Gonzalo Zeballos and I recently authored an article for Commercial Dispute Resolution Magazine’s “Expert Views” series entitled America’s Closing Doors. The article examines recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions on extraterritorial jurisdiction of the federal courts, and the potential future role of the U.S. courts in international class action litigation. Click the title above for a link to the article, and be sure to check out the other insightful expert views on international litigation issues that CDR has to offer, including several on developments in international class action law.
Posts Tagged ‘international class action’
Posted in Articles, International Class Action Law, tagged 1782, cdr, class action, commercial dispute resolution, extraterritorial, federal, international class action, jurisdiction, kiobel, morrison, zeballos on December 9, 2013 | Leave a Comment »
I will be presenting on one of my favorite topics, developments in international class action litigation, at an upcoming webinar co-sponsored by The Knowledge Congress, BakerHostetler, and KCC. Breaking Down Global Class Action Cases will be broadcast live on Thursday, August 22, 2013 from noon to 2:00 p.m. EDT. We’ll be discussing the implications of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Kiobel and Morrison as well as trends in the development of class action law outside the U.S. See below for more information.
To sign up for free, courtesy of BakerHostetler, click this link.
Remaining up-to-date with the issues revolving around class actions and knowing the best practices is key to effectively defending clients and raising the bar. Join us in this two-hour, live webcast as our panel of key thought leaders and practitioners discuss significant developments in global class action litigation with key updates on class action law.
Included in their discussions are the following:
•Overview of the Recent Global Class Action Cases
•Class Action Settlement Principles
•Impact of Class Action Law to Other Laws, such as: Privacy, Employment and Labor, Financial Services
•Best Practices and Latest Trends in Defending Class Action Litigation
•Up-to-the-minute Regulatory Update
I just received a tip about an intriguing Stanford University symposium that should be of interest to any readers interested in international class and collective action litigation. See below for the details.
Please join us for the
Stanford Journal of Complex Litigation’s Inaugural Symposium:
“Lessons from the Chevron Ecuador Litigation”
Friday, February 8, 2013
8:30 am – 5:30 pm
Reception to Follow
The ongoing litigation between Chevron and the people of Lago Agrio, Ecuador regarding environmental harms raises unprecedented transnational litigation issues. Twenty years after it was filed, the Chevron Ecuador litigation now spans three continents and concerns an $18 billion dollar judgment against Chevron—the largest award in an environmental suit to date. Having been characterized as everything from “a shakedown” to “a landmark victory,” this case raises important questions about the future of transnational litigation. There have been significant developments in this case in the past week, as noted by the popular press. MCLE credit available.
This symposium will bring together the actual lead attorneys litigating the case as well as leading scholars to discuss the ethics, financing, discovery, and enforcement implications of the Chevron Ecuador litigation for transnational litigation going forward. The full schedule will be available here.
Registration is free, but please RSVP.
Please contact Anuja Thatte (email@example.com) for further information.
Future of International Class Actions in the U.S. Courts May Be at Stake in Upcoming Supreme Court Case
Posted in International Class Action Law, Supreme Court Decisions, tagged alien tort, apartheid, atca, ats, class action, extraterritorial jurisdiction, genocide, human rights, human rights class action, international class action, kiobel, oral argument, piracy, royal dutch, scotus, second circuit, Supreme Court on September 19, 2012 | Leave a Comment »
Editor’s Note – This article, co-authored by my colleague Tina Amin, is a joint submission to CAB and the BakerHostetler Class Action Lawsuit Defense Blog. Please visit our firm’s blog for more riveting class action-related content.
Today is Talk Like a Pirate Day, which is always a reminder of the Alien Tort statute (“ATS”), an arcane law that was originally enacted in 1789 in part to combat piracy. In recent years, the ATS has been used as a tool for bringing class actions seeking to redress alleged international civil rights abuses arising out of a wide range of conduct including genocide, torture, slavery, apartheid, and environmental contamination. In a recent ATS case, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, Case Nos. 06-4800-cv and 06-4876-cv, Nigerian plaintiffs alleged that the defendant company collaborated with the Nigerian government to commit extrajudicial killing, torture, crimes against humanity, and arbitrary arrest and detention. In its September 17, 2010 decision, the Second Circuit became the first appellate court to reject the proposition that a corporation can be liable under the ATS for such alleged complicity.
