image_pdfimage_print

Views

Nothing Found

Sorry, no posts matched your criteria

News

Annual Survey of American Choice-of-Law Cases

Symeon Symeonides has posted on SSRN his 31st annual survey of American choice-of-law cases. The survey covers appellate cases decided by American state and federal courts during 2017. It can be found here https://ssrn.com/abstract=3093709  The table of contents is reproduced below.

Symeonides has also posted his annual Private International Law Bibliography for 2017. It can be found here https://ssrn.com/abstract=3094215.

 

31st Choice-of-Law Survey Table of Contents

Introduction

Part I. Jurisdiction

  1. The Supreme Court Speaks (Again)
  2. Foreign Sovereign Immunity
  3. The Terrorism Exception
  4. The Noncommercial Tort Exception
  5. The Expropriation Exception
  6. Jurisdiction Over Non-Recognized States
  7. The Fukushima Nuclear Accident
  8. The Political Question Doctrine

Part II. Extraterritoriality (or Non) of Federal Law

  1. Fifth Amendment
  2. Alien Tort Statute and Human Trafficking
  3. Civil Rico and Domestic Injuries

Part III. Choice of Law

  1. Torts
  2. Georgia’s Peculiar Lex Loci Rule
  3. Intrafamily Immunities and Families in Transit
  4. Vicarious Liability
  5. Distribution of Wrongful Death Proceeds
  6. Hospital Liens
  7. Medical Malpractice and State Immunity
  8. Federal Tort Claims Act and United States Immunity
  9. Defamation
  10. Extraterritoriality (or Non) of State Statutes
  11. Cross-Border Telephone Calls
  12. State Civil RICO
  13. Other Statutes
  14. Air Travel, a “Needlestick,” and the Montreal Convention
  15. Products Liability
  16. Introduction
  17. Cases Applying the Pro-Defendant Law of a Plaintiff-Affiliated State
  18. Other Cases Applying a Pro-Defendant Law
  19. Cases Applying a Pro-Plaintiff Law
  20. Contracts
  21. Choice-of-Law Clauses and Jury Waivers
  22. Choice-of-Law Clauses and Trusts
  23. Choice-of-Law Clauses and Old-Style Ordre Public
  24. Separability(?) of Choice-of-Law Clauses
  25. Scope of the Choice-of-Law Clause
  26. Choice-of-Law and Forum-Selection Clauses
  27. Choice-of-Law Clauses and Arbitration Clauses
  28. Insurance Contracts
  29. Choice-of-Law Methodology
  30. Vacillation in Wyoming
  31. The Methodological Table
  32. Statutes of Limitation
  33. New Jersey’s New Switch
  34. Summary of State Practices
  35. Choice-of-Law Clauses and Statutes of Limitations
  36. Recovering Nazi-Looted Artwork
  37. Marriage and Divorce
  38. Marital Property

Part IV. Foreign Judgments and Awards

  1. Sister-State Judgments
  2. Land in another State
  3. Due Process
  4. Statutes of Limitations
  5. Foreign-Country Judgments
  6. Paternity and Public Policy
  7. Child Custody and Human Rights
  8. Child Support
  9. Procedural Due Process
  10. Service of Process
  11. Jurisdiction in the State of Origin
  12. Judgment “Contrary” to Arbitration Agreement
  13. Statute of Limitations
  14. Foreign Arbitration Awards

Out now: Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Asia

A compendium of country reports on the law on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in ASEAN, Australia, China, India, Japan and South Korea has been published by the Asian Business Law Institute, a research institute based in Singapore. The list of contributors reads as follows:

  1. Professor Elizabeth Aguiling-Pangalangan of the University of the Philippines;
  2. Dr Andrew Bell, SC of Eleven Wentworth Chambers, Australia;
  3. Dr Bich Du Ngoc of Ho Chi Minh City Open University;
  4. Mr Youdy Bun of Bun & Associates, Cambodia;
  5. Xaynari Chanthala and Mr. Kongphanh Santivong of LS Horizon (Lao) Limited;
  6. Associate Professor Adeline Chong of Singapore Management University;
  7. Professor Choong Yeow Choy of the University of Malaya;
  8. Professor Guo Yujun of Wuhan University, China;
  9. Professor Toshiyuki Kono of Kyushu University;
  10. Mr Minn Naing Oo of Allen & Gledhill (Myanmar) Co Ltd;
  11. Dr Colin Ong, QC of Dr Colin Ong Legal Services, Brunei;
  12. Dr Yu Un Oppusunggu of the University of Indonesia;
  13. Mr Narinder Singh of the Indian Society of International Law;
  14. Dr Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit of the University of Tasmania; and
  15. Professor Suk Kwang Hyun of Seoul National University.

