Conflict of Laws .net

Australian commentators have long speculated about whether the federal Constitution contains any rule that would resolve a direct conflict between the statute law of two States. Thus far, the High Court has defused potential conflicts without the need for such a constitutional rule. In John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson (2000) 203 CLR 503, the potential conflict between ACT and NSW law was resolved by a common law choice of law rule; and in Sweedman v Transport Accident Commission (2006) 226 CLR 362 a potential conflict between NSW and Victorian law was resolved by a process of statutory construction.

Most recently, in Betfair Pty Limited v Western Australia [2008] HCA 11, the High Court resolved a potential conflict between the laws of Tasmania and Western Australia by striking down the Western Australian statute because it infringed s 92 of the Constitution (which prevents protectionist burdens on interstate trade and commerce). The Court noted in passing that its conclusion about s 92 made it “unnecessary to consider whether [the WA law] is invalid by reason of the alleged direct conflict between it and  … the Tasmanian Act. This is not the occasion to consider what may be the controlling constitutional principles were there demonstrated to be such a clash of State legislation.” Since no such occasion has yet arisen in the 108 years of Australian federation, the direct conflict between State laws is perhaps a problem of greater theoretical than practical importance.

James McComish, my Australian Conflict of Laws.net co-editor, has recently had published an article entitled “Pleading and Proving Foreign Law in Australia” in volume 31(2) of the Melbourne University Law Review. The abstract reads:

Foreign law lies at the heart of private international law. After all, a true conflict of law cannot be resolved unless and until the content of foreign law is established. Despite this, the pleading and proof of foreign law remain among the most under-explored topics in Australian private international law. In light of the High Court of Australia’s significant change of direction on choice of law since 2000, most notably in cases such as John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson, Regie Nationale des Usines Renault SA v Zhang and Neilson v Overseas Projects Corporation of Victoria Ltd, it is all the more important to answer some of the basic questions about the pleading and proof of foreign law. Who pleads foreign law? What law do they plead? Are they obliged to do so? How do they prove its content? When can local law be applied in the place of foreign law? This article addresses these and related questions with a particular focus on Australian law as it has developed since 2000. It concludes that Australian courts take a more robust and pragmatic approach to these issues than might be supposed. In particular, the so-called presumption of identity is a label that masks a much richer and more complex reality.

The article’s full citation is (2007) 31(2) Melbourne University Law Review 400.

Prof. Rafael Arenas Garcia (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and Àrea de Dret Internacional Privat blog) has written an interesting article on the controversial issue of the law applicable to culpa in contrahendo, discussing the conflict rule set out in Art. 12 of the Rome II regulation: “La regulación de la responsabilidad precontractual en el Reglamento Roma II”.

The article (in Spanish) will be published in the forthcoming issue (2007) of the Anuario Español de Derecho Internacional Privado (Spanish Yearbook of Private International Law - AEDIPr.), but it can be downloaded as a .pdf file from the Àrea de Dret Internacional Privat blog.

The English abstract reads as follows:

Article 12 of Rome II Regulation governs the obligations arising out of dealings prior to the conclusion of a contract. It establishes that the law applicable to these obligations shall be the law applicable to the contract. Where it is not possible to determine such law, the second paragraph of article 12 establishes the application of the general connecting factors of Rome II Regulation. It is also possible to choose the law applicable to culpa in contrahendo.

These solutions are not problem-free. The application of the law governing the future contract is not suitable in order to forbid the breaking of negotiations, without giving to the parties the possibility to rely on the law of the country in which the party has its habitual residence to establish that he can broke off negotiations without liability. It can also be criticized that there is no provision about the cases in which a contract between the parties has been concluded in order to rule the negotiations. As a result of this lack of provision in these cases the law governing culpa in contrahendo will be the law of the future contract instead of the law of the contract that rules the negotiations.

This article analyses these problems and the difficult delimitation between contractual and non-contractual fields in matters relating to obligations arising out of dealings prior to the conclusion of a contract. It also includes de lege ferenda proposals.

“At the heart of this sad case, which raises questions of international and federal law under the Hague [Abduction] Convention, is a custody battle over a young girl who has not seen either of her parents in years.” That was the lead-in from Judge Jordan to the recent decision by a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit. Carrascosa v. McGuire, No. 07-1748/4130 (3rd Cir., March 20, 2008), involved a Spanish mother, once married to an American father, whose child was habitually resident in New Jersey. Upon their divorce, the couple signed a “Parenting Agreement” that established an “interim resolution” of the custody issue and prohibited either of them from traveling outside the country with their daughter. Shortly thereafter, the mother took the daughter to Spain.

A judge in New Jersey issued several orders for the daughter’s return, and when each went unanswered, issued a warrant for the mother’s arrest. In the meantime, however, purporting to follow the Hague Abduction Convention, the Spanish Courts had decided that the Parenting Agreement violated Article 19 of the Spanish Constitution (regarding the freedom to chose one’s place of residence), determined that the removal to that country was not “wrongful” within the meaning of the Convention, and ordered that the daughter remain. When the mother returned to the United States to attend to the divorce proceedings, she was arrested. She challenged her detention as “in violation of the laws and treaties of the United States” through a writ of habeas corpus. In essence, she argued that a decision of the Spanish Court that the Parenting Agreement was null and void should be afforded comity, and void the charges of contempt against her.

The Federal District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the writ, and the Third Circuit affirmed. Applying the Hague Convention and its implementing legislation, the Court recognized that “[t]here is no dispute that [the daughter’s] place of habitual residence, prior to . . . her [removal] to Spain, was the United States, in particular New Jersey.” As to whether her removal to Spain was wrongful under Article 3 of the Hague Convention, the District Court examined whether the father’s custody rights were breached by Victoria’s removal. Because, under New Jersey law, the father had custody rights by virtue of a valid Parenting Agreement, and the mother breached those rights by removing the daughter to Spain without his consent, the removal was “wrongful” within the meaning of Article 3 of the Hague Convention.

The Spanish court, however, in nullifying the Parenting Agreement, never applied New Jersey law, despite their explicit recognition that the daughter’s habitual place of residence was New Jersey. They instead based their decision on the “wrongfulness” of the removal solely on Spanish law, while paying only “lip-service” to the Convention. According to the U.S. Court, this “glaring departure . . . from the mandate of the Hague Convention”—i.e. the “total failure to determine [the father’s] rights of custody under [the law of the child’s habitual residence]”—the decision of the Spanish court was given no weight. The removal was wrongful under the Convention, and the mother’s detention was held to be not “in violation of the law or treaties of the United States.”

