Archive for the ‘foreign judgments’ Category

« Older Entries

Howard M. Erichson, “The Chevron-Ecuador Dispute, Forum Non Conveniens, and the Problem of Ex Ante Inadequacy”

May 3, 2013

Howard M. Erichson (Fordham University School of Law) has posted “The Chevron-Ecuador Dispute, Forum Non Conveniens, and the Problem of Ex Ante Inadequacy”, Fordham Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2245889. Here’s the abstract:

This essay, written for the 2013 Stanford Journal of Complex Litigation symposium on lessons from the Chevron-Ecuador environmental litigation, urges that we not take the wrong lesson concerning the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The paper highlights the irony of the forum battles in the litigation. The plaintiffs sued in the United States, the defendants won dismissal on grounds of forum non conveniens (arguing that the dispute should be adjudicated by the courts of Ecuador), the plaintiffs obtained a massive judgment in Ecuador, and the defendants challenged the judgment on grounds of fraud and corruption in the Ecuadorian proceedings. Despite the temptation to see the Chevron-Ecuador litigation as a cautionary tale about forum non conveniens, this essay argues that the “adequate alternative forum” standard for forum non conveniens should remain exceedingly low. Ex ante, deference to foreign legal systems should prevail, even as we permit ex post challenges to recognition of judgments on grounds of fraud and corruption.

 Download a copy of the paper at SSRN here.

Related articles

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Chevron, Ecuador, foreign judgments, foreign law, forum non conveniens, Lago Agrio | Leave a Comment »

PCA Tribunal ‘Benchslaps’ Ecuador in Ongoing Chevron-Lago Agrio Dispute

February 8, 2013

Slap-in-the-face-300x226

An interesting development in the Lago Agrio/Chevron litigation battle , which was the subject of my  Guest Post: Comments on the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs Enforcement Action in Canada at Ted Folkman’s Letters Blogatory.

Via the Juicio Crudo Blog (original in Spanish):

 An international arbitration court yesterday issued a ruling in which it concludes that the Republic of Ecuador has violated previous interim awards of the same court authorized under international law and a treaty between the United States and Ecuador to not attempt to prevent the execution of a sentence of 19,000 million against Chevron Corp. (NYSE: CVX). In previous decisions, the court warned that if the arbitration Chevron ended imposing “any loss arising from the implementation (of the judgment) would be losses for which (the Republic) would be responsible (with Chevron) under international law.”

Convened under the authority of the Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT, according to its acronym in English) between the United States and Ecuador, and administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague, the tribunal found that Ecuador breached previous court rulings and ordered to explain why the Republic should not be ordered to pay compensation to Chevron for all damages resulting from attempts by plaintiffs to enforce a judgment arising out of an environmental lawsuit against the company in Lago Agrio, Ecuador. (more…)

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in arbitration, arbitration clause, Bilateral Investment Treaty, BIT, Chevron, choice of forum, Ecuador, estoppel, foreign arbitral awards, foreign judgments, foreign law, foreign plaintiffs, forum non conveniens, forum selection, forum selection clause, Forum Shopping, International, international arbitration, international commercial arbitration, international human rights, international investment, international law, international litigation, International trade, Lago Agrio, Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague, res judicata | Leave a Comment »

Syncrude Canada Ltd. v. Highland Consulting Group: A Reply to Ted Folkman

January 21, 2013

My blawging colleague, Ted Folkman over at Letters Blogatory has an informative post about Syncrude Canada Ltd. v. Highland Consulting Group, Inc. (D. Md. 2013) a recent Maryland District Court decision dealing with service of process under the Hague Service Convention [“Syncrude”].

In Syncrude, the Plaintiff, Syncrude Canada Ltd. (“Syncrude”  or “Plaintiff”) brought an action pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Foreign  Money-Judgment Recognition Act, Maryland  Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings, §§ 10-701  et seq. (“the Recognition Act”) against  Defendants The Highland Consulting Group Inc. (“HCG”), High Energy Consultants, Inc. (“HEC”), and The Highland Group International GmbH (“HGI”) (collectively “the Highland Defendants”).

On July 26, 2011, Syncrude filed a breach of contract action against the Highland Defendants in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta, Case Number 1103 1134 (“Canadian Litigation”).  The Highland Defendants were served via registered mail at their respective principal offices pursuant to the Alberta Rules of Court and the Alberta Business Corporation Act.   Bittner signed the return receipts acknowledging service for both Maryland Defendants on August 2, 2011. Raz Walter signed a return receipt on behalf of Highland Group International GmbH on August 3, 2011. (more…)

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Alberta Court of Appeal, Alberta Rules of Court, conflict of laws, foreign judgments, Hague Service Convention, Inc., Letters Blogatory, Ltd, service ex juris, service of process, Ted Folkman | 2 Comments »

