Supreme Court Decides Twitter and Google Cases
The Supreme Court issued opinions this morning in Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh and Golzalez v. Google LLC. It held that the plaintiffs’ allegations that these social media companies had aided and abetted ISIS in terrorist attacks abroad failed to state a claim under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. More coverage soon on TLB.
Continue ReadingChoice-of-Law Statutes?
American choice of law relies primarily on common law methods that differ from state to state. Determining the relevant law when a dispute has a connection to more than one state can be difficult. When the dispute is transnational, the difficulties increase, particularly if the forum state’s choice-of-law rules incorporate a home-state bias. Oregon’s response…
Continue ReadingData on the Enforcement of Forum Selection Clauses
The United States legal system is immensely complex. There are state courts and federal courts, state statutes and federal statutes, state common law and federal common law. When I imagine a foreign lawyer trying to explain this system to a foreign client, my heart fills with pity. This feeling of pity is compounded when I…
Continue ReadingWaiting for Mallory
The Supreme Court’s recent dormant Commerce Clause decision may shed light on how the Justices are thinking about Mallory v. Norfolk Southern.
Continue ReadingExtraterritorial Application of Federal Securities Law After Morrison
In Morrison v. National Australia Bank (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court applied the presumption against extraterritoriality to the principal antifraud provision of the Securities Exchange Act, section 10(b). It held that section 10(b) applies “only [to] transactions in securities listed on domestic exchanges, and domestic transactions in other securities.” As I have explained elsewhere, Morrison…
Continue ReadingNew Scholarship on the Hague Service Convention
Thomas G. Vanderbeek recently published a note in the Vanderbilt Law Review that considers whether and to what extent parties should be permitted to “contract around” the Hague Service Convention (HSC). The conventional wisdom holds that the best way to avoid the HSC is to appoint a local agent to receive service of process. Once…
Continue ReadingDiscovery and Immunity: LIV v. PGA
The U.S. legal battle between the PGA Tour (Tour) and the upstart rival LIV Golf continues to revolve around discovery. As regular TLB readers know, LIV Golf is a new professional golf tour that competes with the PGA, in part by luring PGA players to play in LIV tournaments. LIV is financed by the Public Investment…
Continue ReadingWhy the Indictment Against Halkbank Must Be Dismissed
In 2019, the United States indicted Turkiye Halk Bankasi (Halkbank), a Turkish state-owned bank, alleging a multiyear scheme to evade U.S. sanctions against Iran by using fraudulent transactions to transfer the proceeds of oil and gas sales to Iran. Last month, the Supreme Court rejected Halkbank’s claim of immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act…
Continue ReadingLitigating Expropriation Claims in U.S. Courts
Foreign sovereigns generally enjoy sovereign immunity in the United States by operation of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The FSIA specifically provides, however, that a foreign sovereign shall not be immune in any case in which “rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue.” On its face, this expropriation exception…
Continue ReadingFurther Developments in Smart Study
TLB has been following Smart Study v. Happy Party-001, a Chinese counterfeiting case in the Southern District of New York, since Judge Gregory Woods issued his thoughtful opinion last summer concluding that service by email on Chinese defendants is not permitted by the Hague Service Convention (a decision we covered in a prior blog post)….
Continue Reading