The U.S. Supreme Court today released a significant decision on personal jurisdiction in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (No. 10–1491, slip opinion: link). (backgrounder here and here).
The Court unanimously denied the appeal. (more…)
Archive for the ‘federal law’ Category
SCOTUS rejects extraterritorial application of ATS in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.
April 17, 2013Donald K. Anton, “Public International Law and International Civil Litigation: From Ecuador to the United States and Back (Twice) – Chevron v. Donzige”
November 29, 2011
Donald K. Anton (Australian National University (ANU) – College of Law) has posted “Public International Law and International Civil Litigation: From Ecuador to the United States and Back (Twice) – Chevron v. Donzige”, Precedent, forthcoming. Here is the abstract:
This brief note examines the public international law issues arising in the widely publicized case of Chevron v. Donziger. In 1993, Amazonian indigenous communities and remote farmers sued Texaco in the United States, its home jurisdiction, seeking redress for damages caused by Texaco’s operations. From 1993 to 2002 Texaco, and later Chevron when it acquired Texaco, fought to have the case dismissed and moved to Ecuador as the more appropriate forum to try the case. Ultimately, the US action was dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds. However, the dismissal was conditioned on promises by Chevron to accept jurisdiction in Ecuador and satisfy any judgment rendered by an Ecuadorian court. While the action in the US was ongoing, Chevron apparently removed its assets from Ecuador, ensuring that the Ecuadorian plaintiffs would be unable to enforce and collect any judgment in that country. The case was re-filed and tried in Ecuador and was hotly contested for approximately eight years. On 14 February 2011, the Provincial Court of Sucumbios awarded the Ecuadorian plaintiffs $8.6 billion in damages, with $5.6 billion going toward environmental remediation. Anticipating the worst, Chevron took pre-emptive action back in the US, and filed a complaint against the Ecuadorians and their lawyers alleging fraud and conspiracy and seeking injunction enjoining the enforcement of the judgment. On 7 March 2011, the US Federal District Court in the Southern District of New York granted the preliminary injunction, which purported to enjoin the Ecuadorians from seeking to have the Ecuadorian judgment recognised or enforced anywhere in the world outside of Ecuador.
A copy of the article may be downloaded at SSRN here.
Related articles
- Chevron loses latest stage of Amazon pollution battle (guardian.co.uk)
- More Trouble For Chevron: Company Loses Latest Stage of Amazon Pollution Battle (alternet.org)
- Chevron Again Trying To Exclude Key Lawyer In Ecuador Case From U.S. Trial, According to Amazon Defense Coalition (prnewswire.com)
- Whytock and Burke Robertson, “Forum Non Conveniens and the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments” (thetrialwarrior.com)
- Chevron awarded $96M in Ecuador shakedown arbitration (hotair.com)
- Amazon pollution victims to ask judge to award $8bn Chevron money (guardian.co.uk)
- Amazon Defense Coalition: Chevron in Open Conflict With Brazil and Ecuador Over Worsening Oil Spills (finanznachrichten.de)
- Chevron Suffers Blow in Latest Installment of Amazon Battle (newyork.ibtimes.com)
Federal Court Strikes Third Party Flood Damage Claims Against North Dakota
November 28, 2011
In Pembina County Water v. Government of Manitoba, 2011 FC 1118 (CanLII), Lafrenière, J. of the Federal Court of Canada considered separate motions brought by two groups of third parties, each seeking an order striking the Third Party Claim filed by the Defendants, the Rural Municipalities of Rhineland and Stanley (Municipal Defendants). The grounds were that the Federal Court lacked either personal jurisdiction or subject-matter jurisdiction in respect of the Third Party claims. Alternatively, the Third Parties requested that the Third Party Claim be stayed on the grounds that North Dakota was the most convenient forum or that they enjoyed state immunity. (more…)
Virgin Islands Lawyer Sues U.S. Government Over Right to Vote
October 7, 2011
Image via Wikipedia
I received the following email from St. Thomas, Virgin Islands lawyer, J. Russell Pate of the Pate Law Firm via the ABA International Litigation Committee Listerv:
Dear International Litigation Member,
For your information, please find attached a Complaint [ pdf copy of Second Amended Complaint] regarding the right to vote for Congressional representatives and U.S. President for the United States Virgin Islands. The United Nations has noted that the islands are a non-self governing territory without the ability to participate in every level of government which has control over them.
www.un.org/en/events/nonselfgovernin/nonselfgoverning.shtml
The Complaint is a strait-forward historical expose of racial discrimination in the U.S. Congress which resulted in the denial of the Virgin Islands (a majority non-white jurisdiction) to be deprived of the right to participate in federal elections.
Sincerely,
Russell
J. Russell Pate, Esq.
The Pate Law FirmRoyal Dane Mall,
2nd Fl.P.O. Box 890St. Thomas , VI 00804
jrbpate@yahoo.com340.777-5270
Office 340.777-5266
Fax 340.227-5299 Cell
“Without the jury, there is no justice.”
The pleading makes for very interesting and informative reading. I invite knowledgeable comments from those with experience in U.S. constitutional law on whether the action meets the plausibility standard under the Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal 556 U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009).
Two New Articles On “Morrison v. National Australia Bank”
June 29, 2011Readers may be interested in two new articles posted on SSRN analyzing the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank [pdf], which held that U.S. law prohibiting securities fraud does not apply to investment deals occurring outside the country, even if those investment deals have a domestic effect.
The first by Linda Silberman (New York University School of Law) is entitled “Morrison v. National Australia Bank: Implications for Global Securities Class Actions”, Swiss Yearbook of Private International Law 2010/NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 11-41. The abstract reads:
The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank has had a significant impact on the extraterritorial reach of the U.S. Securities Laws as well as a limitating global class actions. Other countries have begun to fill a perceived gap with respect to such class actions, as the recent Converium case in the Netherlands and the Imax decision in Canada illustrate. In addition to thosse developments, the article discusses various post-Morrison developments in the United States, including the recent Dodd-Frank legislation, the possibility of bringing claims in the United States under foreign law, lower court interpretations of Morrison, including off-exchange case law. The author concludes with a call for increased regulatory cooperation as well as the need for an international treaty.
The second by Michelle K. Fiechter is entitled “Extraterritorial Application of the Alien Tort Statute: The Effect of Morrison v. National Bank of Australia, Ltd. on Future Litigation” , Iowa Law Review, Vol. 97, No. 2, 2011. The abstract reads:
In Morrison v. National Bank of Australia, Ltd., the Supreme Court issued an opinion holding that when addressing issues of prescriptive jurisdiction, courts are to presume that Congress only writes laws for domestic application. This Note takes a look at the Alien Tort Statute, a statute that courts have been applying extraterritorially since 1789. This Note addresses what effect, if any, the Morrison decision will have on ATS litigation. Because the presumption against extraterritoriality is a rebuttable one, this Note argues that the context in which the First Congress enacted the Alien Tort Statute provides enough evidence to overcome the presumption of domestic application. Therefore, Morrison will have little, if any, effect on the future of the ATS.
Related articles
- $230M Returned to the U.S. in SEC Case That Could Test Agency’s Reach (legaltimes.typepad.com)
- Dodge on Morrison v. National Australia Bank (lawprofessors.typepad.com)
- Two for the price of one: Ontario’s first 2 decisions applying the new Van Breda test for jurisdiction simpliciter (thetrialwarrior.com)
- Brisbin v. Lunev: Why Have One Jurisdictional Test, When You Can Have Three? (thetrialwarrior.com)
Antonin I. Pribetic
