Laura E. Little, who is a professor of law at Temple University, has posted Internet Defamation, Freedom of Expression, and the Lessons of Private International Law for the United States on SSRN.

This article reviews current developments in U.S. conflict of laws doctrine pertaining to transnational internet defamation cases, including personal jurisdiction, choice of law, and recognition of judgments. To resolve personal jurisdiction and choice of law issues in internet defamation cases, U.S. courts have adapted rules from the non-internet context with relative ease. Reported cases tend to concern domestic internet disputes between U.S. entities, with few plaintiffs attracted to U.S. courts for the purpose of litigating cross-border defamation claims. Although the U.S. serves as a magnet jurisdiction for many types of litigation, two liability-defeating laws render the country inhospitable to defamation claims: (1) the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment speech protections and (2) a statute affording immunity to internet “providers or users” for information “provided by another content provider.” Perhaps because of these provisions litigants are largely inspired to go elsewhere. The resulting libel tourism has prompted important U.S. developments pertaining to enforcement and recognition of foreign defamation judgments. Thus, for conflict of laws matters pertaining to internet defamation, it is judgments law that reflects the greatest activity and most profound change.

After reviewing personal jurisdiction and choice of law trends, this article describes legal developments pertaining to internet defamation judgments. The article critiques lawmakers’ adherence to First Amendment exceptionalism in regulating internet defamation judgments and identifies flaws reflected in state libel tourism statutes and the federal libel tourism statute, the SPEECH act of 2010.

The paper is forthcoming in the Yearbook of Private International Law (vol. 14).

On December 15, 2012, one phase of the dispute between the Argentine Republic and the Republic of Ghana over the “seizure” of the Argentine frigate ARA Libertad while in a Ghanaian port came to an end, when the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in Hamburg, Germany ordered Ghana to “forthwith and unconditionally release the frigate ARA Libertad” and to “ensure that the frigate ARA Libertad, its Commander and crew are able to leave the port of Tema and the maritime areas under the jurisdiction of Ghana, and … that the frigate ARA Libertad is resupplied to that end.” (See Order of 15 December 2012).

See the posts of

• Craig H. Allen at Opiniojuris
• Ted Folkman at Lettersblogatory
• Michael Waibel at EJIL:Talk!

On 18 and 19 March 2013 the Academy of European Law (ERA) will host a conference on Cross-border insolvency proceedings. The conference will shed light on the Commission’s recent Proposal for a reform of the Insolvency Regulation of 12 December 2013 (see our post).

The programme reads as follows:

Monday, 18 March 2013

• 08:30 Arrival and registration
• 09:00 Welcome and introduction, Angelika Fuchs and Daniel Staehelin

Moderator: Stefania Bariatti

• 09:15 The Commission’s proposal for a revision of the Insolvency Regulation, Katja Lenzing
• 10:00 Discussion

• 10:15 Scope of the Regulation and definition of “insolvency”, Jean-Luc Vallens
• 11.00 Discussion
• 11:15 Coffee break

• 11:45 Concept of COMI: case law and revision, Robert van Galen
• 12:30 Discussion
• 13:00 Lunch

Moderator: Burkhard Hess

• 14:00 Best practices for cross-border court-to-court communication, Bob Wessels
• 14:30 Round table: Coordination and communication between liquidators, between liquidators and courts, and court-to-court communication: Robert van Galen, Jennifer Marshall, Elise Latify, Jean-Luc Vallens, Bob Wessels
• 15:45 Coffee break

• 16:15 Recognition of foreign judgments and pre-insolvency proceedings, Reinhard Dammann
• 16:45 Discussion

• 17:00 Applicable law and the impact of insolvency on cross-border security and rights in rem, Jennifer Marshall
• 17:30 Discussion
• 17:45 End of the first conference day
• 19:00 Evening programme and dinner

Tuesday, 19 March 2013

Moderator: Paul Omar

• 09:15 Recent CJEU case law on related actions and the interplay with the Brussels I Regulation, Burkhard Hess
• 09:45 Discussion

• 10:00 Relationship between main and territorial proceedings in the light of Bank Handlowy, Gabriel Moss
• 10:30 Discussion
• 10:45 Coffee break

• 11:15 The EU Insolvency Regulation and the relationship to third countries, Michael Veder
• 11:45 Discussion

• 12:00 Round table: Insolvency within multinational enterprise groups, Reinhard Dammann, Gabriel Moss, Michael Veder
• 13:00 Concluding remarks and open issues, Stefania Bariatti
• 13:15 Lunch and end of the conference

The European Commission released on December 12 its Proposal for amending the 1346/2000 Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings.

