Feed aggregator

In Ranza v Nike, the Court of Appeal for the ninth circuit confirmed the high hurdle to establish personal jurisdiction over foreign corporations in the US, following the Supreme Court’s decisions in Kiobel and Bauman /Daimler. Trey Childress has good summary here and I am happy largely to refer.

Loredana Ranza is a US citisen, resident in the EU (first The Netherlands; Germany at the time of the court’s decision). She seeks to sue against her Dutch employer, Nike BV, and its parent corporation, Nike inc. for alleged violation of federal laws prohibiting sex and age discrimination. The Dutch equality Commission had earlier found the allegations unfounded under Dutch law.

Of particular interest are the Court’s views on the attributability test /piercing the corporate veil following Daimler and Kiobel. The Court held (p.15 ff) that prior to Daimler, personal jurisdiction over the mother company could be established using either the agency or the alter ego test, with the former now no longer available following Daimler. Under the Agency test, effectively a type of abus de droit /fraus /fraud, plaintiff needed to show that the subsidiary performed services which were sufficiently important to the foreign corporation that if it did not have a representative to perform them, the corporation’s own officials would undertake to perform substantially similar services. Daimler, the Court suggested in Ranza, held that the agency test leads to too broad a jurisdictional sweep. That leaves the alter ego test: effectively, whether the actions prima facie carried out by the subsidiary, are in fact carried out by the mother company for it exercises a degree of control over the daughter which renders that daughter the mother’s alter ego. Not so here, on the facts of the case: Nike Inc, established in Oregon, is heavily involved in Nike BV’s macromanagement, but not so ‘enmeshed’ in its routine management of day-to-day operation, that the two companies should be treated as a single enterprise for the purposes of jurisdiction.

For good measure, the Court also confirmed application of dismissal of jurisdiction on the basis of forum non conveniens.

Geert.

La condamnation pour diffamation envers le prince saoudien Turki Al Faysal du directeur de France Télévisions, de la réalisatrice et de la société France 3 en raison d’un reportage consacré aux plaintes déposées par les familles des victimes des attentats du 11 septembre 2001 a enfreint l’article 10 de la Convention européenne.

En carrousel matière:  Oui Matières OASIS:  Diffamation Presse (Procédure)

en lire plus

Non renvoyée au Conseil constitutionnel

Avocat - Honoraires

Indemnisation des victimes d'infraction

Rendón Marín
Citoyenneté européenne
Selon l’avocat général Szpunar, un ressortissant non UE qui a la garde exclusive d’un citoyen mineur de l’UE ne saurait être expulsé d’un État membre ou se voir refuser un permis de séjour du seul fait de ses antécédents pénaux

C & J Clark International
Relations extérieures
Le règlement instituant un droit antidumping sur les importations dans l’Union européenne de certaines chaussures en cuir originaires de Chine et du Viêt Nam est partiellement invalide

Ince
SERV
Le droit de l’Union peut s’opposer à ce que l’intermédiation transfrontalière de paris sportifs effectuée sans autorisation en Allemagne soit sanctionnée

Les États membres peuvent adopter des mesures nationales visant à garantir la protection de la santé humaine, sous réserve que celles-ci n’entraînent pas des restrictions quantitatives aux échanges contraires au droit de l’Union.

En carrousel matière:  Non Matières OASIS:  Néant

en lire plus