Laura E. Little, “Internet Defamation, Freedom of Expression, and the Lessons of Private International Law for the United States”

December 19, 2012

Laura E. Little (Temple University – James E. Beasley School of Law) has published “Internet Defamation, Freedom of Expression, and the Lessons of Private International Law for the United States”, European Yearbook of Private International Law, Vol. 14, 2012. The abstract reads:

This article reviews current developments in U.S. conflict of laws doctrine pertaining to transnational internet defamation cases, including personal jurisdiction, choice of law, and recognition of judgments. To resolve personal jurisdiction and choice of law issues in internet defamation cases, U.S. courts have adapted rules from the non-internet context with relative ease. Reported cases tend to concern domestic internet disputes between U.S. entities, with few plaintiffs attracted to U.S. courts for the purpose of litigating cross-border defamation claims. Although the U.S. serves as a magnet jurisdiction for many types of litigation, two liability-defeating laws render the country inhospitable to defamation claims: (1) the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment speech protections and (2) a statute affording immunity to internet “providers or users” for information “provided by another content provider.” Perhaps because of these provisions litigants are largely inspired to go elsewhere. The resulting libel tourism has prompted important U.S. developments pertaining to enforcement and recognition of foreign defamation judgments. Thus, for conflict of laws matters pertaining to internet defamation, it is judgments law that reflects the greatest activity and most profound change.

After reviewing personal jurisdiction and choice of law trends, this article describes legal developments pertaining to internet defamation judgments. The article critiques lawmakers’ adherence to First Amendment exceptionalism in regulating internet defamation judgments and identifies flaws reflected in state libel tourism statutes and the federal libel tourism statute, the SPEECH act of 2010.

Download the article via SSRN here.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in choice of forum, choice of law, conflict of laws, cyberlibel, defamation, Defamation Law, enforcement, First Amendment, foreign judgments, foreign plaintiffs, international law, internet, internet defamation, internet jurisdiction, internet law, libel, Libel Chill, Libel Tourism, libel tourist, personal jurisdiction, private international law, public policy, SPEECH Act | Leave a Comment »

B.C.’s new Limitation Act: A 10-year limitation period to enforce domestic and foreign judgments

October 4, 2012

The British Columbia government advised in a press release recently that it has passed new limitations legislation that will be in force on June 1, 2013. The new Limitation Act (Bill 34) was passed by the B.C. legislature last spring and some of the highlights correspond with other provincial limitation acts, including the Ontario Limitations Act, 2002, including:

  • a single, two-year limitation period for most civil claims, such as those that involve personal injury and
  • an ultimate limitation period for legal matters that may not be discovered right away, in which case people will have up to 15 years to file most civil lawsuits.

The most striking difference is how the B.C. Limitation Act treats an “extraprovincial judgment” which is defined as follows:

“extraprovincial judgment” means a judgment, order or award other than a local judgment;

“judgment” means an extraprovincial judgment or a local judgment;

Unlike the Ontario Limitations Act, 2002, the B.C. Limitation Act  refers to extraprovincial (i.e. foreign judgments) and provides a basic ten (10) year limitation period for enforcement of domestic and foreign judgments as follows:

Basic limitation period for court proceeding
to enforce or sue on judgment

7  Subject to this Act, a court proceeding must not be commenced to enforce or sue on a judgment for the payment of money or the return of personal property,

(a) if the judgment is a local judgment, more than 10 years after the day on which the judgment becomes enforceable, or

(b) if the judgment is an extraprovincial judgment, after the earlier of the following:

(i) the expiry of the time for enforcement in the jurisdiction where the extraprovincial judgment was made;

(ii) the date that is 10 years after the judgment became enforceable in the jurisdiction where the extraprovincial judgment was made.

Conversely, the Ontario Limitations Act, 2002 provides that no limitation period applies in respect of enforcement of a “judgment” or domestic arbitral award:

No limitation period 

16.  (1)  There is no limitation period in respect of,

…

(b) a proceeding to enforce an order of a court, or any other order that may be enforced in the same way as an order of a court;

…

(d) a proceeding to enforce an award in an arbitration to which the Arbitration Act, 1991 applies;

See also, my previous post:  Two-Year Limitation Period Applies to Enforcing Foreign Judgments in Ontario and my Trials and Tribulations column at the Canadian Lawyer: Do provincial tolling statutes/limitations acts apply to non-residents?

In my view, the B.C. Limitation Act’s ten-year limitation period for enforcement of domestic or foreign judgments is a sensible legislative approach, balancing the rights of judgment creditors and judgment debtors.

Of course, practitioners must be mindful that if the foreign judgment is subject to a shorter limitation period in the foreign jurisdiction, then the shorter limitation period will apply.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in enforcement, foreign judgments, judgments | Leave a Comment »

« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,587 other followers

%d bloggers like this: