Views
Second Act in Dutch TikTok class action on privacy violation: court assesses Third Party Funding Agreements
Written by Eduardo Silva de Freitas (Erasmus University Rotterdam), Xandra Kramer (Erasmus University Rotterdam/Utrecht University) & Jos Hoevenaars (Erasmus University Rotterdam), members of the Vici project Affordable Access to Justice, financed by the Dutch Research Council (NWO), www.euciviljustice.eu.
Introduction
Third Party Litigation Funding (TPLF) has been one of the key topics of discussion in European civil litigation over the past years, and has been the topic of earlier posts on this forum. Especially in the international practice of collective actions, TPLF has gained popularity for its ability to provide the financial means needed for these typically complex and very costly procedures. The Netherlands is a jurisdiction generally considered one of the frontrunners in having a well-developed framework for collective actions and settlements, particularly since the Mass Damage Settlement in Collective Actions Act (WAMCA) became applicable on 1 January 2020 (see also our earlier blogpost). A recent report commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security found that most collective actions seeking damages brought under the (WAMCA) have an international dimension, and that all of these claims for damages are brought with the help of TPLF.
Is this a Conflicts Case?
In Sharp v Autorité des marchés financiers, 2023 SCC 29 (available here) the Supreme Court of Canada has held that a Quebec administrative tribunal, the Financial Markets Administrative Tribunal, can hear a proceeding brought by the administrative agency that regulates Quebec’s financial sector, the Autorité des marchés financiers, against four defendants who reside in British Columbia. The AMF alleged in the proceedings that the defendants had contravened the Quebec Securities Act.
The courts below, including a majority of the Quebec Court of Appeal, focused the analysis on s. 93 of the Act respecting the Autorité des marchés financiers, CQLR, c. A-33.2, which grants the FMAT jurisdiction to make determinations under the Securities Act. They interpreted and applied this provision in light of Unifund Assurance Co. v Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, 2003 SCC 40, a leading decision on the scope of application of provincial law, which held that a provincial regulatory scheme constitutionally applies to an out-of-province defendant when there is a “real and substantial connection”, also described as a “sufficient connection”, between the province and the defendant. This test was met on the facts [see para 22] and so the FMAT had jurisdiction. This analysis is not generally understood as being within the field of conflict of laws. Indeed, the majority of the Court of Appeal “saw no conflict of jurisdiction or any conflict of laws that would require the application of private international law rules to this case” [see para 29].
How to Criticize U.S. Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (Part II)
Written by Bill Dodge, the John D. Ayer Chair in Business Law and Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law at UC Davis School of Law.
There are better and worse ways to criticize U.S. extraterritorial jurisdiction. In Part I of this post, I discussed some shortcomings of a February 2023 report by China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “The U.S. Willful Practice of Long-arm Jurisdiction and its Perils.” I pointed out that the report’s use of the phrase “long-arm jurisdiction” confuses extraterritorial jurisdiction with personal jurisdiction. I noted that China applies its own laws extraterritorially on the same bases that it criticizes the United States for using. I argued that the report ignores significant constraints that U.S. courts impose on the extraterritorial application of U.S. laws. And I suggested that China had chosen to emphasize weak examples of U.S. extraterritoriality, such as the bribery prosecution of Frédéric Pierucci, which was not even extraterritorial.
In this post, I suggest some better ways of criticizing U.S. extraterritorial jurisdiction. Specifically, I discuss three cases in which the extraterritorial application of U.S. law appears to violate customary international law rules on jurisdiction to prescribe: (1) the indictment of Huawei executive Wanzhou Meng; (2) the application of U.S. sanctions based solely on clearing dollar transactions through U.S. banks; and (3) the application of U.S. export controls to foreign companies abroad based on “Foreign Direct Product” Rules. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs report complains a lot about U.S. sanctions, but not about the kind of sanctions that most clearly violates international law. The report says much less about export controls and nothing about Meng’s indictment, which is odd given the tensions that both have caused between China and the United States. Read more
News
Book Launch: Philosophical Foundations of Private International Law – Oxford, March 19, 4pm-6pm
In 2024, Oxford University Press published Philosophical Foundations of Private International Law, edited by Roxana Banu, Michael S Green, and Ralf Michaels. The book represents the first inter-disciplinary engagement with questions of private international law from a philosophical perspective, covers a wide range of philosophical questions in private international law and brings philosophers in conversation with private international law scholars to demystify the analytical tools of each discipline in relationship to the other. More information on the book, including a table of contents, is here.
Now, Oxford University is organizing a hybrid book launch on March 19, 4pm-6pm. An introduction from the Editors will be followed by a discussion on key themes by Gabriel Encinas, Verónica Ruiz Abu-Nigm, Robert Stevens, Antonios Tzanakopoulos, and Emmanuel Voyiakis. More information on the event and on how to sign up for physical or virtual participation is here.
Workshop on Cross-border Protection of Cultural Property-Agenda
Workshop on Cross-border Protection of Cultural Property Agenda
2025.2.28, UTC 8:00 – 12:15 (London Time)
| 8:00 – 8:05 | Opening Remarks | ||
| Zheng Tang | professor of Law, editor in chief, Chinese Journal of Transnational Law; Associate Dean, Wuhan University Academy of International Law and Global Governance | ||
| 8:05 – 8:45 | Keynote Address | ||
| Christa Roodt | Senior Lecturer of History of Art, University of Glasgow | ||
| Zhengxin Huo | Professor of Law, China University of Political Science and Law | ||
| Panel 1: Legal Mechanisms of Cross-Border Cultural Property Protection | |||
| 8:45 – 9:00 | Elena Moustaira | The contribution of Postcolonial Theory to the cross-border protection of Indigenous cultural heritage | |
| 9:00 – 9:15 | Yehya Badr | Restitution of stolen foreign cultural property and hurdles in choice of law | |
| 9:15 – 9:30 | Maggie Fleming Cacot | Forfeiture and freezing orders in transborder cultural property litigation | |
| 9:30 – 9:50 | Commentary and Discussion | ||
| Panel 2: Regional Practices and Challenges in Cultural Property Restitution | |||
| 9:50 – 10:05 | Andrzej’s Jakubowski | Moving People, Shifting State Borders and the Return of Cultural Property: The Case of Poland | |
| 10:05 – 10:20 | Miroslaw Michal Sadowski | From freedom to restitution (with special focus on Central and Eastern Europe and the Lusophone community) | |
| 10:20 – 10:35 | Ekin Omeroglu | The Issue of Applicable Law in Disputes Arising from Violations of Private Law Regulations on Cultural Properties: The Case of Turkiye | |
| 10:35 – 10:50 | Ruida Chen | Restitution of cultural property in China: In search of a new paradigm for cross-border cultural property claims | |
| 10:50 – 11:10 | Commentary and Discussion | ||
| Panel 3: Looking to the Past and the Future | |||
| 11:10 – 11:25 | Dabbie De Girolamo | The Relevance of ADR for transnational cultural property disputes: A Survey and Analysis of China’s experience | |
| 11:25 – 11:40 | Andreas Giorgallis | Restitution of cultural objects unethically acquired during the colonial era: The intersection of Public and Private International Law | |
| 11:40 – 11:55 | Evelien Campfens | Evolving Legal Models of Restitution | |
| 11:55 – 12:15 | Commentary and Discussion | ||
Join Zoom Meeting:
https://zoom.us/j/87424891864?pwd=8rHX72dmzi7FCDWWnm7F2n1OLIOFaC.1
Meeting ID: 874 2489 1864 Password: 574150
Giustizia consensuale No 2/2024: Abstracts
The second issue of 2024 of Giustizia consensuale (published by Editoriale Scientifica) has just been released, and it features:
Tommaso dalla Massara (Professor at Università Roma Tre), Per un’ermeneutica della certezza nel processo civile romano: tra regula iuris e determinazione pecuniaria (For a Hermeneutics of Certainty in the Roman Civil Process: Between Regula Iuris and Pecuniary Determination; in Italian).
This contribution offers a reflection on procedural certainty, starting from the Roman classical process. In particular, crucial is the idea that, in this procedural system, certainty is to be related to the rule of ‘condemnatio pecuniaria’. Thus, certainty is translated into the determinacy of the pecuniary sentence. What emerges is a peculiar way of understanding judicial activity, which is characterised by the alternativeness between the groundedness and groundlessness of the claim (si paret/si non paret oriented to a certum), as opposed to the hypothesis in which the assessment is left entirely to the judge.
Beatrice Ficcarelli (Associate Professor at the University of Florence), L’acquisizione di informazioni e «prove» nella negoziazione assistita da avvocati: la tessera che mancava (The Acquisition of Information and ‘Evidence’ in Negotiation Assisted by Lawyers: The Missing Piece of the Puzzle; in Italian). Read more