Archive for the ‘forum selection clause’ Category
February 8, 2013
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…)
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags:Bilateral Investment Treaty, Chevron, Ecuador, Lago AgrioJudgment, Permanent Court of Arbitration, United States
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 »
February 4, 2013
Donald Earl Childress III (Pepperdine University School of Law) has posted “Forum Conveniens: The Search for a Convenient Forum in Transnational Cases”, Virginia Journal of International Law, Vol. 53, No. 1, p. 157, 2012. The abstract reads:
This Article examines the forum non conveniens doctrine as it is applied by federal courts and state courts in present-day transnational litigation. The Article also explores what happens when the doctrine is invoked in cases involving foreign sovereigns. The Article uncovers empirical evidence suggesting increased use of the forum non conveniens doctrine by courts. Unfortunately, this increased use does not come with clear standards for application. After considering the underlying rationales for the doctrine and whether they are effectuated by the current doctrine’s usage in transnational cases, the Article proposes a new series of rules and factors to be balanced by courts when asked to apply the doctrine.
A PDF copy of the paper is available for download on SSRN here.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags:Civil procedure, Conflict of Laws, Forum non conveniens, International law, Pepperdine University School of Law, State court (United States)
Posted in choice of forum, choice of law, civil procedure, conflict of laws, forum non conveniens, forum selection, forum selection clause, Forum Shopping, private international law, public international law, Transnational, Transnational Law, transnational litigation | Leave a Comment »
August 9, 2012
The recent Ontario decision in 2249659 Ontario Ltd. et al. v. Sparkasse Siegen et al., 2012 ONSC 3128 (CanLII) provides a good summary of the “strong cause” test for enforcing the parties’ choice of forum. The motion judge cites the recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in Momentous.Ca Corporation v Canadian American Association of Professional Baseball Limited, 2012 SCC 9 (CanLII), 2012 SCC 9, where the Court at para. 9 states: (more…)
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags:Canada, CanLII, Conflict of Laws, Forum non conveniens, Forum selection clause, Ontario, Pompey, Supreme Court
Posted in "strong cause" test, consent-based jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, forum selection, forum selection clause, jurisdiction, jurisdiction simpliciter, Momentous.ca, Z.I. Pompey | Leave a Comment »
May 9, 2012
MasterCard logo used on cards 1997 to present. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Aldo Group Inc. v. Moneris Solutions Corporation, 2012 ONSC 2581 (CanLII) poses the question:
Can a forum selection clause bind a person who was not a signatory to the contract containing the clause?
In a lengthy judgment, D.M. Brown J. of the Toronto Commercial List Court considered a motion brought by the co-defendant, MasterCard International, Inc. ["Mastercard"] asserting that the claim brought by the plaintiff, Aldo Group Inc. a footwear retailer ["Aldo"] was subject to a forum selection clause specifying the New York courts by reason of the nature of the plaintiff’s claims pleaded against MasterCard, notwithstanding that Aldo was not a privy to either of the two contracts containing the New York forum selection clause. (more…)
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags:Ontario Superior Court of Justice, New York, Forum selection clause, MasterCard, ALDO Group, New York State, Moneris Solution, Financial services
Posted in conflict of laws, forum non conveniens, jurisdiction, forum selection clause, jurisdiction simpliciter, forum selection, Forum Shopping, consent-based jurisdiction, Z.I. Pompey, Van Breda v. Village Resorts Ltd., "strong cause" test, Momentous.ca | 1 Comment »
May 9, 2012
Genevieve Saumier (McGill University – Faculty of Law) and Jeffrey Bagg (Student-at-Law, McGill University-Faculty of Law) have posted “Forum Selection Clauses Before Canadian Courts”. Here is the abstract:
Forum selection clauses are treated differently across Canada. This is due not only to provincial competence over the issue, but also because of uncertainty following a series of appellate judicial interpretations of existing rules, whether these are drawn from legislation or jurisprudence. The Supreme Court recently had the opportunity to resolve some of the this ambiguity in Momentous.ca v. Canadian American Association of Professional Baseball. But in a laconic twelve paragraph decision, the highest court rather muddied the waters even more. This article will try to shed light on the differing treatment of forum selection clauses across the country and determine whether change is warranted and if so, what form it might take.
Download a copy of the paper via SSRN here.
Related articles
Like this:
Like Loading...
Tags:Canada, Supreme Court, Canadian American Association of Professional Baseball, Forum selection clause, McGill University Faculty of Law
Posted in choice of forum, conflict of laws, consent-based jurisdiction, forum selection, forum selection clause, Hague Choice of Court Convention, international law, international litigation, jurisdiction, jurisdiction simpliciter | Leave a Comment »
Antonin I. Pribetic