The papers presented at the international conference held in March 2007 at the University Carlo Cattaneo of Castellanza (see our previous post), and a final report drafted on the basis of the discussion that arose in the colloquium, have been published by CEDAM, under the editorship of Alberto Malatesta, Stefania Bariatti and Fausto Pocar: “The External Dimension of EC Private International Law in Family and Succession Matters“.

Here’s an excerpt from the Foreword of the volume:

Under the 2005 Framework Programme for Judicial Cooperation in Civil Matters, the European Commission funded an International Research Project presented by the University Carlo Cattaneo of Castellanza on the EC harmonisation of Private International Law and the external relations in family and succession law.

A group of scholars coming from various European countries agreed to undertake the task of carrying out an in-depth analysis of the scope of the Community powers in the field of Private International Law in the above matters, with special reference to relationships connected with third States.

The focus on family and succession law was deemed crucial in the light of the many initiatives of the European Community in this field pursuant to Articles 61(c) and 65 of the EC Treaty, and of the hot debate they raised about the need itself of such measures and their content. On the other hand, in the course of the Research Project, the European Court of Justice rendered the long-awaited Lugano Opinion (Opinion No 1/03), that provided some general guidelines about the future external dimension of the Community action in the conflicts of laws and its role in the international community.

And this is the table of contents (available as a .pdf file on the publisher’s website):

Introductory Speech - Fausto Pocar: The “Communitarization” of Private International Law and its Impact on the External Relations of the European Union;

First Part - EC EXTERNAL RELATIONS AND PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

• Alberto Malatesta: The Lugano Opinion and its Consequences in Family and Succession Matters;
• Andrea Santini: The Doctrine of Implied External Powers and Private International Law Concerning Family and Succession Matters;
• David McClean: Bilateral Agreements with non-Member States after the Lugano Opinion;
• Stefania Bariatti: Bilateral Agreements with non-Member States after the Lugano Opinion: Some Procedural Issues.

General Discussion

• Laura Tomasi: The Application of EC Law to non-Purely intra-Community Situations.

- - - - - - - - -

Second Part - GENERAL PROBLEMS OF EC PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW WITH REGARD TO RELATIONS WITH THIRD STATES

Section 1: Jurisdiction, Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments and Administrative Cooperation

• Alegría Borrás: Lights and Shadows of Communitarisation of Private International Law: Jurisdiction and Enforcement in Family Matters with regard to Relations with Third States;
• Etienne Pataut: International Jurisdiction and Third States: A View from the EC in Family Matters;
• Andrea Bonomi: The Opportunity and the Modalities of the Introduction of Erga Omnes EC Rules on Jurisdiction;
• Marta Pertegás: Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Family and Succession Matters;
• Roberto Baratta: Short Remarks on EC Competence in Matters of Family Law;
• William Duncan: Administrative Cooperation with regard to the International Protection of Children.

General Discussion

• Carola Ricci: Habitual Residence as a Ground of Jurisdiction in Matrimonial Disputes: From Brussels II-bis to Rome III;
• Gaetano Vitellino: European Private International Law and Parallel Proceedings in Third States in Family Matters.

- - - - - - - - -

Section 2: Applicable Law

• Kurt Siehr: Connecting Factors, Party Autonomy and Renvoi;
• Peter McEleavy: Applicable Law and Relations with Third States: The Use and Application of Habitual Residence;
• Th. M. de Boer: Unwelcome Foreign Law: Public Policy and Other Means to Protect the Fundamental Values and Public Interests of the European Community;
• Johan Meeusen: Public Policy in European Private International Law: In Response to the Contribution of Professor Th. M. de Boer on “Unwelcome Foreign Law”;
• Carmen Parra Rodríguez: Characterisation and Interpretation in European Family Law Matters;
• Luigi Fumagalli: Characterization in European Private International Law: Short Notes on the Interpretation Process from Independence to Functionality and Return (to the Tradition).

General Discussion

• Cristina Mariottini: The Internal and External Dimensions in the Harmonization of European Conflict Rules on the Administration of Estates.

Final Report: Alberto Malatesta.

- - - - - - - - -

Title: The External Dimension of EC Private International Law in Family and Succession Matters, edited by Alberto Malatesta, Stefania Bariatti and Fausto Pocar, CEDAM (Studi e pubblicazioni della Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale, n. 71), Padova, 2008, XIV-392 pages.

ISBN: 978-88-13-27276-0. Price: EUR 36.

(Many thanks to Gaetano Vitellino, University “Carlo Cattaneo” of Castellanza, for the tip-off)

Following our post on the release of the final text of the Rome I Regulation, an internal document by the General Secretariat of the Council to the Permanent Representatives Committee (COREPER) confirms that the new Regulation will be soon adopted by the Council (doc. n. 7689/08 of 7 April 2008):

5. The Permanent Representatives Committee is therefore asked to confirm agreement and advise the Council to:

• adopt the Regulation, as set out in PE-CONS 3691/07 JUSTCIV 334 CODEC 1401, as an “A” item at a forthcoming meeting;
• decide to enter in the minutes of that meeting the statements set out in the addendum to this note.

After being signed by the President of the European Parliament, the President of the Council and the Secretaries-General of the two institutions, the legislative act will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Quite surprisingly, as regards the participation of the United Kingdom in the adoption of the Regulation, a footnote of the document states:

In accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community, the United Kingdom and Ireland have given notice of their wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Regulation.

This is probably a mistake, since the United Kingdom has not so far officially opted in (see Recital n. 45 of the Regulation), and a consultation paper on the matter was launched last week by the Ministry of Justice (see our post here).

[UPDATE on the position of the United Kingdom: a revised version of the document has been released - doc. n. 7689/1/08 REV 1 of 9 April 2008 -, where it is clearly stated that, at present, “[i]n accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol […] and without prejudice to Article 4 of the said Protocol, the United Kingdom is not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its application“]

Two statements are set out in the Addendum (doc. n. 7689/08 ADD 1 of 7 April 2008): one by the Council and the Commission, relating to the new conflict rule on insurance contracts (Art. 7 of the new Regulation), and one by the French delegation, on the consistency between the rule on applicable law in consumer contracts (Art. 6) and future revisions of Brussels I Regulation as regards the provisions relating to jurisdiction in the same matter (Section 4, Articles 15-17 of Brussels I Reg.). Here’s the text:

DECLARATION BY THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION RELATING TO THE LAW APPLICABLE TO INSURANCE CONTRACTS

The Council and the Commission note that the rules contained in Article 7 essentially reflect the legal situation as regards applicable law as presently included in the insurance Directives. Any future substantive revision of the present regime should take place in the context of the review clause of this Regulation.