You can download the compendium at: http://abli.asia/PROJECTS/Foreign-Judgments-Project.

Further information may be found in the publisher’s blurb:

Out Now: Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Asia

The Asian Business Law Institute’s (ABLI)* first publication in its ABLI Legal Convergence Series has been released, a compendium of country reports entitled “Recognition & Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Asia”.  This new publication has been edited by Associate Professor Adeline Chong of the School of Law, Singapore Management University, who is leading ABLI’s Foreign Judgments Project.

The compendium is the output of the first part of ABLI’s project to promote the convergence of the law on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Asia.

The compendium consists of 15 short and concise country reports which provide lawyers and businesses with an overview of how foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters are recognised in different jurisdictions in Asia and the requirements which would need to be fulfilled for a foreign judgment to be enforced in these jurisdictions.

This is the first time such a study is made covering the laws of the ten ASEAN countries and the major Asian economies of Australia, China, India, Japan and South Korea. The reports are written by legal academics and practitioners from the 15 countries covered by the project and the compendium is freely available on ABLI’s website at: http://abli.asia/PROJECTS/Foreign-Judgments-Project.

The compendium will also act as a springboard for the next phase of ABLI’s Foreign Judgments Project which will consider whether sufficient areas of commonality exist for convergence in this area of the law and how convergence may best be achieved. The convergence of the foreign judgment rules in Asia is essential as Asia moves rapidly towards a borderless trading environment, as the greater portability of judgments within Asia will facilitate cross-border transactions by lowering transaction costs and associated legal friction among jurisdictions.

* The Asian Business Law Institute was launched in January 2016. It is a permanent institute based in Singapore that initiates, conducts and facilitates research with a view to providing practical guidance in the field of Asian legal development and promoting the convergence of Asian business laws. Its mission is to remove unnecessary or undesirable differences between Asian legal systems that pose obstacles to free and seamless trade. ABLI’s long-term strategic direction in accordance with its aims is set by its Board of Governors chaired by The Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon of the Supreme Court of Singapore. The Board comprises representatives from Australia, China, India and Singapore and other internationally renowned legal experts.

International and Comparative Law Quarterly 67 (2018), Issue 1

The most recent issue of the International and Comparative Law Quarterly (ICLQ) features two articles relating to private international law:

Louise Merrett, The Future Enforcement of Asymmetric Jurisdiction Agreements, ICLQ 67 (2018), pp. 37-71:

Asymmetric jurisdiction clauses are clauses which contain different provisions regarding jurisdiction for each party. They are widely used in international financial markets. However, the validity of this form of agreement has been called into doubt in several European jurisdictions. Furthermore, following Brexit, there may well be an increasing focus on alternative methods of enforcement under the Hague Convention and at common law, claims for damages and anti-suit injunctions. As well as considering recent developments in the case law and the implications of Brexit, this article will emphasize that all of these questions can only be answered after the individual promises contained in any particular agreement are properly identified and construed. Once that is done, there is no reason why the asymmetric nature of a clause should be a bar to its enforcement.

Giesela Rühl, Judicial Cooperation in Civil and Commercial Matters after Brexit: Which Way Forward? ICLQ 67 (2018), pp. 99-128:

Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters is generally perceived to be of a rather ‘specialist and technical nature’. However, for the many UK and EU citizens, families and businesses who work, live, travel and do business abroad, the current European framework for choice of law, jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement is of paramount importance. The article, therefore, explores how that framework might look like after Brexit and discusses the merits and demerits of the various ways forward.

Full texts are available via Cambridge Core.