forum non conveniens

Subscribe to forum non conveniens

One of the hot topics in the world of corporate and securities litigation in recent years has been the use of forum selection bylaws as a way for companies to try to manage their litigation risk by steering corporate and securities litigation to a specified forum. Courts have largely upheld these provisions. For example, as noted in a recent post, an en banc ruling of the Ninth Circuit dismissed a plaintiff’s claim against the board of The Gap in reliance on a forum selection clause in the company’s bylaws, even though the dismissal effectively deprived the plaintiff of a forum for its derivative Section 14(a) claims.

Now in a further development, a federal district court judge, again in a reliance on a forum selection clause, has granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in a SolarWinds cyber incident-related derivative suit, even though the dismissal means that the plaintiff has no forum in which to assert his derivative Exchange Act claims – most notably including the plaintiff’s derivative claims under Section 10(b). At a minimum, the ruling expands the reach of what a forum selection clause may achieve, and it possibly could increase the chances that these issues ultimately wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court. A copy of the court’s July 12, 2023, order in the federal court derivative lawsuit can be found here. A July 14, 2023, post on CorporateCounsel.net about the ruling can be found here.Continue Reading Federal Court Derivative Suit Dismissed Based on Forum Selection Clause, Despite Exchange Act Claims

For those whose job it is to worry about the U.S. litigation risk for non-U.S. companies, the focus historically has been on the risk of U.S. securities class action litigation. However, as detailed in a new white paper from AIG and the Clyde & Co law firm, over the last 18 months a small group of U.S. plaintiffs’ law firms has filed a series of shareholder derivative lawsuits in U.S. courts on behalf of non-U.S. companies and alleging violations of the companies’ home country laws. As discussed below, these lawsuits potentially could represent a significant new source of U.S. litigation exposure and D&O liability risk for directors and officers of non-U.S. companies. A copy of the paper, which is entitled “Shareholders Increasingly Targeting D&Os of Foreign Companies in New York Derivative Actions,” can be found here.
Continue Reading Litigation Alert: U.S. Derivative Lawsuits Against Boards of Non-U.S. Companies

In the second dismissal motion ruling in one of the many board diversity lawsuits filed in recent months, a magistrate judge has granted the defendants’ dismissal motion in the suit against the board of clothing retailer The Gap. This latest ruling follows the dismissal motion grant last month in the similar lawsuit against Facebook’s board. As discussed below, the court’s dismissal of the case against The Gap’s board was based on the forum selection clause in the company’s bylaws. Northern District of California Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim’s April 27, 2021 ruling in the case can be found here.
Continue Reading Board Diversity Lawsuit Against The Gap Dismissed Based on Forum Clause

I know from conversations with D&O insurance professionals outside the United States that they find it somewhere between astounding and incomprehensible that a company whose unsponsored level 1 ADRs trade over-the-counter in the U.S. can be subject to a U.S. securities lawsuit – but, as discussed in prior posts (here and here), that is what the Ninth Circuit and District Court held in the Toshiba securities lawsuit. However, a recent ruling in a securities suit involving global mining company Glencore plc suggests a means by which non-U.S. companies with unsponsored Level I ADRs in the U.S. nevertheless may still be able to avoid litigation in the U.S. In a July 31, 2020 ruling, District of New Jersey Judge Susan Wigenton granted the company’s motion to dismiss ADR investors’ securities suit against the company on forum non conveniens grounds.
Continue Reading Unsponsored ADR Investors’ Securities Suit Dismissed on Forum Non Conveniens Grounds

Flag of Ontario

There was a time only a few short years ago when the U.S. courts were the preferred forum for the litigation of securities class actions claims, arguably even claims whose relationship to the U.S. and to U.S. laws was slight. The U.S. courts role as preferred forum for securities suits was undermined by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, which underscored the fact that the U.S. securities laws apply only to domestic U.S. securities transactions. Since Morrison, a free-ranging inquiry has emerged to determine whether another country’s courts might emerge as the preferred forum for cross-border securities suits.

Among other countries, Canada has emerged as a candidate. However, a recent decision by Court of Appeal of Ontario examining the jurisdictional reach of Ontario’s securities laws expressly rejects the possibility that Ontario (where the bulk of Canadian securities suits are filed) “would become the default jurisdiction for issuers around the world.”  The Court of Appeal’s July 11, 2018 decision in Yip v. HSBC Holdings can be found here. An August 9, 2018 memo from the Toronto-based Blake, Cassels & Graydon law firm can be found here.
Continue Reading Ontario Court Rejects “Jurisdictional Overreach” for Canadian Securities Suits

texasThe U.S. Supreme Court’s July 2010 decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank seemed to sound the death knell for so-called “f-cubed” litigation – that is, lawsuits brought in U.S. courts under the U.S. securities laws by foreign investors who bought their shares in a foreign company on a foreign exchange. However, in an interesting …

texasIn a July 24, 2014 opinion (here), an intermediate Texas appellate court, applying Texas law, affirmed the trial court’s dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds of the Deepwater Horizon disaster-related shareholder derivative suit filed against Switzerland-domiciled Transocean Limited. The court’s ruling is interesting in and of itself, but it may be even more …

In its landmark decision Morrison v National Australia Bank, the U.S. Supreme Court said that the U.S. securities laws do not apply to share transactions that do not take place on U.S. securities exchanges. But do these principles operate the same way in other jurisdiction — would courts in other jurisdictions decline to apply…

Since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, would-be claimants who purchased shares of a non-U.S. company outside the U.S. have struggled to find a way to pursue their claims in U.S. courts. Among other things, these claimants have tried to avoid Morrison’s federal securities claim-preclusive effect by…