On October 17, 2011, the Supreme Court originally accepted Kiobel, No. 10-1491, to address the issue whether a corporation can be liable under the ATS for alleged complicity in human rights abuses by a foreign government. Oral argument in the Supreme Court was held on February 28, 2012. A week later, the Court requested supplemental briefing on two related issues. The first is on the broader issue of whether the U.S. courts have extra-territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes about human rights abuses that occurred entirely outside U.S. borders. The Court also asked “under what circumstances” the ATS “allows courts to recognize a cause of action” for extraterritorial violations. The supplemental briefs were filed this summer.
Kiobel has broad potential implications for the future of international class actions in the U.S. courts. The case is the second in the last three years to raise questions of extraterritorial application of U.S. federal law, along with the Morrison v. National Australia Bank, No. 08-1191, June 24, 2010, which limited the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts over certain international securities class actions. To date, no federal appeals court has decided an ATS case based solely on an analysis of extraterritoriality, and the courts have assumed the extraterritorial reach of the law since it was resurrected from obscurity a few decades ago. A ruling for the defendant in Kiobel could be a further sign of a trend closing the doors of the U.S. courts to international class actions and other international disputes. If this occurs, expect to see additional developments in the area of collective multi-party procedure in other countries, as parties begin to seek redress elsewhere.
Oral argument in Kiobel is set for October 1, 2012.
Posted in International Class Action Law, tagged collective action, collective litigation, foreign class action, global class action, international class action, libor, oxford, transnational class action, word class actions on August 6, 2012 | 1 Comment »
The wait is finally over! World Class Actions is finally out in print, and the book is available for order via the Oxford University Press website. For those of you who have been holding your breath in anticipation of the book’s release… well, you’ve probably long since passed away from asphyxiation. For those who have not heard about the book, however, here’s a short summary.
Class action and other group litigation procedures are increasingly being adopted in jurisdictions throughout the world, as more countries deal with the realities of increased globalization and access to information. As a result, attorneys and their clients face the ever-expanding prospect of a class or group action outside their home jurisdictions.
World Class Actions: A Guide to Group and Representative Actions around the Globe is a guide for attorneys and their clients on the procedures available for class, group, and representative actions throughout the world. It helps lawyers navigate and develop strategies for litigation and risk management in the course of doing business abroad, or even in doing business locally in a way that impacts interests abroad.
Part I of the book provides a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction survey of the class action, group, collective, derivative, and other representative action procedures available across the globe. Each chapter is written from a local perspective, by an attorney familiar with the laws, best practices, legal climate, and culture of the jurisdiction.
Part II provides guidance from the perspective of international attorneys practicing in foreign jurisdictions and the art of counseling and representing clients in international litigation. It also covers a variety of topics related to transnational, multi-jurisdictional, and class or collective actions that involve international issues and interests.
Each chapter offers practice tips and cultural insights helpful to an attorney or litigant facing a dispute in a particular part of the world. Many of the chapters introduce key books, treatises, articles, or other reference materials to foster further research. Its focus on international class and group litigation law from a practitioner’s perspective makes World Class Actions an essential guide for the lawyer or client.
Many thanks to the more than 50 authors from all over the world who contributed to the book.
Posted in class action reform, Class Action Trends, International Class Action Law, Uncategorized, tagged asia class action, china class action, chinese class action, class action, consumer fraud, facebook, hong kong, hong kong class action, international class action, investor, ipo, securities class action, securities fraud on May 30, 2012 | Leave a Comment »
According to Deborah Mao in this article published today on businessweek.com, regulators for the city of Hong Kong has proposed new legislation that would permit representative actions for certain consumer class actions. The legislation is reportedly a response, at least in part, to concerns about the difficulty of shareholders to seek collective redress for alleged acts of securities fraud, although the new law would not initial apply to securities fraud claims.
The legislation would likely provide for class actions to be financed through a public legal aid program rather than through contingency fees, as is typically the case in the United States. The proposal is still in the early stages, and specific legislation remains to be “drafted and introduced,” according to an official quoted in the article.
We’ll keep an eye on future developments relating to the proposed legislation. Stay tuned…
Posted in Class Action Trends, International Class Action Law, tagged capital market proceedings act, civil law, deutsche telekom, european class action, german class action, group litigation, international class action, kapmug, model proceeding, multi-party litigation, prospectus liability, representative action, securities class action, telekom on May 16, 2012 | Leave a Comment »
After 12 years of litigation, a trial court in Germany has finally reached a decision in a landmark case for group actions in European civil law jurisdictions. The court decided that Deutsche Telekom did not make false or misleading statements of fact in a prospectus for a secondary stock offering in 2000.