The Commission summarizes its Proposal as follows:

• Scope: The proposal extends the scope of the Regulation by revising the
definition of insolvency proceedings to include hybrid and pre-insolvency
proceedings as well as debt discharge proceedings and other insolvency
proceedings for natural persons which currently do not fit the definition;

• Jurisdiction: The proposal clarifies the jurisdiction rules and improves the
procedural framework for determining jurisdiction;

• Secondary proceedings: the proposal provides for a more efficient
administration of insolvency proceedings by enabling the court to refuse
the opening of secondary proceedings if this is not necessary to protect the
interests of local creditors, by abolishing the requirement that secondary
proceedings must be winding-up proceedings and by improving the
cooperation between main and secondary proceedings, in particular by
extending the cooperation requirements to the courts involved;

• Publicity of proceedings and lodging of claims: The proposal requires
Member States to publish the relevant court decisions in cross-border
insolvency cases in a publicly accessible electronic register and provides
for the interconnection of national insolvency registers. It also introduces
standard forms for the lodging of claims;

• Groups of companies: The proposal provides for a coordination of the
insolvency proceedings concerning different members of the same group of
companies by obliging the liquidators and courts involved in the different
main proceedings to cooperate and communicate with each other; in
addition, it gives the liquidators involved in such proceedings the
procedural tools to request a stay of the respective other proceedings and to
propose a rescue plan for the members of the group subject to insolvency
proceedings.

Stephen Burbank (University of Pennsylvania Law School) has posted Whose Regulatory Interests? Outsourcing the Treaty Function on SSRN.

In this article I describe the status quo in the area of foreign judgment recognition, with attention to the tension between domestic interests and international cooperation. Precisely because the future of the status quo is in doubt, I then consider current proposals for change, particularly the effort to implement the Hague Choice of Court Convention in the United States. Prominent among the normative questions raised by my account is whose interests, in addition to the litigants’ interests, are at stake – those of the United States, those of the several states, or those of interest groups waving a federal or state flag. A related question is whether, if the uniformity we seek is to be found in state rather than federal law, we can be, and be seen by other countries to be, serious about international cooperation. I describe in some detail the sequence of events that led to the Uniform Law Commissioners (“ULC”) becoming involved in the process of drafting legislation to implement the Choice of Court Convention. I also explore reasons why the ULC has been successful in securing the lion’s share of attention for its preferred approach to implementation, which the ULC calls “cooperative federalism,” but which has come to resemble cooperative redundancy. Recounting how, and offering suggestions why, the ULC ultimately rejected a package of compromises proposed by the State Department’s Legal Adviser, even though almost all compromises were in favor of the ULC, I conclude with observations about the ULC’s ambitions in the international arena. My argument is that, if the ULC were successful in taking over the negotiation or implementation of private international law treaties, international cooperation would be if not a fortuity, then not a priority, because we would have regressed to a position of privileging not just federal but state law uniformity over international uniformity. And the state law we privileged would be anything but “indigenous.”

The article is forthcoming in the New York University Journal of International Law and Politics in 2013.

Reed Smith LLP will host a conference organized by the Journal of Private International Law on the Brussels I Regulation Recast on February 7th in London.

Programme:

Chair: Professor Trevor Hartley, LSE

1.30 pm – 2.00 pm: Overview of the revision of the Brussels I Regulation

• Oliver Parker, Legal Adviser, UK Ministry of Justice

2.00 pm – 2.30pm: Choice of Court Agreements: Reversal of Gasser, etc           

• Alex Layton QC, 20 Essex Court Chambers, London

2.30 pm – 3.00 pm: The Relationship between Arbitration and Brussels I Revised

• Dr George Panagopoulos, Reed Smith, Piraeus and London

3.00 pm – 3.30 pm: Question and answer and discussion of the first three talks

3.30 pm – 4.00 pm: Coffee/Tea Break

Chair: David Warne, Partner, Reed Smith LLP

4.00 pm – 4.30pm: The Abolition of Procedural Exequatur and Retention of Public Policy

• Professor Paul Beaumont, University of Aberdeen

4.30 pm – 5.00 pm: Conflicts of Jurisdiction with Third States

• Professor Jonathan Harris, Serle Court; King’s College London

5.00 pm – 5.30 pm: Extension of Jurisdiction to Third State Defendants and other changes to Brussels I

• Dr Karen Vandekerckhove, European Union Commission

5.30 pm – 6.00 pm: Question and answer and discussion of the last three talks

6.00 pm: Drinks Reception

Registration:  The event is free but has a limited number of places and therefore you need to register in advance to guarantee a place on a first come first served basis. Please email events@reedsmith.com to register, including the event title “The Brussels I Regulation Recast” in the subject line of the email. Update: the limit has been reached, any new registrant will be put on the waiting list.

Location: Reed Smith LLP, The Broadgate Tower, 20 Primrose Street, London EC2A 2RS

On November 22nd, the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment in Bank Handlowy w Warszawie SA v. Christianapol sp. z o.o. (Case C-116/11).