DECLARATION BY THE FRENCH DELEGATION RELATING TO ARTICLE 6 OF ROME I ON THE LAW APPLICABLE TO CONSUMERS

In view of the importance of conflict-of-law rules in international private law, and in order to achieve the objective, laid down in Article 153 of the EC Treaty, of ensuring a high level of consumer protection within the Community, France wishes to state that, in the revision of Regulation 44/2001 EC on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, the provisions relating to jurisdiction (section 4 of Brussels I) must be consistent with Article 6 of the Regulation applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), concerning the law applicable to consumer contracts.

Theodore Eisenberg (Cornell Law School) and Geoffrey P. Miller (New York University) have on the NELLCO Repository posted a working paper titled “The Flight to New York: An Empirical Study of Choice of Law and Choice of Forum Clauses in Publicly-Held Companies’ Contracts” (March 31, 2008, New York University Law and Economics Working Papers. Paper 124). Here is the abstract:

We study choice of law and choice of forum in a data set of 2,882 contracts contained as exhibits in Form 8-K filings by reporting corporations over a six month period in 2002 for twelve types of contracts and a seven month period in 2002 for merger contracts. These material contracts likely are carefully negotiated by sophisticated parties who are well-informed about the contract terms. They therefore provide evidence of efficient ex ante solutions to contracting problems. In prior work examining merger contracts, acquiring firms incorporated in Delaware tended to select Delaware law or a Delaware forum to govern disputes under the merger agreements less frequently than firms in other states (New York in particular) specified the law or forum of those states. For the broader variety of contracts analyzed here, the contracting parties rarely opt for Delaware law other than for merger contracts and contracts establishing Delaware business trusts. New York law is the favored choice, with New York law chosen in 46 percent of the contracts and Delaware law, the second most frequent selection, chosen in 15 percent of the contracts. New York law was overwhelmingly favored for financing contracts, but was also preferred for most other types of contracts. With respect to choice of forum, the major finding is that a litigation forum was specified only for 39 percent of the contracts. Among those 39 percent of contracts, New York is the favored forum, accounting for 41 percent of the choices, with Delaware a distant second and accounting for 11 percent of the forum choices. When a forum is specified it usually matches the contract’s choice of law. We also explore the decision to designate a forum, mismatches between choice of law and choice of forum, and whether parties designate an exclusive litigation forum. Overall, New York law plays a role for major corporate contracts similar to the role Delaware law plays in the limited setting of corporate governance disputes.

The paper is available here.

As we noted in a previous post, the agreement reached by the European Parliament and the Council on the Rome I Regulation was transposed by the EP in its amendments at first reading to the initial Commission’s Proposal. Once revised by the lawyer-linguists, this modified version of the Regulation would have been adopted by the Council, ending the codecision procedure.

The text resulting from the legal and linguistic revision is now available in all languages of the EU in the Register of the Council (doc. PE-CONS 3691/07 of 31 March 2008). Given the heading of the document (European Parliament and the Council), it can be assumed that this is the final version of the Rome I Regulation on the law applicable to contractual obligations.

According to current schedule (see the Rome I OEIL page), the text should be approved by the JHA Council in its meeting of 17/18 April 2008. Further information will be posted as soon as it is available.

The Ministry of Justice has launched a public consultation on whether the UK should opt (back) in to the Rome I Regulation (see all Rome I entries on this site here.) The press release states:

The Rome I proposal will provide clarity over which law applies if a dispute arises over a contract made between people or businesses from different countries, allowing cross border trade to continue with confidence.  

When the European Commission first announced the proposals in 2005, the UK government took the unusual step of opting out of the proposals, as they would not have been in the interests of UK businesses. However, following intense negotiations, a substantially revised and hugely improved version has now been agreed.

Announcing the publication of the ‘Rome I - Should the UK opt in?’ consultation today, Bridget Prentice, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State said:

‘The government has always said that we will not opt into EU measures which are not in our national interest. The original proposal was clearly not right for Britain, but the new and much improved regulation will help to ensure that the rules in this very technical area are applied uniformly. This will ensure a level playing field for British business in Europe.’

Notes to editors

• The 1980 Rome Convention was implemented into UK law by the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990. It applies throughout the UK.
• The original Rome I Regulation was released by the European Commission in December 2005.
• The UK exercised its right not to opt in to the proposed Regulation in May 2006 [see our news item here]. This was only the second time that the UK had opted out of a Regulation under its special arrangements on Title IV of the Treaty establishing the European Community. To opt in, it will have to seek the permission of the European Commission, and agree a timetable for implementation.
• Negotiations on the Rome I Regulation ended with political agreement among Member States in December 2007. Jurist-linguists are presently checking the text for linguistic integrity. The Regulation will be adopted at the next meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council in April of June. The main provisions of the Regulation will come into force 18 months later.
• The UK government negotiated on behalf of all UK jurisdictions, and the consultation paper is a joint project of the Ministry of Justice and the devolved administrations.

The conclusion in the (lengthy) consultation paper itself is that,

The Government’s assessment of the Regulation as a whole is that it would be in the national interest for the UK to apply it, subject to gaining the approval of the Commission. Not only have the initial problems with the Commission’s proposal generally been resolved, but also in some significant respects the Regulation represents an improvement on the Convention. Moreover, the maintenance of a single European instrument continues to be of benefit, as it was under the Rome Convention.

The questions posed by the consultation paper are:

• Is it in the national interest for the Government, in accordance with Article 4 of the UK’s Protocol on Title IV measures, to seek to opt in to the Regulation? If not, please explain why.
• Should the Rome I rules apply throughout the UK if the UK opts in to the Regulation? If not, please explain why.
• Do you agree with the Partial Impact Assessment at Annex A of the consultation paper? If not, please explain why.

Your responses need to be received by the UK Government no later than 25 June 2008.

Symeon Symeonides (Williamette) has posted “The American Revolution and the European Evolution in Choice of Law: Reciprocal Lessons” on SSRN (forthcoming in Tulane Law Review, Vol. 82, No. 5, 2008.) Here’s the abstract:

This Article is an invited contribution to a symposium held at Duke University Law School under the title “The New European Choice-of-Law Revolution: Lessons for the United States?” [see here] The Article disputes part of this title by contending that, unlike its American counterpart, European private international law (PIL) has rejected the route of revolution and has instead opted for a quiet and continuing evolution. Nevertheless, this evolution has produced statutory rules and exceptions that resolve several categories of tort conflicts in the same way as American courts after four decades of “revolution,” experimentation, and reinventing the wheel in each case. The quality and efficiency of these rules suggest that revolution is not necessarily the most productive nor quickest route to renewal and improvement. The Article concludes that the European experience can help American conflicts law overcome its innate anti-rule syndrome and develop its own rules without surrendering the methodological or substantive gains of the choice-of-law revolution. Thus, the Article answers affirmatively the question posed by the Symposium’s subtitle.