The case was the first of its kind under 2005 German legislation allowing for special model proceedings in mass actions for certain types of securities fraud, which had been enacted as a direct result of the thousands of individual lawsuits that had been filed against Deutsche Telekom for prospectus fraud after the stock dropped following the secondary offering. The law that created the group action procedure under which the case was tried is known in English as the Capital Market Model Proceedings Act. Passed in 2005, the Act allows for the trial court to assign a representative plaintiff in a model proceeding that is to be tried first while similar claims are suspended. The purpose of the model proceeding is to resolve any generic or common issues for all of the cases, but unlike in a U.S. class action, the model proceeding does not have the legal effect of also resolving all of the individual claims. As a result, although today’s ruling is a victory for the defendant, it does not represent an end to the litigation even if it is upheld on appeal.
This article from Karin Matussek in BusinessWeek summarizes the decision and its potential implications. According to the article, the attorney for the model plaintiffs has stated that they do plan to appeal.
The case is a “model” proceeding for more than just the resolution of the claims against Deutsche Telekom. It has been followed by many academics and policymakers in Europe and elsewhere as a test case for the viability of group proceedings in common law jurisdictions. Time will tell whether the German experiment in group proceedings will be seen as a success. Concerns that the introduction of group litigation procedures in Europe will usher in a US-style litigation culture will no doubt be tempered by the fact that the defendant ultimately prevailed. On the other hand, the length of time that the it took for the model proceeding to be resolved raises legitimate questions about the long-term social utility and efficiency of the procedure. By comparison, class action litigation brought in the United States alleging prospective liability by U.S. investors against Deutsche Telekom arising out of the same offering was settled for more than $120 million more than seven years ago, in 2005.
The German Capital Market Model Proceedings Act and the Deutsche Telekom case are among the many cutting-edge topics addressed in the book World Class Actions, which is still on schedule to be on bookshelves early this summer. The German chapter is authored by Dr. Luidger Röckrath, attorney with the law firm Gleiss Lutz. Stay tuned here for more updates on the status of of the book.
Posted in International Class Action Law, Lawyers' Resources, tagged global class action, international class action, International Class Action Law, oup, oxford, transnational class action, world class actions on March 29, 2012 | Leave a Comment »
For those of you interested in the forthcoming book, World Class Actions, here’s a quick update. The page proofs should be ready by the end of next week, and barring unexpected delay, we are still on pace for an early summer publication date. For those that haven’t yet heard about the book, it is a guide to class and collective action litigation around the world. Here’s a link to the Oxford University Press web page for the book where you will find a more detailed synopsis. I’ll continue to post updates as the publication date approaches.
Posted in Class Action Trends, International Class Action Law, Other class action blogs, tagged 10b, 10b-5, AAA, alien tort, atca, australia class action, australian class action, canada class action, canadian class action, chevron, class arbitration, collective settlement, dutch class action, dutch law, ecuador, f-cubed, foreign cubed, global class action, international arbitration, international class action, israeli class action, kiobel, morrison, national australia bank, netherlands class action, stolt-nielsen, transnational class action, us class action on March 27, 2012 | Leave a Comment »
NOTE: The following is a copy of a post that I did for the recently-released Baker Hostetler Class Action Lawsuit Defense Blog. Be sure to check out the new blog for other fantastic class-action-related content!
Globalization has brought with it the growing problem of how to deal with mass disputes that transcend jurisdictional boundaries, as well as ever-increasing creativity among the members of the plaintiffs’ bar in bringing ever-larger class and mass actions. There is no single global court or other forum for bringing international or cross-border civil disputes, let alone disputes that involve allegations of mass harm. One of the key challenges for lawyers, policymakers, consumers, and businesses in the 21st century is how to efficiently resolve international mass disputes given the realities of globalization and the lack of any clear forum.
From the late 1990s through the first decade of this century, there were several trends favoring the U.S. courts as a global forum for litigating international disputes. However, recently, that trend has reversed, and the U.S. courts are becoming increasingly reluctant to entertain international class action litigation.
One of the hottest trends in securities litigation in the latter part of the last decade was what became known as foreign-cubed (or “f-cubed”) class actions, securities fraud class actions filed on behalf of foreign investors against foreign companies involving securities traded on a foreign exchange. The trend came to an abrupt halt, however, when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010), holding that section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act does not have an extraterritorial reach and only applies to securities traded on a U.S. exchange or other transactions that occurs within a U.S. state or territory. Although lower court decisions following Morrison, including a recent Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision, may breathe some life back into the idea of litigating a small subset of primarily foreign securities disputes in the U.S. federal courts, Morrison has generally closed the U.S. courts to foreign-cubed class actions.
