 31(2) creates for asymmetric clauses, where a lender sues under its option and the borrower subsequently sues in the anchor court. This article proposes a solution, based on a uniform characterisation of the clause as a whole, which protects the lender’s option and mitigates the risk of parallel proceedings

TD Grant, “Arbitration, Corruption and Post-Award Control in French and English Courts”

In September 2021, the French Cour de Cassation reversed the annulment that the Paris Cour d’appel earlier had granted in regard to an arbitral award in Alexander Brothers v Alstom on grounds of corruption. This brought French courts in line with their English counterparts, at least in that one case, the latter having accepted the Alexander Brothers award as enforceable. Noteworthy beyond the welcome consistency that the recent French judgment imparts in one case, that and other recent judgments cast light on several issues in international arbitration, including the arbitrability of allegations of fraud or corruption, the relevance of evidence of corruption ‘downstream’ from a contract, and the legal effects (if any) on third parties of internal compliance regimes that enterprises adopt in response to national regulatory and enforcement actions in respect of corruption.

 

The second issue of the Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly for 2022 was just published. It features the following case notes, articles and book review on private international law:

David Capper, Proving Dissipation in Freezing Orders

J Atmaz Al-Sibaie, Foreign Claims and Foreign Laws

P Devonshire, Clearing the Decks: The Siskina in the Privy Council

M Paterson, Finally laying The Siskina to rest? and expanding the court’s power to grant freezing injunctions

M Teo, Foreign Act of State: Comity or Certainty

A Dickinson, W(h)ither Unjust Enrichment? Border Disputes in the Conflict of Laws (Again)

C Proctor, Book Review on INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS. Benjamin Geva, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Toronto, and Sagi Peari, UWA Law School, University of Western Australia. ISBN 978-0-19-882868-6. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2020) xxxi and 252 pp., plus I p. Appendix and 12 pp. Index. Hardback £110.

On Tuesday, May 10, 2022, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its 22nd monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 17:00-18:30 CEST. Kermit Roosevelt (University of Pennsylvania) will speak, in English, about the topic

“The Third Restatement of Conflict of Laws: Origins and Aspirations“.

During the middle of the twentieth century, American judges and law professors reacted against the territorialist rigidity of the First Restatement of Conflict of Laws, ushering in the chaos of the choice-of-law revolution. The Second Restatement, completed in 1971, won wide acceptance by courts but found less favor with law professors and has not brought order to the field. In 2014, the American Law Institute decided to try again, beginning work on the Third Restatement. What lessons can be learned from the history of American choice of law, and how can those lessons inform the drafting of a new Restatement? Kermit Roosevelt, the Reporter for the Third Restatement, will offer an overview of the current draft that seeks to situate it within the history of American choice of law and suggest the reasons that it takes the form it does.

Just this week, the Supreme Court decided an important conflict of laws question in Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation (S. Ct. 2022).

We have discussed this case on this site before, but the facts deserve restating. Paul Cassirer was a German Jew who owned an art gallery who owned Pissarro’s Rue Saint-Honoré in the Afternoon, Effect of Rain . Paul’s heir, Lilly Cassirer, inherited the painting and hung it in her Berlin home. In 1939, she gave the paintings to the Nazis in return for an exit visa. She later came to the United States with her grandson, Claude, the plaintiff in this case.

The Cassirer family initially brought proceedings in the United States Court of Restitution Appeals under the assumption that the painting had been lost or destroyed—but it wasn’t destroyed. The Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation (TBC)—a public foundation and an agency or instrumentality of the Kingdom of Spain—purchased it in 1993. After TBC refused to return it to the Cassirer’s, Claude filed suit against Spain and TBC in 2005. Spain was voluntarily dismissed as a party in 2011, and after his death, Claude’s heir’s continued the case.

The Courts determined in 2011 that TBC was not immune from suit because the painting had been taken in violation of international law. The case then proceeded to trial on the merits. The plaintiffs argued that California law should govern, while TBC argued that Spanish law should govern. The judge, citing Ninth Circuit precedent, decided that federal common law provided the conflict of laws rule that should be used to decide what law substantively governed the claim, and that under federal common law conflicts principles, Spanish law governed. TBC prevailed at trial, and the judgment was affirmed on appeal. The plaintiffs sought Supreme Court review only on the question whether federal common law should govern the conflicts analysis, or whether the court should instead have applied California’s conflict of laws rules.

Many commentators wrote—and I agree—that the case is pretty straightforward. The FSIA (28 U.S.C. § 1606) provides that in any case where the foreign sovereign defendant is not immune from jurisdiction, “the foreign state shall be liable in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances.” So, if TBC had not been an instrumentality of the Spanish state, California conflict of laws rules would have governed (because the case is pending in a federal court in California and does not arise under federal law). Justice Kagan’s unanimous opinion agreed. In light of § 1606, the courts could not apply a rule to the foreign sovereign defendant different from the rule it would have applied to a private defendant. Once a plaintiff overcomes the jurisdictional hurdles of foreign sovereign immunity, the foreign sovereign has to be treated like any other litigant.

As a result of the decision, the judgment will be vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. The lower courts, applying California’s conflict of laws rules, could again conclude that Spanish law should govern, or it could decide that California law should govern, in which case maybe a new trial will be necessary. Lots a litigation left, in the end.