Forum Selection Clauses

New Paper on Forum Selection Clauses

Over the past three years, I have spent a lot of time trying to get a sense for when U.S. courts will and will not enforce forum selection clauses. Working with Katie Richardson — first as a law student, then as an associate at McGuire Woods, and finally as a clerk on the D.C. Circuit…

Continue Reading

The Case for Attracting Litigation Business to the United States

U.S. state and federal courts routinely and reliably enforce “inbound” forum selection clauses (FSCs)—that is, if a party sues in a U.S. court designated by a contractual forum selection clause, courts will hear the case rather than dismissing on the basis of forum non conveniens.  In a recent post, John Coyle urged federal actors to…

Continue Reading

Contracting for U.S. Courts in Transnational Commercial Litigation

Among the most important provisions that litigators search for once alerted of a potential dispute are forum selection clauses embedded in a large number of modern commercial contracts. Over the past several decades, state legislators and the U.S. Supreme Court have increasingly enabled parties to litigate in U.S. courts, even for lawsuits with significant “foreign”…

Continue Reading

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 Reading

The Controversy over Non-Signatories to Forum Selection Clauses Goes Meta

Since the mid-1970s, forum selection clauses have become an increasingly pervasive feature of the contracting and litigation landscape. While scholars still debate whether and when certain parties to boilerplate contracts (such as consumers, employees, or other parties with limited bargaining power) should be bound to such clauses, a separate controversy has emerged over the extent…

Continue Reading

A 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 is not the forum. Another important distinction is the one between exclusive clauses, which stipulate that suit must be…

Continue Reading

Contractual 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 Reading

Forum 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 Reading

The 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 Reading

Throwback 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 Reading

Ingrid (Wuerth) Brunk

Vanderbilt Law School
ingrid.wuerth@vanderbilt.eduEmail

William Dodge

George Washington University Law School
william.dodge@law.gwu.eduEmail

Maggie Gardner

Cornell Law School
mgardner@cornell.eduEmail

John F. Coyle

University of North Carolina School of Law
jfcoyle@email.unc.eduEmail

Zachary D. Clopton

Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
zclopton@law.northwestern.eduEmail

Gregg Cashmark

Vanderbilt Law School
Bio | Posts

Hannah Buxbaum

Indiana University Maurer School of Law
Bio | Posts

Symeon Symeonides

Willamette University College of Law
Bio | Posts

Aaron D. Simowitz

Willamette University College of Law
Bio | Posts

John B. Bellinger

Arnold & Porter LLP
Bio | Posts

R. Reeves Anderson

Arnold & Porter LLP
Bio | Posts

Volodymyr Ponomarov

Arnold & Porter LLP
Bio | Posts

Robin Effron

Brooklyn Law School
Bio | Posts

Scott Dodson

UC Law – San Francisco
Bio | Posts

Paul MacMahon

LSE Law School
Bio | Posts