Another promising avenue for litigating global mass disputes was international arbitration. A developing strategy was for plaintiffs who had signed form arbitration agreements to seek to compel arbitration on behalf of both themselves and others who had signed the same form of agreement. (Several arbitration associations have implemented specific rules for how class arbitrations should be conducted. Here is a link to the AAA Supplemental Rules for Class Arbitration). The Supreme Court put an end to this strategy when it decided the international price-fixing case, Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 130 S. Ct. 1758 (2010). In Stolt-Nielsen, the Court held that a party to an arbitration agreement could not compel class-wide arbitration unless the parties had expressly agreed to allow class, rather than individual, arbitration.
In the human rights area, the U.S. Alien Tort Claims Act has increasingly been used as a tool to litigate international disputes involving alleged violations of international law over the past two decades. Several circuit courts of Appeals have even allowed actions under the ATCA to be brought against private corporations, under the theory that those corporations aided and abetted a foreign government or foreign official in committing human rights abuses. However, the Circuits split on the issue, and the Supreme Court accepted certiorari to resolve the split in the case of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, No. 10-1491. Following an oral argument held last month, the Supreme Court issued an order directing the parties to submit supplemental briefing to address the extent to which the ATCA should permit the exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction at all over acts that took place within a sovereign jurisdiction other than the United States. Questions posed during oral argument, especially by the conservative wing of the Court, suggest skepticism about the allowing U.S. Courts to adjudicate human rights disputes that have nothing to do with the United States.
At the same time that avenues for global mass redress in the U.S. Courts have been closing, doors have been opening in other parts of the world. Class action law continues to develop in Canada and Australia. Israel has a class action procedure that closely mirrors U.S. law. Dozens of other countries in all corners of the world now have procedures allowing at least some form of mass redress. A very recent example is a class action law enacted in Mexico that permits a form of collective litigation that, while quite different from class actions in the United States, provides express mechanisms for seeking collective redress. In 2006, the Netherlands passed a law that allows mass settlements of claims (although it does not provide a procedure for litigating contested class claims), and arguably allows residents of other EU countries to be included. In other countries, the lack of a specific class or collective action procedure has not kept courts from fashioning remedies for mass redress.
The continuing lack of a single global forum for litigating mass disputes and the proliferation of new procedures permitting collective litigation abroad, are likely to have at least one near term practical impact. That is, the development of areas of law dealing with the enforcement of foreign class or collective action judgments. This has already become a reality in a huge environmental contamination case involving the drilling operations of a formal Chevron subsidiary in Ecuador. In 2010, a court in Ecuador entered an $18 million judgment in the case, and proceedings are ongoing in both the U.S. courts and in international arbitration proceedings relating to the enforceability of the judgment.
In a related vein, U.S. courts increasingly find themselves adjudicating disputes under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, which allows litigants discovery in the United States for use in connection with foreign proceedings (see this recent Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision interpreting the statute).
What does this all mean for potential litigants in global disputes? For any company or even small business that does business internationally, these developments highlight the necessity of keeping up with the constant changes in local laws as well as international trends. The procedures that might have been applicable, and arguments that might have been persuasive a year before, may no longer be viable, but new avenues and theories will have almost certainly taken their place.
Posted in Class Action Trends, International Class Action Law, Other class action blogs, Reports and Surveys, Securities Class Actions, tagged australia class action, f-cubed, foreign cubed, international class action, mexican class action, mexico, mexico class action, morrison, national australia bank, securities class action on March 5, 2012 | Leave a Comment »
Kevin LaCroix, whose blog The D&O Diary is a premier source for the latest trends in securities-related class action litigation, has an excellent post out today discussing two key developments in an area that is very close to my heart, international class action litigation. The first part of LaCroix’s post discusses a recent publication from Asia-based International law firm King & Wood Mallesons discussing class action filings in Australia. According to the report, there are currently only about 14 class action filings filed on average in the Australian federal court, a number that represents less than 1% of all federal filings in that country (this figure does not include filings in the courts of individual states; both Victoria and New South Wales also have civil procedure rules similar to the federal rules).
The second part of the post addresses the potential implications of the recent enactment of a class action law in Mexico. LaCroix summarizes a recent Jones Day publication on the subject, then adds his own commentary. In particular, he makes an observation similar to one that international plaintiffs’ class action lawyers Michael Hausfeld and Brian Ratner make in the forthcoming book World Class Actions: that one of the potential implications of the US Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, which limited f-cubed securities class actions in the United States, may be an increase in litigation in foreign jurisdictions that allow for securities class actions or some other form of collective redress.