Should the Federal Government Seek to Attract Litigation to the United States?
U.S. courts have become significantly more hostile towards transnational litigation over the past two decades. Scholars such as Pam Bookman and Maggie Gardner have argued that a series of Supreme Court decisions—relating to the law of personal jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, international comity abstention, the presumption against extraterritoriality, and service of process, among others—have made…
Continue ReadingA Deeply Flawed Personal Jurisdiction Decision in the SDNY
When dealing with forum selection clauses, one of the most important—if unappreciated—distinctions is between inbound and outbound clauses. An inbound clause selects the court where the suit was filed. An outbound clause selects a court that that is not the forum. Another important distinction is the one between exclusive clauses, which stipulate that suit must…
Continue ReadingContractual Waivers of Foreign Sovereign Immunity
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) provides that foreign states are immune from suit in the United States unless an exception applies. An important and long-standing exception to immunity is consent (the more common term in international practice) or waiver (the term used in the United States). The FSIA provides that a foreign state shall…
Continue ReadingForum Selection Clause Roundup
Forum selection clauses play a critical role in much transnational litigation. Over the past several months, TLB has published six posts on forum selection clauses. In this post, I try to bring these writings together to show how they all form a coherent narrative. This post is not meant to serve as a substitute for…
Continue ReadingThe Real Significance of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements
The stated purpose of the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (“COCA”) is to “provide[] certainty and ensure[] the effectiveness of exclusive choice of court agreements between parties to commercial transactions.” The treaty seeks to achieve this goal in two primary ways. First, the courts in contracting states must enforce choice of court…
Continue ReadingThrowback Thursday: Canada, Cannabis, and Forum Selection Clauses
Companies engaged in transnational litigation prefer, as a rule, to litigate disputes at home. Litigating at home allows a party to rely on lawyers and procedures with which it is already familiar. It also forces the other party to bear the costs of litigating in an unfamiliar legal system and (sometimes) in a foreign language….
Continue ReadingA Primer on State Law in Transnational Litigation
The procedural and substantive rules that U.S. courts apply in transnational litigation come from many sources, including the U.S. Constitution, international treaties, customary international law, federal statutes, federal rules, and federal common law (both preemptive and non-preemptive)—but also, state statutes, state rules, and state common law. This primer focuses on the underappreciated role of state…
Continue ReadingThe Comparative Value of Choice of Law and Forum Selection Clauses
Choice-of-law clauses and forum selection clauses routinely come before courts hearing transnational cases. A choice-of-law clause selects a law to govern the contract. A forum selection clause chooses a court in which to resolve disputes. These differences notwithstanding, the two clauses are often discussed in the same breath. Leading casebooks on conflict of laws examine…
Continue Reading