Transnational

Lawsuits brought by plaintiffs’ class action firms, public interest attorneys, and non-governmental organizations against U.S. companies or foreign companies with a substantial U.S. presence are sometimes premised on alleged injuries that occurred abroad. Such lawsuits raise the question of whether U.S. courts should be the venue for cases concerning conduct occurring outside U.S. borders.

Some of these cases are filed in federal courts under the 200-year old Alien Tort Statute (ATS), which provides federal jurisdiction over lawsuits brought by non-U.S. nationals for torts in violation of international law. Others are brought under state common law or in foreign jurisdictions, including countries with poorly developed legal systems, only to return to courts in the United States. This practice is known as Foreign Judgement Enforcement.

This area of litigation has developed into a business for plaintiffs’ lawyers who try to cash in against multinational companies using the U.S. legal system. Many of the suits take many years, halting international investment and imposing substantial legal and reputational costs on corporations.

To prevent abusive forum shopping, federal and state courts should exercise caution in interpreting and applying state law, even state common law, and extraterritoriality. States should strengthen their foreign judgment recognition and enforcement laws and Congress should adopt uniform federal standards to govern the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.

 

Alien Tort Statute (ATS)

Enacted in 1789 as part of the Judiciary Act, the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) provides federal jurisdiction over lawsuits brought by non-U.S. nationals. The ATS was intended to give federal courts of the new nation the power to resolve disputes arising from a very limited number of international law violations, such as piracy or assaults on ambassadors on U.S. soil.

Despite its original intent, the ATS has served for the past two decades as the fountainhead of litigation against multinational companies for human rights violations allegedly committed by foreign governments or other foreign actors in countries all over the world.

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued two important opinions restricting the ATS. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (2013) limited its extraterritorial scope and Jesner v. Arab Bank (2018) restricted corporate liability. These rulings have substantially limited the use of the ATS in transnational cases; however, this does not deter cases brought under state common law or through foreign judgment enforcement.

 

Foreign Judgment Enforcement (FJE)

In recent years, plaintiffs have filed numerous lawsuits against businesses and individuals in U.S. courts for alleged conduct occurring outside the U.S. The Supreme Court’s recent rulings limiting such cases including Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014), Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (2013), and Morrison v. National Australia Bank (2010) will likely mean a new strategy for plaintiffs and their lawyers: bring lawsuits in foreign courts, attempt to enforce any judgments in those foreign courts in U.S. courts, and seize companies’ U.S. assets. This raises the troubling prospect of abusive and improper foreign judgments being enforced in the U.S.

To prevent abusive forum shopping, States should strengthen their foreign judgment recognition and enforcement laws. Congress should also adopt uniform federal standards to govern the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.

01/01/2019

Suggested Resources

Research

All Results for Transnational

  1. Rules Committee To Continue Work On TPLF

    November 01, 2019 | Blogs

    In another welcome sign, the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules for the U.S. courts announced this week that it will continue to study the effects of third party litigation funding (TPLF) in civil litigation and the potential need for a disclosure requirement. ... Read More

  2. Lead Generators Accused of Fraud

    October 31, 2019 | News

    A mass tort lead generator firm was accused by its investors of fraud, who alleged they were misled about the potential returns on their investments, Reuters reports.... Read More

  3. In the News Today - October 28, 2019

    October 28, 2019 | News

    Pending EU Collective Action Directive Could Ignite TPLF Abuses in Europe... Read More

  4. Analysis of TPLF Funding in European Collective Redress

    October 15, 2019 | Research

    Third party litigation funding-the practice of hedge funds investing in litigation in exchange for a cut of the proceeds-has begun to take root in Europe. Unfortunately, an almost total lack of transparency and regulation means that even as its supporters promise greater "access to justice," TPLF threatens the integrity of European civil justice systems. This ILR research paper details the state of play for TPLF in Europe and around the world, and urges EU legislators to take up a number of specific reforms to protect consumers and businesses.... Read More

  5. In the News Today - October 3, 2019

    October 03, 2019 | News

    ILR Submits Comments to California Bar Regarding Proposed Rule Changes... Read More

  6. ILR Submits Comments to California Bar Regarding Proposed Rule Changes

    October 02, 2019 | Blogs

    Last week, the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) submitted comments to the State Bar of California regarding potential rules changes that accentuate our long-standing concerns about third party litigation funding.... Read More

  7. In the News Today - September 26, 2019

    September 26, 2019 | News

    New Study Finds Big Swing in Judicial Decisions After Election; Funders, Advertisers "Pouring Money" Into Medical Device Litigation... Read More

  8. In the News Today - September 20, 2019

    September 20, 2019 | News

    Plaintiffs Offer Judge Chance to Review TPLF When Funder Has Input on Litigation Decisions; New Jersey Supreme Court Is State's "Glimmer of Hope"... Read More

  9. In the News Today - September 11, 2019

    September 11, 2019 | News

    Third Party Funders Now Pitching Canadian Start-Ups... Read More

  10. Burford Sued By Shareholders Over Stock Drop

    August 22, 2019 | News

    A class of Burford Capital shareholders has sued the company for allegedly painting a "misleading picture" for investors, Law360 reports.... Read More