Posts Tagged ‘New York City’

UPDATED: Your Privacy Ends Where Your Tweet Begins

September 14, 2012

Twitter image via Inforrm’s Blog.

Oh, Twitter, you used to be cool. You used to be the rebel. You used to be the shining light among social media platforms that fought for privacy and First Amendment rights. Now you’re just part of the “1 Percent”. Well, you were never part of the “99 Percent”, but at least we thought you cared.

Joseph Ax of Thomson Reuters reports that Twitter has folded like a cheap lawn chair under threat of contempt and substantial fines by a New York criminal judge. Malcolm Harris was among 700 people arrested during a peaceful protest march in support of the Occupy Wall Street Movement. He was charged with one count of disorderly conduct for blocking traffic. The prosecutor served three subpoenas on Twitter  for 3 1/2 months’ worth of information from Harris’ Twitter account. (Note: I am unable to verify whether any of Harris’ tweets related to what he ate for breakfast or whether he thinks One Direction is way better than Justin Bieber.)  (more…)

Julian Simock on Kiobel, RICO and Litigating Corporate Abuse

September 11, 2012

Julian Simcock (JD Candidate, Stanford Law School; Harvard University – Harvard Kennedy School (HKS)) has posted “Recalibrating after Kiobel: Evaluating the Utility of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act in Litigating Corporate Abuse”, New York City Law Review, Vol 14, 2012 (forthcoming). The abstract reads: 

This analysis seeks to explore the un-examined question of whether RICO could one day become a useful surrogate for the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) in litigating international corporate abuses. Decades after the ATS had become a robust tool for bringing claims for international violations in U.S. courts, the Second Circuit recently ruled in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum that corporations cannot be held liable for torts in violation of the law of nations under the ATS. Rulings by the D.C Circuit and the Seventh Circuit quickly breathed new life into the debate, and the circuit split is now destined for resolution by the Supreme Court. Although the final outcome is still unknown, Kiobel’s reverberations are already apparent. With corporations potentially immune from the reach of the ATS, the search has begun for vehicles by which to sustain momentum in litigating international corporate abuses.

The article is available on SSRN for download here.




Model Law, not common law, governs enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Ontario

February 29, 2012

The recent Ontario decision in ACTIV Financial Systems, Inc. v. Orbixa Management Services Inc., 2011 ONSC 7286 (CanLII), [“ACTIV Financial”) deals with an application to enforce an international commercial arbitration award where the arbitrator awarded $553,070.38 (USD) plus interest at 9% per annum, but did not give reasons for his award. Interestingly, the decision  confirms that the exclusive procedure for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards is by way of application under the International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.9, (“ICAA”) which incorporates the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on June 21, 1985, (“Model Law”). Essentially, when a foreign arbitral award is enforced in another jurisdiction (referred to as “domestication” or “homologation”), the correct procedure in Ontario is to make an application to enforce the underlying foreign arbitral award, not the subsequent foreign judgment. (more…)

%d bloggers like this: