China has launched a new class action mechanism to crack down on corporate malfeasance in the securities market. Although legal actions by individual investors were possible previously, this was often difficult and costly. Under the new mechanism, the China Securities Investor Services Centre, a Chinese government-affiliated body, can sue on behalf of no fewer than 50 investors in a company, on an opt-in basis. The finding by a court or a regulator that a company…
On 29 July 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) confirmed in Tibor-Trans/DAF Trucks (C-451/18) [1] that indirect customers can claim damages for damage suffered from cartel-related excessive pricing. However, claimants can sue infringers only in EU Member States within the geographic market affected by the anti-competitive conduct. For establishing jurisdiction, it is no longer relevant where the claimant suffered the damage. Is this the end of the “home-field advantage” for damaged…
In Philipp v. Federal Republic of Germany, No. 17-7064, 925 F.3d 1349 (D.C. Cir. 2019), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed an earlier decision allowing a lawsuit involving art taken by the Nazis to proceed in district court in Washington, D.C., but also highlighted judicial disagreement regarding the application of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”). [1] The FSIA generally bars claims against foreign governments, but specifically provides…
The general rule in the United States is that litigants are not required to post security bonds with the court in the event that they ultimately may be liable to the other party. Indeed, in what is often called the “American Rule,” each party to litigation bears its own costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, no matter the outcome. US rules often allow a prevailing party to recover “costs,” but only costs other than attorneys’…
In Shippitsa Ltd. v. Slack, No. 18-CV-1036, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121994 (N.D. Tex. July 23, 2019), a federal district court reiterated the standards applicable to determining whether there is personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant in the context of online web businesses and allegations of trademark infringement,. The court found that under federal law, the Cyprus-incorporated and -headquartered defendant’s interactive website allowing the commercial exchange of information with Texas customers was sufficient for the…
In order to file a petition for a compulsory enforcement, a petitioner is required to identify the location of the obligor’s property. If a creditor wins a civil case against a debtor but cannot identify the debtor’s property, then the creditor would not be able to enforce the judgment against the debtor. In this regard, the Japanese legal system has been unsuccessful in obliging the debtor to disclose its assets. Traditionally, the creditor would be…
UNITED STATES – In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court recently held that classwide arbitration must be explicitly called for in an arbitration agreement to be enforceable. Specifically, the Court held that ambiguity as to whether the parties agreed to arbitration on a classwide basis cannot provide a “contractual basis” sufficient to compel class arbitration. Plaintiff Frank Varela filed the underlying lawsuit against his employer, Lamps Plus Inc., after a hacker gained access to…
To paraphrase Pharaoh Ramses II, so it is written, so it shall be done. In Schein, Inc. v. Archer and White Sales, Inc., 586 U.S. __ (January 8, 2019), the first opinion by Justice Kavanaugh, a unanimous Supreme Court reiterated this principle of the Federal Arbitration Act. Specifically, the Court confirmed that when an arbitration agreement delegates to an arbitrator the question of whether the agreement applies to a particular dispute, courts have no power to decide…
Background Data privacy law is rapidly developing; significant updates to data privacy and protection laws (now enacted in over 100 jurisdictions worldwide) are of increasing importance to class action litigation. Especially after the enactment of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Chinese Cybersecurity Law (and its supporting guidelines and regulations), there is a strong push for the enactment of stricter data protection laws in the United States. Practitioners must consider the implications of…
Procedural history
In August 2016, the US Judicial Conference’s Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Committee”) published proposed amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 governing class actions. The proposed amendments were available for public comment from August 12, 2016 through February 15, 2017. The Committee held several public hearings to discuss the proposed amendment in late 2016 and early 2017. The proposed changes were submitted to the Supreme Court on October 4, 2017. If the Supreme Court accepts the Committee’s proposal, the changes will become effective on December 1, 2018.
Proposed changes and practical implications
The proposed amendments are intended to modernize the notice process, to allow for notice to class members via electronic communications; impose affirmative obligations on a court to consider specific factors relevant to the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of a proposed settlement; to curb abuses from “bad faith” objectors; and clarify that certain orders granting “preliminary approval” of class certification may not be appealed.. Each is summarized briefly below.