The Article also turns the Symposium’s question in the opposite direction by asking whether the American conflicts experience holds any lessons for Europe. The Article concludes that a discerning examination of this experience can help European PIL in several ways, including fine-tuning its own choice-of-law rules, allowing more flexible exceptions, overcoming its own phobias against issue-by-issue analysis and depecage, and recognizing and appropriately resolving certain false conflicts

Download the paper from SSRN.

During the spring of 2008, the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law will organize several events:

On 29 March 2008 the Max Planck Institute and the Claussen Simon Foundation will hold a colloquium on the Education of Jurists and Judges.

On 31 March 2008 Prof. Dr. Lu Song (Director, Institute of International Law, China Foreign Affairs University) will present a lecture titled “Introduction to the New Conflict Rules for Foreign-related Contracts in China — Judicial Interpretation by the Chinese Supreme Court”.

On 14 April 2008 Professor Dr. Joseph Thomson from the Scottish Law Commission, Edinburgh will hold a guest lecture titled, “Some Thoughts about Loss”.

On 19 and 20 May 2008 the Institute will host the second Max Planck Postdoc Conference on European Private Law at which junior researchers from throughout Europe will be invited to present and discuss their research work.

For further information, have a look at the MPI website.

Recently, the March issue of “Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts” (IPRax) was released.

It contains the following articles/case notes (including the reviewed decisions):

• R. Wagner/B. Timm on the German ministerial draft bill on the law applicable to companies, juristic persons and associations (”Der Referentenentwurf eines Gesetzes zum Internationalen Privatrecht der Gesellschaften, Vereine und juristischen Personen”). The English abstract reads as follows:

Companies that operate across borders need clarity with regard to which respective national law applies to them. There are some decisions of the European Court of Justice on the right of settlement according to the Treaty which touch this matter. However, no uniform picture has yet emerged in the European Union. A uniform European regulation would be desirable, but the EU-Commission has not taken up this question yet. In order to promote legal certainty, the German Federal Ministry of Justice has therefore presented a ministerial draft bill on the law applicable to companies, juristic persons and associations. The bill might later on serve as the basis for work on a European regulation. As a general rule, the ministerial draft bill provides for the “law of establishment”, i.e. the law at the place of registration, as the law applicable to companies, legal persons and associations. For non-registered companies, legal persons and associations, the applicable law is to be that under which they are organised. Furthermore, the proposed bill clarifies the scope of “the law of establishment” and contains regulations regarding the law applicable to cross-border reorganisations, the change of applicable law and other aspects of cross-border cases.

• J. Fingerhuth/J. Rumpf on the consequences of the German MoMiG for cross-border relocations of German entities (”MoMiG und die grenzüberschreitende Sitzverlegung - Die Sitztheorie ein (lebendes) Fossil?”). Here is the English abstract:

The German government rendered a top-to-bottom reform of the German Law on Limited Liability Companies (‘GmbHG’) with the governmental draft of the MoMiG dated 23 May 2007. The reform also covers the German law on Stock Corporations (‘AktG’) and general corporate law matters. It is intended by the reform to abandon the required concurrence of statutory seat and seat of the head office of a company and, therefore, to allow German GmbHs and AGs to move their head office to another country (cross-border relocation). Both GmbH and AG will have the same opportunities as entities from countries, where the incorporation theory is applicable. The article discusses the consequences of the MoMiG for cross-border relocations of German entities. In particular, by using the example of the GmbH & Co KG, the authors illustrate problems arising from the intentions of the MoMiG and the ‘real seat’ theory as it is currently applied in Germany. Furthermore, the authors discuss the need for German entities to completely apply the incorporation theory in Germany. The article comes to the conclusion that the ‘real seat’ theory will be entirely abandoned by the MoMiG becoming effective. The authors finally encourage the legislator to express this consequence literally within the reasoning of the MoMiG.

• A.-K. Bitter on the interpretative connection between the Brussels I Regulation and the (future) Rome I Regulation (”Auslegungszusammenhang zwischen der Brüssel I-Verordnung und der künftigen Rom I-Verordnung”)

• A. Kampf on the implications of the European directive on services on PIL (”EU-Dienstleistungsrichtlinie und Kollisionsrecht”). The abstract reads:

On 28 December 2006, after a period of almost three years of debate and political manoeuvring, the European directive on services (2006/123/EC) came into force. It will have to be implemented by the Member States by 28 December 2009 at the latest. The directive applies to a wide range of service activities based upon the case law of the European Court of Justice relating to the freedom of establishment and the free movement of services. In order to make it easier for businesses to set up in other Member States or to provide services across-border on a temporary basis, each Member State shall set up Points of Single Contact. These shall ensure that providers have access to all necessary information and can complete the formalities necessary for doing business in other Member States. Moreover regulatory and authorization bodies across the EU are meant to cooperate more effectively. The directive is expected to engender consumer confidence in cross-border services through access to information. Restrictive legislation and practices shall be abolished after having been screened. A rather neglected aspect in public discussion are the directive’s implications on private international law. Nevertheless they should be examined for both practical and systematic reasons.

• A. Fuchs on the question of international jurisdiction for direct actions against the insurer in the courts of the Member State where the injured party is domiciled (”Internationale Zuständigkeit für Direktklagen”), (ECJ, 13.12.2007, C-463/06 (FBTO Schadeverzekeringen N.V. v. Jack Odenbreit); Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe, 7.9.2007 - 14 W 31/07; Local Court Bremen, 6.2.2007 - 4 C 251/06). This is the English abstract:

The injured party may bring an action directly against the insurer in the courts of the place in a Member State where the injured party is domiciled, provided that such a direct action is permitted and the insurer is domiciled in a Member State. This follows, according to the judgment of the ECJ, from the reference in Article 11 (2) of the Brussels I Regulation to Article 9 (1) (b). The previous judgment of the first instance court in Bremen was based on the same argument. However, according to a judgment of the court of appeal in Karlsruhe, courts at the place of domicile of the injured party lack international jurisdiction under the Lugano Convention. Fuchs argues that neither the wording nor the historic interpretation support the assumption of jurisdiction of the courts in the state where the injured party is domiciled. This situation has not been altered in the course of the transfer of the Brussels Convention into a regulation. The main argument in favour of admitting direct claims before the courts of the injured party’s domicile can be drawn from the systematic interpretation. However, this additional place of jurisdiction will have undesirable consequences such as forum shopping and race to the court. In case of Article 11 (3), it will lead to unforeseeable results for the policyholder or the insured. Furthermore, it may have a negative economic impact for drivers in relatively poor Member States. The author criticizes the European legislator for not having discussed these issues openly in the context of the Brussels I Regulation.

