On Tuesday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision reversing a $147.8 million price-fixing judgment against two Chinese manufacturers of Vitamin C. The plaintiffs alleged that the Chinese manufacturers engaged in price fixing and supply manipulation in violation of U.S. antitrust laws. In its first ever appearance as an amicus before a U.S. court, the Chinese government filed a formal statement asserting that Chinese law required the Chinese manufacturers to set prices and reduce the quantities of Vitamin C sold abroad. Relying on this statement, the Second Circuit held that because the Chinese manufacturers could not comply with both Chinese law and the U.S. antitrust laws, principles of international comity compelled dismissal of the case.
This case raises a host of interesting questions. First, did the Second Circuit reach the right result? Second, is this a comity case or a foreign sovereign compulsion case? Third, what level of deference is due to a foreign sovereign that appears in private litigation to explain their country’s laws? Fourth, should U.S. judges defer to such an explanation?
It will be interesting to see whether this case makes it to the United States Supreme Court.
Représentation des salariés
The following information is provided by the conference organizers. Given how rare conflict of laws conferences are in Canada, I am delighted to pass this along.
The CJPTA: A Decade of Progress
In 2016, the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act marks its tenth year in force. Adopted in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, the CJPTA has clarified and advanced the law of judicial jurisdiction. This symposium will assess the progress made by the CJPTA across the range of issues addressed and critically evaluate the capacity of the CJPTA: to provide leadership for the law in other parts of Canada; to enable further development in the law; and to meet the needs of Canadians in the years ahead in a world of increasing cross-border dealings.
Details:
Friday, October 21, 2016 (expected to run from 9am to 4:30pm)
University Club of Toronto (380 University Avenue, just north of the American consulate)
Co-chaired by Professor Janet Walker (Osgoode) and Lisa Munro (Lerners LLP) with the assistance of Dr. Sagi Peari and Gerard Kennedy
We are excited to bring you a fantastic lineup of speakers and panelists discussing a wide range of topics pertaining to CJPTA and judicial jurisdiction.
Space is limited. Kindly RSVP to
Sagi Peari (SPeari@osgoode.yorku.ca)
or
Gerard Kennedy (GerardKennedy@osgoode.yorku.ca)
by October 3, 2016.
Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel d'Aix-en-Provence, chambre de l'instruction, 4 août 2016
Pourvoi c/ Tribunal de police de Papeete, 2 juin 2016
Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Colmar, 5e chambre civile, 14 avril 2015
One cannot have one’s cake and eat it. Meaning once the cake has been eaten, it is gone and you no longer have it. (Apologies but this saying is so often misunderstood I thought I should clarify).
Anyways, the Flemish tax administration had something along these lines in mind when it recently ruled in a case involving a Liechtenstein Stiftung. Many thanks to De Broeck & Van Laere for bringing the ruling to my attention. The Inland Revenue generally employ quite a lot of deference towards trusts and Stiftungs of all kind. In the case at hand however it requalified the transfer of means from the Stiftung to the heirs of the deceased, as being of a contractual nature. That is because the deceased, upon creation of the Stiftung, had issued such precise instructions in the Stiftung’s by-laws, that the hands of the trustees (or equivalent thereof) had been tied. This essentially takes away a crucial part of the Stiftung’s nature, and no longer shields the assets from the (Flemish) taxman. The cake has been eaten.
Geert.
Dans le cadre de la procédure d’avis sur le Projet d’accord entre le Canada et l’Union européenne sur le transfert et le traitement de données des dossiers passagers, l’avocat général de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne (CJUE) Mengozzi conclut à l’incompatibilité de l’accord envisagé avec les dispositions de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne.
On the occasion of Hein Kötz’ 80th birthday in November 2015, a symposium in his honour was held at the Max-Planck-Institute for Comparative and International Private Law in Hamburg/Germany. The presentations given at this event have now been published (in German) by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen: Zukunftsperspektiven der Rechtsvergleichung, ed. by Reinhard Zimmermann, 2016; XX, 267 pages.
Following an explanation by the editor as to why this is not a Festschrift, the volume contains contributions by Christiane Wendehorst (Vienna) on the comparison of legal systems, by Ralf Michaels (Duke) on religious laws and post-secular comparative law, by Giesela Rühl (Jena) on comparative law and European conflict of laws: the forgotten dimension, by Eva-Maria Kieninger (Würzburg) on principles and basic concepts of property law as objects of comparative law, by Gralf-Peter Calliess (Bremen) on the role of comparative law in the context of a competition between legal orders, by Marc-Philippe Weller (Heidelberg) on future prospects for comparative law in private international and corporate law, and by Jan von Hein (Freiburg/Br.) on market regulation by tort law from a comparative perspective. The book concludes with closing remarks by Hein Kötz.
Further information is available here.
This year does not only mark 30 years since the great reform of German private international law of 1986, but it is also the 35th anniversary of the foundation of the Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax). Therefore, Professor Heinz-Peter Mansel, President of the German Council for Private International Law, and Professor Jan von Hein, chairman of the Council’s 2nd Commission, are pleased to announce that a celebratory conference will take place on 23-24 September 2016 at the University of Cologne (Germany) under the title: “Codification of Private International Law: German Experience and European Perspectives Thirty Years After the PIL-Reform of 1986”. The conference, which will be held in German, will look at how Private International Law has evolved in the past and provide an outlook for future responsibilities and challenges of the field.
The conference programme (in German) is available here.
The Faculty of Law of the University of Rome “La Sapienza” will host a German-Italian-Spanish conference on Thursday, 13th October 2016, on International Successions in Europe. The conference has been convened for the presentation of the volume “The EU Succession Regulation: a Commentary”, edited by Alfonso-Luís Calvo Caravaca (University “Carlos III” of Madrid), Angelo Davì (University of Rome “La Sapienza”) and Heinz-Peter Mansel (University of Cologne), published by Cambridge University Press, 2016. The volume is the product of a research project on “The Europeanization of Private International Law of Successions” financed through the European Commission’s Civil Justice Programme.
Here is the programme (available as .pdf):
Welcome addresses: Prof. Enrico del Prato (Director, Department of Legal Sciences, University “La Sapienza”); Prof. Paolo Ridola (Dean, Faculty of Law, University “La Sapienza”); Prof. Angelo Davì (University “La Sapienza”).
First Session
Chair: Prof. Ugo Villani (University of Bari, President of SIDI-ISIL – Italian Society for International Law)
Second Session
Chair: Prof. Sergio Maria Carbone (University of Genova)
Concluding remarks: Prof. Sergio Maria Carbone (University of Genova).
(Many thanks to Prof. Fabrizio Marongiu Buonaiuti, University of Macerata, for the tip-off)
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer