Advisory Board

  • Cai Hongbin
  • Peking University Guanghua School of Management
  • Peter Clarke
  • Barry Diller
  • IAC/InterActiveCorp
  • Fu Chengyu
  • China National Petrochemical Corporation (Sinopec Group)
  • Richard J. Gnodde
  • Goldman Sachs International
  • Lodewijk Hijmans van den Bergh
  • De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek N.V.
  • Jiang Jianqing
  • Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, Ltd. (ICBC)
  • Handel Lee
  • King & Wood Mallesons
  • Richard Li
  • PCCW Limited
  • Pacific Century Group
  • Liew Mun Leong
  • CapitaLand Limited
  • Martin Lipton
  • New York University
  • Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
  • Liu Mingkang
  • China Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC)
  • Dinesh C. Paliwal
  • Harman International Industries
  • Leon Pasternak
  • Bank of America Merrill Lynch
  • Tim Payne
  • Brunswick Group
  • Joseph R. Perella
  • Perella Weinberg Partners
  • Baron David de Rothschild
  • N M Rothschild & Sons Limited
  • Dilhan Pillay Sandrasegara
  • Temasek Holdings
  • Shao Ning
  • State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council of China (SASAC)
  • John W. Snow
  • Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.
  • Former U.S. Secretary of Treasury
  • Bharat Vasani
  • Tata Group
  • Wang Junfeng
  • King & Wood Mallesons
  • Wang Kejin
  • China Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC)
  • Wei Jiafu
  • China Ocean Shipping Group Company (COSCO)
  • Yang Chao
  • China Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
  • Zhu Min
  • International Monetary Fund

Legal Roundtable

  • Dimitry Afanasiev
  • Egorov Puginsky Afanasiev and Partners (Moscow)
  • William T. Allen
  • NYU Stern School of Business
  • Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz (New York)
  • Johan Aalto
  • Hannes Snellman Attorneys Ltd (Finland)
  • Nigel P. G. Boardman
  • Slaughter and May (London)
  • Willem J.L. Calkoen
  • NautaDutilh N.V. (Rotterdam)
  • Peter Callens
  • Loyens & Loeff (Brussels)
  • Bertrand Cardi
  • Darrois Villey Maillot & Brochier (Paris)
  • Santiago Carregal
  • Marval, O’Farrell & Mairal (Buenos Aires)
  • Martín Carrizosa
  • Philippi Prietocarrizosa & Uría (Bogotá)
  • Carlos G. Cordero G.
  • Aleman, Cordero, Galindo & Lee (Panama)
  • Ewen Crouch
  • Allens (Sydney)
  • Adam O. Emmerich
  • Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz (New York)
  • Rachel Eng
  • WongPartnership (Singapore)
  • Sergio Erede
  • BonelliErede (Milan)
  • Kenichi Fujinawa
  • Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu (Tokyo)
  • Manuel Galicia Romero
  • Galicia Abogados (Mexico City)
  • Danny Gilbert
  • Gilbert + Tobin (Sydney)
  • Vladimíra Glatzová
  • Glatzová & Co. (Prague)
  • Juan Miguel Goenechea
  • Uría Menéndez (Madrid)
  • Andrey A. Goltsblat
  • Goltsblat BLP (Moscow)
  • Juan Francisco Gutiérrez I.
  • Philippi Prietocarrizosa & Uría (Santiago)
  • Fang He
  • Jun He Law Offices (Beijing)
  • Christian Herbst
  • Schönherr (Vienna)
  • Lodewijk Hijmans van den Bergh
  • Royal Ahold (Amsterdam)
  • Hein Hooghoudt
  • NautaDutilh N.V. (Amsterdam)
  • Sameer Huda
  • Hadef & Partners (Dubai)
  • Masakazu Iwakura
  • Nishimura & Asahi (Tokyo)
  • Christof Jäckle
  • Hengeler Mueller (Frankfurt)
  • Michael Mervyn Katz
  • Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs (Johannesburg)
  • Handel Lee
  • King & Wood Mallesons (Beijing)
  • Martin Lipton
  • Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz (New York)
  • Alain Maillot
  • Darrois Villey Maillot Brochier (Paris)
  • Antônio Corrêa Meyer
  • Machado, Meyer, Sendacz e Opice (São Paulo)
  • Sergio Michelsen Jaramillo
  • Brigard & Urrutia (Bogotá)
  • Zia Mody
  • AZB & Partners (Mumbai)
  • Christopher Murray
  • Osler (Toronto)
  • Francisco Antunes Maciel Müssnich
  • Barbosa, Müssnich & Aragão (Rio de Janeiro)
  • I. Berl Nadler
  • Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP (Toronto)
  • Umberto Nicodano
  • BonelliErede (Milan)
  • Brian O'Gorman
  • Arthur Cox (Dublin)
  • Robin Panovka
  • Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz (New York)
  • Sang-Yeol Park
  • Park & Partners (Seoul)
  • José Antonio Payet Puccio
  • Payet Rey Cauvi (Lima)
  • Kees Peijster
  • COFRA Holding AG (Zug)
  • Juan Martín Perrotto
  • Uría & Menéndez (Madrid/Beijing)
  • Philip Podzebenko
  • Herbert Smith Freehills (Sydney)
  • Geert Potjewijd
  • De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek (Amsterdam/Beijing)
  • Qi Adam Li
  • Jun He Law Offices (Shanghai)
  • Biörn Riese
  • Mannheimer Swartling (Stockholm)
  • Mark Rigotti
  • Herbert Smith Freehills (Sydney)
  • Rafael Robles Miaja
  • Robles Miaja (Mexico City)
  • Alberto Saravalle
  • BonelliErede (Milan)
  • Maximilian Schiessl
  • Hengeler Mueller (Düsseldorf)
  • Cyril S. Shroff
  • Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas (Mumbai)
  • Shardul S. Shroff
  • Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co.(New Delhi)
  • Klaus Søgaard
  • Gorrissen Federspiel (Denmark)
  • Ezekiel Solomon
  • Allens (Sydney)
  • Emanuel P. Strehle
  • Hengeler Mueller (Munich)
  • David E. Tadmor
  • Tadmor & Co. (Tel Aviv)
  • Kevin J. Thomson
  • Barrick Gold Corporation (Toronto)
  • Yu Wakae
  • Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu (Tokyo)
  • Wang Junfeng
  • King & Wood Mallesons (Beijing)
  • Tomasz Wardynski
  • Wardynski & Partners (Warsaw)
  • Rolf Watter
  • Bär & Karrer AG (Zürich)
  • Xiao Wei
  • Jun He Law Offices (Beijing)
  • Xu Ping
  • King & Wood Mallesons (Beijing)
  • Shuji Yanase
  • OK Corporation (Tokyo)
  • Alvin Yeo
  • WongPartnership LLP (Singapore)

Founding Directors

  • William T. Allen
  • NYU Stern School of Business
  • Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
  • Nigel P.G. Boardman
  • Slaughter and May
  • Cai Hongbin
  • Peking University Guanghua School of Management
  • Adam O. Emmerich
  • Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
  • Robin Panovka
  • Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
  • Peter Williamson
  • Cambridge Judge Business School
  • Franny Yao
  • Ernst & Young

Litigation

CANADIAN UPDATE – Supreme Court of Canada Extends its Jurisdiction

Editors’ Note:  This update was authored by Poonam Puri, a Professor of Law and former Associate Dean at Osgoode Hall Law School, and an affiliated scholar with the Canadian law firm, Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP (“Davies”), and Davies partners Sarah V. Powell,  who practices in the areas of environmental, aboriginal and energy law, and litigation partners Luis Sarabia and George J. Pollack. It was submitted to XBMA by Davies partner Berl Nadler who is a member of XBMA’s Legal Roundtable.

Highlights: 

  • On September 4, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the Ontario court has jurisdiction to hear an action brought by Ecuadorian plaintiffs seeking the recognition and enforcement in Ontario of an Ecuadorian judgment against the U.S. multinational corporation Chevron (Chevron US) and its Canadian subsidiary (Chevron Canada) even where Chevron US had no connection to and no assets in Ontario and Chevron Canada was a stranger to the underlying judgment in Ecuador.
  • The Supreme Court’s decision also opens the door for judgment creditors to argue that a subsidiary corporation’s assets should be available to satisfy a judgment against a parent corporation.
  • The ruling, however, leaves in place the substantive defences available under Canadian law to rebut such claims.

Main Article

On September 4, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously held in Chevron Corp v. Yaiguaje that the Ontario court has jurisdiction to hear an action brought by Ecuadorian plaintiffs seeking the recognition and enforcement in Ontario of a US$9.51-billion Ecuadorian judgment for environmental damage against the U.S. multinational corporation Chevron (Chevron US) and its Canadian subsidiary (Chevron Canada). Remarkably, Chevron US had no connection to and no assets in Ontario and Chevron Canada was a stranger to the underlying judgment in Ecuador for which recognition and enforcement is being sought in the Ontario court.

