On September 6, 2023, the Georgia Supreme Court reaffirmed that Georgia courts must first determine whether a restrictive covenant is enforceable under Georgia law before applying a foreign choice-of-law provision....more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently issued a decision in In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation, reversing a $148 million price-fixing judgment against two Chinese exporters of vitamin C, remanding the...more
There are often misconceptions in connection with negotiating intellectual property (IP) development agreements with developers located in Russia. This post details five common misconceptions and provides tips for complying...more
On January 9, 2021, China's Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) issued Order No. 1/2021 on the Rules on Counteracting Unjustified Extraterritorial Applications of Foreign Legislation and Other Measures (the "Rules").1 The Rules,...more
The Development: China's Ministry of Commerce ("MOFCOM") released Rules on Counteracting Unjustified Extra-Territorial Application of Foreign Laws and Other Measures ("Rules") on January 9, 2021. Effective immediately, the...more
Bank Mellat v HM Treasury [2019] EWCA Civ 449 - Synopsis - Obligations of confidentiality arising under a foreign legal system do not automatically entitle a party litigating in England to withhold documents from...more
In the products arena, it is not every day that foreign law becomes relevant to a domestic lawsuit. When it does, however, it can create confusion and uncertainty amongst the litigants and the court. Although Federal Rule of...more
US Courts Will Decide Whether to Enforce US$2 Billion Award Against Petróleos de Venezuela - In April 2018, an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) tribunal awarded US$2.04 billion in damages to two subsidiaries of U.S....more
On June 14, 2018, in Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co., the Supreme Court held that Courts are not obliged to accept statements from a foreign government agency on the meaning and effects of...more
The Supreme Court has ruled US federal courts should carefully consider a foreign government’s interpretation of its own domestic laws, but are not required to give it conclusive effect. Key Points - ..The Supreme...more
International dispute practitioners are well aware of the challenges that arise when the substance of foreign law is disputed in U.S. courts. Most practitioners are aware that the question is governed by Rule 44.1 of the...more
The Situation: In Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co., the defendants in an anticompetition matter—who were China-based manufacturers of vitamin C—claimed that Chinese law required them to...more
In a 9-0 opinion delivered by Justice Ruth Ginsburg, the United States Supreme Court last week ruled that the federal courts are not “bound to accord conclusive effect” to a foreign government’s statement of its own law under...more
In Animal Science Products v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co., the Supreme Court of the United States held that foreign governments are not entitled to absolute deference on the construction of their own laws. The Court’s...more
Rejecting an earlier appellate case that allowed Chinese companies to escape liability in the United States for allegations of price fixing because their government said it was not illegal under Chinese law, the U.S. Supreme...more
Is a federal court determining foreign law required to treat as conclusive a submission from a foreign government interpreting its law? The U.S. Supreme Court confronted this question in a case involving price-fixing claims...more
Alert: The Supreme Court clarified the principles of international comity this week in a ruling pertaining to the long-running vitamin C antitrust class action litigation. International comity is the recognition a nation...more
On June 14, Justice Ginsberg, writing for a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court, reversed a 2016 opinion by the Second Circuit and held that a foreign government’s interpretation of its own law is not binding on U.S. courts....more
On June 14, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., No. 16-1220, holding that a federal court determining foreign law under Fed. R. Civ. P....more
It’s that time again – the 85th Texas Legislature is underway in Austin, and a number of bills could affect civil litigation in state courts. Below are a few bills that trial lawyers may want to follow....more
Addressing whether federal courts may go outside the pleadings when ruling on a motion to dismiss premised on foreign law, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit clarified that the content of foreign law is a “question...more
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California held on May 20, 2016 that the federal securities laws do not apply to U.S. transactions in unlisted, unsponsored American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) for a foreign...more
In re Petrobras Securities Litigation continues to produce interesting developments – this time on SLUSA preemption and Brazilian law. On March 12, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held...more
Much ink has been spilled since the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank about the federal securities laws’ applicability to foreign transactions in foreign securities. But what happens when...more
We previously discussed in a June 10, 2015, guest article the basics of insurance underwriting and claim handling in China. In this article, we give an overview of the legal framework and relevant key issues in insurance...more