The reference was made in the context of proceedings relating to the opening of insolvency proceedings, in Poland, further to an application made by Bank Handlowy w Warszawie SA and PPHU ‘ADAX’/Ryszard Adamiak, in respect of Christianapol sp. z o.o., a company governed by Polish law in respect of which rescue proceedings (procédure de sauvegarde) had previously been opened in France.

1.      Article 4(2)(j) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 788/2008 of 24 July 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that it is for the national law of the Member State in which insolvency proceedings have been opened to determine at which moment the closure of those proceedings occurs.

2.      Article 27 of Regulation No 1346/2000, as amended by Regulation No 788/2008, must be interpreted as meaning that it permits the opening of secondary insolvency proceedings in the Member State in which the debtor has an establishment, where the main proceedings have a protective purpose. It is for the court having jurisdiction to open secondary proceedings to have regard to the objectives of the main proceedings and to take account of the scheme of the Regulation, in keeping with the principle of sincere cooperation.

3.      Article 27 of Regulation No 1346/2000, as amended by Regulation No 788/2008, must be interpreted as meaning that the court before which an application to have secondary insolvency proceedings opened has been made cannot examine the insolvency of a debtor against which main proceedings have been opened in another Member State, even where the latter proceedings have a protective purpose.

The International Family Law Briefings of the Hague Conference are quarterly updates provided by its Permanent Bureau regarding the work of the Hague Conference in this field.

The Briefings for September and November are now available:

Content September 2012

• Introduction
• Meeting of the Council on General Affairs and Policy of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, 17 to 20 April 2012
• Publication of the Guide to Good Practice on Mediation under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention
• An update from the Hague Conference’s Regional Office in Latin America
• A seminar on the work of the Hague Conference on Private International Law and its relevance for the Caribbean Region and Bermuda, 21 to 24 May 2012
• Intercountry Adoption in Africa: an update
• The Hague Children’s Conventions: status update

Recovery of Maintenance in the EU and worldwide

International  Conference Heidelberg | 5 – 8 March 2013

Maintenance  Regulation  (EC)  No 4/2009, the  2007 Hague  Protocol  and the  2007 Hague Maintenance Convention have given rise to exciting developments in the interna- tional recovery of maintenance. Make sure to be there  when  speakers such as Prof. Frédérique Ferrand, Prof. Nadia de Araújo, Prof. Dr. Erik Jayme, William  Duncan, Prof. Paul Beaumont, Robert Keith and Prof. Dr. Burkhard   Hess  present  and discuss  this topic. Within the framework of the confe- rence, there will be the possibility to enter into an exchange and to establish a network with all the persons working in this field.

For more information, please visit www.heidelberg–conference2013.de.

Vicki Turetsky, Prof. Andrea Bonomi, William Duncan, Philippe Lortie, Prof. Paul Beaumont, Prof. Dr. Burkhard Hess, Chris Beresford, Hannah Roots, Maja Groff, Dr. Matthias Heger, Dr. Thomas Meysen, Mary Dahlberg, Gary Caswell, Martina Heller, Dr. Richard Frimpong Oppong, Robert Keith, David Stillman, Prof. Nadia de Araújo and Dr. James Ding, Katja Lenzing, Lis Ripke and Jessica Pearson will present the following topics, among others:

Cultural dimension of maintenance from an international law perspective

• From complexity to simplicity, from chaos to Hague Convention 2007
• Presentation of “highly functional administrative systems”, including  IT solutions
• EU Maintenance Regulation: The devil’s in the details
• Applicability and application of foreign law
• Effective cooperation of the Central Authorities
• Good practice for caseworkers: the rocky pathways to the recovery of maintenance
• Perspectives of Asian, American, African and Latin American states
• Children in focus: poverty and maintenance
• Successful alternative dispute resolution

Curious? Click here: www.heidelberg–conference2013.de/program.html

Online registration at:

www.heidelberg–conference2013.de/registration/?page=1&lng= en.

Founded in 2010, JIPITEC aims at providing a forum for in-depth legal analysis of current issues of intellectual property, information technology and E-commerce law with the main focus on European law. Its intention is to develop an information platform that allows authors and users to work closer together than is the case in classical law reviews. It has been conceived as an Open Access Journal, i.e., articles are available according to the terms and conditions of the Digital Peer Publishing Licenses, and in addition, authors may permit the use of their articles under a Creative Commons or other license. Its latest issue (2012, 3: click here to download), is devoted to PIL and intellectual property with articles from Paulius Jurcys, Benedetta Ubertazzi, Matulionyté Rita, Pedro de Miguel Asensio, and Axel Metzger.

JIPITEC is financially supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).