The Supreme Court’s decision should be of interest both to Canadian multinational corporations with foreign operations and to foreign entities with operations or assets in Canada because it reduces the procedural obstacles to recognizing and enforcing foreign judgments in Canada. Significantly, however, the ruling leaves in place the substantive defences available under Canadian law to rebut such claims. The Supreme Court’s ruling means that the case will now return to an Ontario court to determine whether the Ecuadorian judgment can be properly recognized and enforced in Ontario.

Background

In 2012, Ecuadorian plaintiffs commenced a recognition and enforcement action in Ontario against both Chevron US and Chevron Canada. Chevron US is a Delaware corporation with its head office in California. Chevron Canada is a wholly owned, seventh-level subsidiary of Chevron US, with its head office registered in Alberta. The plaintiffs served Chevron US in California and Chevron Canada in Mississauga, Ontario, where it maintains an office.

Chevron US and Chevron Canada moved before the Ontario court, seeking, inter alia, (i) a declaration that the Ontario court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs’ recognition and enforcement action, and (ii) an order dismissing, or permanently staying, that action.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that the Ontario court has jurisdiction over both Chevron US and Chevron Canada. Nonetheless, the motion judge stayed the recognition and enforcement action on his own initiative because the judge held that Chevron US did not itself possess any assets in Ontario and that the plaintiffs had “no hope of success” in piercing the “corporate veil” in order to make the assets of Chevron Canada exigible to satisfy the judgment against its ultimate parent, Chevron US.

On appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal agreed that the Ontario court has jurisdiction over both Chevron US and Chevron Canada, but held that the motion judge had erred in granting a discretionary stay of the action.

The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal noting that different principles are engaged when considering actions in the first instance and actions for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. The purpose of the latter is to allow a pre-existing obligation to be fulfilled, which involves facilitating the collection of a debt already owed by a judgment debtor. The court’s role in enforcement proceedings is less invasive than an action in the first instance, militating in favour of generous and liberal enforcement rules for foreign judgments.

No Real and Substantial Connection to Ontario Is Required

The Supreme Court held that there is a low threshold for foreign judgment creditors to commence recognition and enforcement actions of foreign judgments in Ontario. The Court unambiguously held that there is no requirement to find a “real and substantial connection” between the enforcing Canadian court and the foreign action or judgment debtor.

The test for an Ontario court to recognize and enforce a foreign judgment is whether the foreign court validly assumed jurisdiction in the first instance; the foreign court must have had a real and substantial connection with the litigants or the subject matter of the dispute. This will be satisfied if the defendants submitted to the jurisdiction of the foreign court.

In addition, for the Ontario court to assume jurisdiction over the recognition and enforcement action, the defendant must have been properly served – either inside or outside Ontario – under the province’s Rules of Civil Procedure (Rules).

Defendant Is Not Required to Have Assets in Ontario

The Supreme Court held that it is not necessary for foreign debtors to possess assets in Ontario in order for the Ontario court to take jurisdiction in a recognition and enforcement action. The Court noted that in today’s globalized world and electronic age, to require that a judgment creditor wait until the foreign debtor is present or has assets in the province before a court can find that it has jurisdiction in recognition and enforcement proceedings would be to turn a blind eye to current economic reality. The Court stated that there is nothing improper with allowing foreign judgment creditors to choose where they wish to enforce their judgments and to assess where their debtor’s assets could be found or may end up being located one day.

Veil Piercing of a Subsidiary to Satisfy a Parent Corporation’s Debt

The Supreme Court explicitly stated that the Ontario court’s jurisdiction over Chevron US and Chevron Canada did not prejudice future arguments regarding their distinct corporate personalities; nor did it settle the question whether Chevron Canada’s assets should be available to satisfy Chevron US’s debt.

Nonetheless, the Supreme Court’s decision opens the door for judgment creditors to argue that a subsidiary corporation’s assets should be available to satisfy a judgment against a parent corporation.

Existence Versus Exercise of Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court draws a clear distinction between the existence of jurisdiction and the court’s exercise of jurisdiction. Once parties move past the jurisdictional phase, it may still be open to a judgment debtor/defendant to argue the following:

  • The proper use of Ontario judicial resources justifies a stay under the circumstances.
  • The Ontario courts should decline to exercise jurisdiction on the basis of forum non conveniens.
  • One of the available defences to the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment (i.e., fraud, denial of natural justice in the foreign proceeding or public policy in Canada) should be accepted in the circumstances.
  • A motion should be brought for summary judgment or for determination of an issue before trial under the Rules.

Conclusion

The plaintiffs in Chevron Corp. v. Yaiguaje may ultimately not succeed on the merits of their recognition and enforcement action in Ontario. And they may be unsuccessful in collecting damages in Ontario from either Chevron US or Chevron Canada. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court’s decision has implications for the transnational litigation strategies pursued by Canadian multinational corporations and by non-Canadian entities with operations or assets in Canada. Subsequent developments in this litigation may also provide valuable lessons in parent-subsidiary governance.

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and have not been endorsed, confirmed, or approved by XBMA or any of the editors of XBMA Forum, nor by XBMA’s founders, members, contributors, academic partners, advisory board members, or others. No inference to the contrary should be drawn.

U.S. UPDATE: Morrison at Four: A Survey of Its Impact on Securities Litigation

Editor’s Note:  This article was authored by George T. Conway III of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

Main Article:

The U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform recently published an essay, as part of a report on the litigation of foreign disputes in the U.S. federal courts, detailing the extraordinary impact that the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank has had on transnational securities litigation.

After describing how Morrison sprang from the Supreme Court’s increasing concern about the extraterritorial application of U.S. law, the essay explains how the lower courts have applied Morrison to preclude plaintiffs from recovering damages under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 for losses suffered on foreign securities exchanges. The essay goes on to explain how courts have determined what constitutes a domestic securities transaction under Morrison, and how courts applying Morrison have refused to allow claims seeking recovery of losses on foreign transactions in domestically cross-listed securities.

The essay also surveys the case law applying Morrison to other kinds of securities litigation—to claims involving derivative securities transactions, to cases under the Securities Act of 1933, to whistleblower-retaliation claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank Acts, and to criminal prosecutions under Section 10(b). Finally, the essay discusses the ineptly and inaptly drafted “extraterritorial jurisdiction” provision of the Dodd-Frank Act, Section 929P(b)—a provision apparently intended to overrule Morrison in criminal and SEC enforcement cases—and explains why it is increasingly unlikely that this provision will have any effect at all.

This survey of the case law illustrates how Morrison—by reestablishing the traditional understanding that U.S. law ordinarily applies only to domestic, not foreign, matters, and by fashioning a standard that avoids the interference with foreign regulation that the extraterritorial application of U.S. law would produce—has enduringly changed the way the federal courts address transnational securities litigation.

Morrison at Four: A Survey of Its Impact on Securities Litigation

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and have not been endorsed, confirmed, or approved by XBMA or any of the editors of XBMA Forum, nor by XBMA’s founders, members, contributors, academic partners, advisory board members, or others. No inference to the contrary should be drawn.

CHINA UPDATE – Chinese Court Refuses to Enforce an Arbitral Award Rendered by Post-Separation CIETAC Branch – Suggestions for Drafting Arbitration Agreements

Editors’ Note: Contributed by Fang He, a partner at Jun He and a member of XBMA’s Legal Roundtable.  Ms. He has broad experience in M&A, outbound investment, foreign direct investment, private equity and intellectual property.  This article was authored by Christine Kang, Stanley Wan and Mark Chu of Jun He Law Offices. Ms. Kang is a partner of Jun He Law Offices. She has over 15 years’ experience in international arbitration and dispute resolution. Ms. Kang is also a listed arbitrator on the Panel of Arbitrators of some major international arbitration institutions including CIETAC.  Mr. Wan and Mr. Chu are senior lawyers of Jun He Law Offices.

Highlights:

The recent separation of the two former branches from the well-known Chinese arbitration institution-CIETAC and the branches’ establishment as independent arbitration institutions have brought confusion to the domestic and international arbitration community and businesses with regard to some arbitration agreements providing for arbitration at a CIETAC branch. The recent judgments of two Chinese courts in Suzhou and Shenzhen on the jurisdiction of the newly independent arbitration institutions are in conflict with each other and add more confusion to the relevant issues. In response to clients’ inquiries, we wrote this article to provide some suggestions on how to avoid potential confusion and protect parties’ interest under different scenarios relevant to these arbitration institutions’ jurisdiction.

Click here for the Main Article

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and have not been endorsed, confirmed, or approved by XBMA or any of the editors of XBMA Forum, nor by XBMA’s founders, members, contributors, academic partners, advisory board members, or others. No inference to the contrary should be drawn.

Subscribe to Newsletter

Enter your Email

Preview Newsletter