• A. Staudinger on a decision of the German Federal Supreme Court on the scope of the head of jurisdiction of Art. 15 (2) Brussels I Regulation (”Reichweite des Verbrauchergerichtsstandes nach Art. 15 Abs. 2 EuGVVO”), (Federal Supreme Court, 12.6.2007 - XI ZR 290/06)

• E. Eichenhofer on a decision of the Higher Labour Court Frankfurt (Main) dealing with the question of international jurisdiction regarding contribution claims of German social security benefits offices against employers having their seat in another EU Member State (”Internationale Zuständigkeit für Beitragsforderungen deutscher tariflicher Sozialkassen gegen Arbeitgeber mit Sitz in anderen EU-Staaten”), (Higher Labour Court Frankfurt (Main), 12.2.2007 - 16 Sa 1366/06)

• J. von Hein on the concentration of jurisdiction regarding appeals in cross-border cases according to § 119 (1) No. 1 lit. b GVG (”Die Zuständigkeitskonzentration für die Berufung in Auslandssachen nach § 119 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 lit. b GVG - ein gescheitertes Experiment?”), (Federal Supreme Court, 19.6.2007 - VI ZB 3/07 and 27.6.2007 - XII ZB 114/06)

• D. Henrich on the question of renvoi in PIL of names occurring due to a different qualification by foreign law (”Rückverweisung aufgrund abweichender Qualifikation im internationalen Namensrecht”), (Federal Supreme Court, 20.6.2007 - XII ZB 17/04)

• B. König on the requirements of due information as well as the scope of application of the Regulation creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims (”EuVTVO: Belehrungserfordernisse und Anwendungsbereich”), (Regional Court Wels, 5.6.2006 - 1 Cg 159/06m, Higher Regional Court Linz, 4.7.2007 - 1 R 124/07x)

• A. Laptew/S. Kopylov on the requirement of reciprocity with regard to the enforcement of foreign judgments between the Russian Federation and Germany (Yukos Oil Company) (”Zum Erfordernis der Gegenseitgkeit bei der Vollstreckung ausländischer Urteile zwischen der Russischen Föderation und der Bundesrepublick Deutschland (Fall Yukos Oil Company)”), (Federal Commercial District Court Moscow, 2.3.2006 - KG-A40/698-06P)

• H. Krüger on the recognition and enforcement of foreign titels in Cameroon (”Zur Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer Titel in Kamerun”)

• A. Jahn on PIL questions in the context of withdrawals of wills due to marriage in anglo-american legal systems (”Kollisionsrechtliche Fragen des Widerrufs eines Testamentes durch Heirat in anglo-amerikanischen Rechtsordnungen”)

• C. Jessel-Holst on the Statute of Private International Law of the Republic of Macedonia (”Zum Gesetzbuch über internationales Privatrecht der Republik Mazedonien”)

Further, this issue contains the following materials:

• Statute of Private International Law of the Republic of Macedonia of 4 July 2007 (”Gesetz über internationales Privatrecht - Gesetz der Republik Mazedonien vom 4.7.2007″)

• Luxembourg Protocol to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment on Matters Specific to Railway Rolling Stock - signed in Luxembourg on 23 February 2007 (”Protokoll von Luxemburg zum Übereinkommen über internationale Sicherungsrechte an beweglicher Ausrüstung betreffend Besonderheiten des rollenden Eisenbahnmaterials - unterzeichnet in Luxemburg am 23.2.2007″)

As well as the following information:

• H.-G. Bollweg/K. Kreuzer on the Luxembourg Protocol to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment on Matters Specific to Railway Rolling Stock (”Das Luxemburger Eisenbahnprotokoll – „Protokoll zum Übereinkommen über internationale Sicherungsrechte an beweglicher Ausrüstung betreffend Besonderheiten des rollenden Eisenbahnmaterials“ vom 23. 2. 2007″)

• E. Jayme on the (critical) debate in France about the Community’s competence in PIL which was made public by French PIL professors by means of open letters on this issue (”Frankreich: Professorenstreit zum Europäischen IPR – einige Betrachtungen”)

• E. Jayme on the convention of the Ludwig-Boltzmann-Institutes in Vienna (”Kodifikation des IPR, des grenzüberschreitenden Zivilrechts und Zivilverfahrensrechts in der Europäischen Union – Tagung der Ludwig-Boltzmann-Institute in Wien”)

• C. Gross: report on the 40th UNCITRAL session (”Bericht über die 40. Sitzung der Kommission der Vereinten Nationen zum internationalen Handelsrecht (UNCITRAL)”)

For recent information on PIL see also the website of the Institute for Private International Law, Cologne.

(Many thanks to Prof. Dr. Heinz-Peter Mansel, editor of the journal (University of Cologne) for providing the English abstracts.)

In Vogler v. Szendroi (available here) the plaintiff, resident in Nova Scotia, was injured in a car accident in Wyoming.  Three years later he issued legal process in Nova Scotia.  This was inside the four-year Wyoming limitation period, which applied as part of the substantive law applicable to the claim (under the place of the tort rule in Tolofson v. Jensen).  However, he did not serve the defendant for another three years. 

Under Wyoming law, an action is commenced by filing process with the court (the same is true in Nova Scotia), but if service is not made within 60 days of filing, the action is not considered to have been commenced until the date of service (Nova Scotia has no similar provision). 

The issue therefore was whether the specific rule of Wyoming law focusing on the date of service was substantive, and so applied in the Nova Scotia litigation, or procedural, and so did not apply.  The lower court held that the rule was “integral” to the Wyoming limitations rule and was therefore substantive.  But the Court of Appeal reversed and characterized it as procedural.

The court’s analysis is quite lengthy - longer than necessary for this issue.  But it does contain some useful comments about the substance-procedure distinction (at paras. 17-22 and 26).  It also relies on a useful academic source on this specific issue by Professor Janet Walker (at paras. 37-39).  Ultimately the court concludes the Wyoming rule is not bound up in its limitations rule, and is rather a separate procedural rule.

It has been a little while since my last trawl through the law journals, and a few articles and casenotes have been published in the intervening period that private international law enthusiasts may wish to add to their reading list:

J.M. Carruthers, “De Facto Cohabitation: the International Private Law Dimension” (2008) 12 Edinburgh Law Review 51 - 76.

