Latest Issue of “Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts” (1/2014)
Recently, the January/February issue of the German law journal “Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts” (
If you are not happy with the results below please do another search
Recently, the January/February issue of the German law journal “Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts” (
As readers of this blog are aware, the United States Supreme Court in the recent case of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum applied the presumption against extraterritoriality to limit the reach of the Alien Tort Statute. In short, the Court held that the ATS did not apply to violations of the law of nations occurring within […]
Cristina M. Mariottini is a Senior researcher at the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg on International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law How the U.S. Supreme Court Has Relinquished Reciprocity in Jurisdiction in Cross-Border Products Liability Cases and Possible Future U.S. Federal Legislation on the Matter Products liability is the area of law in which manufacturers, distributors, […]
The second issue of 2012 of the Dutch journal on Private International Law,
Conference on Collective Redress in the Cross-Border Context In the framework of the Henry G. Schermers Fellowship Programme<http://www.hiil.org/henry-g-schermers-fellowship>, held this year by Professor S.I. Strong, the Hague Institute for the Internationalisation of Law (HiiL) and the Netherlands Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS)<http://www.nias.nl/Pages/NIA/2/764.bGFuZz1FTkc.html> announce a workshop on the theme ‘Collective Redress in the Cross-Border Context: Arbitration, […]
Zheng Sophia Tang (Leeds University) has posted
Please see below for a call for proposals for a conference to be held 20-22 June 2012 ———————————— Call for Proposals – Collective Redress in the Cross-Border Context Large-scale international legal injuries are becoming increasingly prevalent in today’s globalized economy, whether they arise in the context of consumer, commercial, contract, tort or securities law, and countries […]
[Guest post written by Thijs Bosters LL.M., a PhD Researcher (Private International Law and Collective redress) at Tilburg University.] After the Morrison v. NAB decision of last June, the question was raised how and where an f-cubed case should be filed in the future. It has been proposed that, for example, the Canadian class action […]
Horatia Muir Watt is a Professor at the School of Law of Sciences Po, Paris.
From the standpoint of an outside observer with « a view from across », the practical result reached in the Morrison case seems reasonable. It is highly probable that in a similar situation – that is, supposing jurisdiction could be secured under the relevant rules applicable before, say the courts of Member States as against foreign-third-State-domiciled defendants AND imagining private attorney general actions for violations of trans-European securities regulations – courts over this side of the Atlantic (and for realistic symmetry, we’d need to think in terms of the rulings by the Court of Justice of the European Union as relayed by the courts of the Member States) would not (whatever the reasoning involved) have extended the scope of domestic economic regulation to an “F-cubed” action. However, the concrete result reached in this particular case is clearly not the point in issue. Nor indeed is there any reason not to adhere to the important policy objective of discouraging global forum-shoppers (or their lawyers) attracted by the well-known magnetic properties of US civil procedure in purely financial matters when private punitive-damage-actions are available. The real question is the approach adopted by the Supreme Court in its first decision relating to the ambit of the Securities and Exchange Act in an international setting.
I’ll simply emphasise a few points that might be of specific interest to European observers on the Supreme Court’s new “transactional test”. (I’ll refrain from speculating here as to the impact of the potential new “anti-Morrison” legislation to which Gilles has just posted the links), or to the difference it might have made on the overall result had Justice Kagan, who authored the US amicus brief favoring the “substantial conduct” test, been sitting on the Court). In order to define the reach of § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act 1934 (and thereby of SEC 10b-5), the Court decided that these various stringent informational/transparency requirements apply only to transactions in securities listed on US exchanges or otherwise sold within the US:
Recently, the March/April issue of the German law journal “Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts” (