P. Beaumont & Z. Tang, “Classification of Delictual Damages - Harding v Wealands and the Rome II Regulation” (2008) 12 Edinburgh Law Review 131 - 136.

G. Ruhl, “Extending Ingmar to Jurisdiction and Arbitration Clauses: The End of Party Autonomy in Contracts with Commercial Agents?” (2007) 6 European Review of Private Law 891 - 903. An abstract:

In the judgment discussed below, the Appeals Court of Munich (OLG München) deals with the question whether jurisdiction and arbitration clauses have to be set aside in the light of the Ingmar decision of the European Court of Justice where they cause a derogation from Articles 17 and 18 of the Commercial Agents Directive. The Court concludes that this question should be answered in the affirmative if it is ‘likely’ that the designated court or arbitral tribunal will neither apply Articles 17 and 18 nor compensate the commercial agent on different grounds. Thus, the Court advocates that Articles 17 and 18 be given extensive protection. This is, however, problematic because such extensive protection imposes serious restrictions on party autonomy, whereas these restrictions are not required by Community law in general or by the principle of effectiveness in particular. Therefore, it is very much open to doubt whether this decision is in the best interests of the Internal Market.

F. Bolton & R. Radia, “Restrictive covenants: foreign jurisdiction clauses” (2008) 87 Employment Law Journal 12 - 14. The abstract:

Reviews the Queen’s Bench Division judgment in Duarte v Black and Decker Corp and the Court of Appeal decision in Samengo-Turner v J&H Marsh & McLennan (Services) Ltd on whether restrictive covenants were enforceable under foreign jurisdiction clauses contained in the long-term incentive plan agreements of UK domiciled employees of multinational companies. Examines the conflict of laws and whether English law applied under the Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations 1980 Art.16 and under Regulation 44/2001 Arts.18 and 20.

W. Tetley, “Canadian Maritime Law” L.M.C.L.Q. 2007, 3(Aug) Supp (International Maritime and Commercial Law Yearbook 2007), 13-42. The blurb:

Reviews Canadian case law and legislative developments in shipping law in 2005 and 2006, including cases on: (1) carriage of goods by sea; (2) fishing regulations; (3) lease of port facilities; (4) sale of ships; (5) personal injury; (6) recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments; (7) shipping companies’ insolvency; (8) collision; and (9) marine insurance.

S. James, “Decision Time Approaches - Political agreement on Rome I: will the UK opt back in?” (2008) 23 Butterworths Journal of International Banking & Financial Law 8. The abstract:

Assesses the extent to which European Commission proposed amendments to the Draft Regulation on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) meet the concerns of the UK financial services industry relating to the original proposal. Notes changes relating to discretion and governing law, assignment and consumer contracts.

A. Onetto, “Enforcement of foreign judgments: a comparative analysis of common law and civil law” (2008) 23 Butterworths Journal of International Banking & Financial Law 36 - 38. The abstract:

Provides an overview of the enforcement of foreign judgments in common law and civil law jurisdictions by reference to a scenario involving the enforcement of an English judgment in the US and Argentina. Reviews the principles and procedures applicable to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the US and Argentina respectively, including enforcement expenses and legal fees. Includes a table comparing the procedures for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in California, Washington DC and New York.

J. Carp, “I’m an Englishman working in New York” (2008) 152 Solicitors Journal 16 - 17. The abstract:

Reviews case law on issues arising where a national of one country works in another country. Sets out a step by step approach to ascertaining: the law governing the employment contract; the applicability of mandatory labour laws, including cases on unfair dismissal, discrimination, working time, and the transfer of undertakings; which country has jurisdiction; and public policy. Offers practical suggestions for drafting multinational contracts.

J. Murphy - O’Connor, “Anarchic and unfair? Common law enforcement of foreign judgments in Ireland” 2007 2 Bankers’ Law 41 - 44. Abstract:

Discusses the Irish High Court judgment in Re Flightlease (Ireland) Ltd (In Voluntary Liquidation) on whether, in the event that the Swiss courts ordered the return of certain monies paid by a Swiss airline, in liquidation, to an Irish company, also in liquidation, such order would be enforceable in Ireland. Considers whether: (1) the order would be excluded from enforcement under the common law on the basis that it arose from a proceeding in bankruptcy or insolvency; and (2) the order would be recognised on the basis of a “real and substantial connection” test, rather than traditional conflict of laws rules.

V. Van Den Eeckhout, “Promoting human rights within the Union: the role of European private international law” 2008 14 European Law Journal 105 - 127. The abstract:

This article aims to contribute both to the ‘Refgov’ project, which is focused on the ambition to find ways of promoting human rights within the EU, but also, more in general and apart from the project, to an improved understanding of the crucial place conflict of law rules occupy in the building of a common Europe—a highly political question behind apparently technical issues. In the study the author deals with the parameters, points of interest, etc in relation to private international law which should be heeded if European Member States ‘look at’ each other’s laws, and—in the context of the ‘Refgov’ project—if the idea is to exchange ‘best practices’ or harmonise substantive law, or to harmonise private international law, etc further through a type of open method of coordination. The contribution also shows that private international law issues are decisive in respect of every evaluation of the impact of European integration on human rights, both if this integration process takes place through ‘negative’ harmonisation (for example by falling back on the principle of mutual recognition) and through ‘positive’ harmonisation.

R. Swallow & R. Hornshaw, “Jurisdiction clauses in loan agreements: practical considerations for lenders” (2007) 1 Bankers’ Law 18 - 22. Abstract:

Assesses the implications for borrowers and lenders of the Commercial Court judgment in JP Morgan Europe Ltd v Primacom AG on whether proceedings brought in Germany challenging the validity a debt facility agreement were to be treated as the first seised under Regulation 44/2001 Art.27 (Brussels I Regulation), despite the fact that the agreement contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the English courts. Advises lenders on the drafting of loan agreements to help mitigate the risk of a jurisdiction clause being frustrated. Considers the steps that might be taken by the lender once a dispute has arisen.

A. Dutton, “Islamic finance and English law” (2007) 1 Bankers’ Law 22 - 25. Abstract:

Reviews cases relating to Islamic finance, including: (1) the Commercial Court decision in Islamic Investment Co of the Gulf (Bahamas) Ltd v Symphony Gems NV on whether the defendant was liable to make payments under a Sharia compliant contract governed by English law that would contravene Sharia law; (2) the Court of Appeal ruling in Shamil Bank of Bahrain EC v Beximco Pharmaceuticals Ltd (No.1) interpreting a choice of law clause expressed as English law “subject to the principles” of Sharia law; and (3) the Commercial Court judgment in Riyad Bank v Ahli United Bank (UK) Plc on whether the defendant owed a duty of care to a Sharia compliant fund where it had contracted directly with its parent bank.

J. Burke & A. Ostrovskiy, “The intermediated securities system: Brussels I breakdown” (2007) 5 European Legal Forum 197 - 205. Abstract:

Presents a hypothetical case study of a dispute arising from a cross-border securities transaction involving parties from the UK, Sweden and Finland to examine the application of the private international law regime under Regulation 44/2001 Art.5(1) (Brussels I Regulation), the Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations 1980 Art.4 (Rome Convention) and the Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Certain Rights in Respect of Securities Held with an Intermediary. Considers the extent to which commercial developments in the securities industry have outstripped the current conflicts of law rules.

M. Requejo, “Transnational human rights claims against a state in the European Area of Freedom, Justice and Security: a view on ECJ judgment, 15 February 2007 - C292/05 - Lechouritou, and some recent Regulations” (2007) 5 European Legal Forum 206 - 210. Abstract:

Comments on the European Court of Justice ruling in Lechouritou v Germany (C-292/05) on whether a private action for compensation brought against Germany with respect to human rights abuses committed by its armed forces during its occupation of Greece in the Second World War fell within the scope of the Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968 Art.1, thus preventing the defendant from claiming immunity for acts committed during armed conflict. Examines the EC and US jurisprudential context for such private damages claims.

L. Osana, “Brussels I Regulation Article 5(3): German Law Against Restrictions on Competition” (2007) 5 European Legal Forum 211 - 212. Abstract:

Summarises the Hamburg Court of Appeal decision in Oberlandesgericht (Hamburg) (1 Kart-U 5/06) on whether the German courts had jurisdiction under Regulation 44/2001 Art.5(3) (Brussels I Regulation) to order a German tour operator not to incite Spanish hotels to refuse to supply contingents to a competitor German tour operator, behaviour that had been found to be anti-competitive.

C. Tate, “American Forum Non Conveniens in Light of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements” (2007) 69 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 165 - 187.

E. Costa, “European Union: litigation - applicable law” (2008) 19 International Company and Commercial Law Review 7 - 10. Abstract:

Traces the history of how both the Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations 1980 (Rome I) and Regulation 864/2007 (Rome II) became law. Explains how Rome II regulates disputes involving non-contractual obligations and determines the applicable law. Notes areas where Rome II does not apply, and looks at the specific example of how Rome II would regulate a dispute involving product liability, including the habitual residence test.

E.T. Lear, “National Interests, Foreign Injuries, and Federal Forum Non Conveniens” (2007) 41 University of California Davis Law Review 559 - 604 [Full Text Here]. Abstract:

This Article argues that the federal forum non conveniens doctrine subverts critical national interests in international torts cases. For over a quarter century, federal judges have assumed that foreign injury cases, particularly those filed by foreign plaintiffs, are best litigated abroad. This assumption is incorrect. Foreign injuries caused by multinational corporations who tap the American market implicate significant national interests in compensation and/or deterrence. Federal judges approach the forum non conveniens decision as if it were a species of choice of law, as opposed to a choice of forum question. Analyzing the cases from an adjudicatory perspective reveals that in the case of an American resident plaintiff injured abroad, an adequate alternative forum seldom exists; each time a federal court dismisses such a claim, the American interest in compensation is irrevocably impaired. With respect to deterrence, an analysis focusing properly on adjudicatory factors demonstrates that excluding foreign injury claims, even those brought by foreign plaintiffs, seriously undermines our national interest in deterring corporate malfeasance.

I am sure that I have missed various articles or case comments published in the last couple of months. If you spot any that are not on this list (or, even better, if you have written one and it is not on this list), please let me know.

Stefan Voigt (Marburg) has written an interesting article titled “Are International Merchants Stupid? Their Choice of Law Sheds Doubt on the Legal Origin Theory” which has been published originally in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, March 2008, Vol. 5, Issue 1 and has been posted on SSRN.

The abstract reads as follows:

In economics, there is currently an important discussion on the role of legal origins or legal families. Some economists claim that legal origins play a crucial role even today. Usually, they distinguish between Common Law, French, Scandinavian and German legal origin. When these legal origins are compared, countries belonging to the Common Law tradition regularly come out best (with regard to many different dimensions) and countries belonging to the French legal origin worst.

In international transactions, contracting parties can choose the substantive law according to which they want to structure their transactions. In this paper, this choice is interpreted as revealed preference for a specific legal regime. It is argued that the superiority-of-common-law view can be translated into the hypothesis that sophisticated and utility-maximizing actors would rationally choose a substantive law based on the Common Law tradition such as English or US American law. Although exact statistics are not readily available, the evidence from cases that end up with international arbitration courts (such as the International Court of Arbitration run by the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris) demonstrates that this is not the case. This evidence sheds, hence, some doubt on the superiority-of-the-common-law view.

The article can be downloaded from SSRN as well as from Blackwell Synergy (with subscription).

(Many thanks to Prof. Dr. Jan von Hein (Trier) for the tip-off!)

On 9 January 2008 Evelyne Gebhardt, Rapporteur in the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE), has released her Draft report on the Commission’s Proposal for a Council regulation amending regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 as regards jurisdiction and introducing rules concerning applicable law in matrimonial matters (COM(2006)399 of 17 July 2006).

Pursuant to Rule 47 of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure (16th edition - November 2007), the Rome III regulation is subject to the procedure with associated committees, since its subject matter ‘falls almost equally within the competence of two committees’ (as determined in Annex VI to the Rules of Procedure), and it is under the primary responsibility of the LIBE Committee, while the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) has been asked for an opinion. Carlo Casini, draftsman for the JURI Committee, presented a Draft opinion on 4 December 2007, that was discussed in the meeting of 19 December 2007.

The ‘Rome III’ file currently being examined by the LIBE Committee is thus formed by the following documents, besides the initial Commission’s Proposal and Annexes - SEC(2006)949 and SEC(2006)950 - of 17 July 2006:

• a Draft report prepared by Rapporteur Gebhardt, containing 27 amendments to the text proposed by the Commission;
• an interesting Working document on the law applicable in matrimonial matters, prepared by the Rapporteur;
• a Draft opinion delivered by the JURI Committee (draftsman: Carlo Casini).

Once the Report is adopted in the LIBE Committee, the exam of the Rome III regulation is scheduled in the plenary session of the European Parliament on 22 April 2008 (see the OEIL page on the status of the procedure).

It must be stressed that, pursuant to Art. 67(5) of the EC Treaty, the Rome III regulation is subject to the consultation procedure, so the Council is not bound by Parliament’s position. The latest Council’s document publicly available on the matter is a text drafted in June by the German and Portuguese Presidency on the basis of the meetings of the Committee on Civil Law Matters and of the comments of Member States’ delegations (doc. n. 11295 of 28 June 2007). The latest ‘Summary of discussions’ (doc. n. 5753/08, currently not accessible) was prepared by the Committee on Civil Law Matters on 28 January 2008.

A political agreement is expected to be reached in the Council by the end of the Slovenian Presidency (June 2008). For further information on the Rome III regulation, see the dedicated section of our site.

On Saturday 9th February 2008, Duke University School of Law will host an international conference entitled, “The New European Choice-of-Law Revolution: Lessons for the United States.” Here’s the blurb:

In a globalizing world of interdependent legal systems, determining which laws apply to international private transactions is crucial. Choice of Law, the field that deals with these questions, was once so vibrant in the U.S. that we spoke of a veritable choice-of-law-revolution in the sixties and seventies. At that time, Europeans watched, with a mixture of fascination and disdain, these developments at the forefront of scholarship in this field.

Now, the pendulum has swung. The field is in a crisis in the United States, unattractive to scholars, and disliked by courts. By contrast, it is thriving in Europe. The most important choice-of-law questions are being addressed wholesale in the European Union. Rules are being unified in Europe-wide codifications, especially two regulations promulgated in 2007 and 2008 dealing with contractual and non-contractual obligations, respectively.The European Court of Justice is rendering important decisions and academics are engaging in active discussions and debates.

After the American choice-of-law revolution in the sixties and seventies, are we now observing a new European choice-of-law revolution? Can European developments incite reforms and rekindle excitement in the U.S., as earlier American developments incited reforms in Europe? Alternatively, are European developments a model of how things should not be done?

This conference brings together leading scholars from both the United States and Europe to engage in debate and comparative examination of approaches taken in Europe and the United States, with an eye towards renewing interest here in the United States. Methodological issues to be discussed include, federalization of choice of law, choice of law as an instrument of market regulation and methodological approaches. Substantive issues include choice of law in family, tort, contract, and corporate law. There will be ample time for the panelists to field questions and discuss these issues with those attending.

Sponsored by Duke University Center for International & Comparative Law in collaboration with the Tulane Law Review. Students are encouraged to attend.

The programme:

Saturday, February 9, 2008
Registration and Continental Breakfast 8:30 - 9:00

Welcome and Opening Remarks 9:00 - 9:15
Dean David Levi (Duke Law School)
Ralf Michaels (Center for International and Comparative Law)
Haller Jackson (Tulane Law Review)

Part I - Specific Areas of Law
Contract and Tort Law 9:15 - 10:45
Panelists:
Patrick Borchers, Professor of Law, Vice-President for Academic Affairs,
Creighton University School of Law
Jan von Hein, Professor of Law, Universität Trier
Dennis Solomon, Professor of Law, Universität Tübingen
Symeon Symeonides, Professor of Law, Dean, Willamette College of Law

Family Law 11:00 - 12:15
Panelists:
Katharina Boele-Woelki, Professor of Law, Universiteit Utrecht
Marta Pertegás, Associate Professor International Private Law, Universiteit Antwerpen
Linda Silberman, Martin Lipton Professor of Law, New York University School of Law

Lunch Break: 12:15-13:30

Corporate Law 13:30 - 14:45
Panelists:
Larry Catá Backer, Professor of Law, Penn State Dickinson School of Law, Visiting Professor of Law, Tulane University Law School
Jens Dammann, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law
Onnig Dombalagian, Associate Professor of Law, Tulane University Law School

Part II -Methodology
Methods and Approaches 14:45 - 16:15
Moderator: TBA
Panelists:
Richard Fentiman, Solicitor, Reader in Private International Law, University of Cambridge Faculty of Law
Ralf Michaels, Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law
William A. Reppy Jr., Charles L. B. Lowndes Emeritus Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law
William M. Richman, Professor of Law, The University of Toledo College of Law

Internal and External Conflicts, Federalism and Market Regulation 16:30 - 18:00
Panelists:
Mathias W. Reimann, Hessel E. Yntema Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
Jürgen Basedow, Professor of Law, Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law
Horatia Muir Watt, Professor of Law, Université Paris I, Panthéon-Sorbonne
Erin O’Hara, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law School
Larry Ribstein, Mildred Van Voorhis Jones Chair in Law, University of Illinois College of Law
Closing Discussion: 18:00 - 18:30

More information can be found on the conference website.

With the start of a new year, and the concomitant end of an old one, comes the twenty-first instalment of Symeon Symeonides‘ annual survey of US decisions relating to choice-of-law issues. It is, as always, both a rigorous piece of research and an excellent resource. Here’s the abstract:

This is the Twenty-First Annual Survey of American Choice-of-Law Cases. It covers cases decided by American state or federal courts from January 1 to December 31, 2007, and reported during the same period. Of the 3,676 conflicts cases meeting both of these parameters, the Survey focuses on the cases that deal with the choice-of-law part of conflicts law, and then discusses those cases that may add something new to the development or understanding of that part. The Survey is intended as a service to fellow teachers and students of conflicts law, both within and outside the United States. Its purpose is to inform rather than to advocate. The following are among the cases reviewed in the Survey:

A California Supreme Court decision involving recordings of cross border communications and another California case raising issues of cross-border discrimination in managing a web site; a product-liability decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court backtracking from its earlier pro-plaintiff decisions, and several other cases continuing to apply the pro-defendant law of the victim’s home state and place of injury; several cases arising out of the events of September 11, 2001, and a few cases involving claims of torture (by them and us); the first guest statute conflict in years, as well as a case eerily similar to Schultz v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc.; two cases in which foreign plaintiffs succeeded, and many more cases in which US plaintiffs failed, to obtain certification of a nationwide class action; a case involving alienation of affections and one involving palimony between non-cohabitants; several cases involving deadly combinations of choice-of-law, choice-of-forum, and arbitration clauses; three cases involving the paternity or maternity of children born after artificial insemination, in three different combinations (known sperm donor, unknown sperm donor, and unknown egg donor); a case involving the child of a Vermont civil union and holding that DOMA does not trump the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act; a case involving the constitutionality of a Missouri statute affecting out-of-state abortions of Missouri minors; and one US Supreme Court decision allowing federal courts to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds without first affirming their jurisdiction, and another decision exonerating Microsoft from patent infringement charges arising from partly foreign conduct.

The survey is available to download, free of charge, from here. Highly recommended.