Law Cases

Cases April 18 & 2012 Solutions
Cases From: 1- Chapter 4 (The Multinational Enterprise) , 2- Chapter 5(Foreign Investment) & 3- Egyptian Contract Law. References: Dr.Yassin El-Shazly Presentations & International Business Law Book 5th Edition Ray August & Don Mayer
IBL Cases
2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved
Exam Criteria
Subject Common enterprise liability Unfair competition ( Antitrust) Chapter 4 4 Cases Case 4-8 Touche Ross & Co. v. Bank Intercontinental, Limited Case 4-2 Metro Industries v. Sammi Corp. Case 4-3 Airbus Industrie G.I.E. v. Patel Reading 4-2 F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran Case 4-7 United States v. Blondek, Tull, Castle, and Lowry Case 4-4 Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v. Gutnick Case 4-5 World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson Case 4-6 Asahi Metal Industry Co., Ltd. v. Superior Court of California, Solano County United States Supreme Court
Sharp practices Product liability
4 4
Vices of Consent (Mistake, fraud, duress and unlawful exploitation Offer and contract formation (formation of contract + MOU + letter of Intent) Termination of contracts Company of persons dispute Approval of foreign investment application Free Zone Agreement
EG3
EG3 + Chapter 5
"Enforcement of Securities Regulation Internationally"
EG3 Chapter 4 Doctor Presentation 5 5 Case in Brief: 5-1 Arab Republic of Egypt v. SPP Case 5-3 Nissan Motor Mfg. Corp., U.S.A.v. United States
Exam Possibilities
1- A very serious air crash which occurred at Delhi airport, in India. An Airbus A-320 aircraft crashed when coming in to land. Many of the passengers died and injured. Among the passengers on board were two families of Indian origin who were American citizens with homes resident in London. Four of them were killed, and the remaining four were injured. Following the publication of the Report of a Court of Inquiry in India, in which the cause of the crash was identified as error on the part of the pilots (both of whom were killed in the crash), the injured passengers claims were made against Indian Airli nes Corporation (I.A.C.), and the employers of the pilots. Meanwhile the same plaintiffs also commenced proceedings in London, where they sued a number of parties who might have had some connection with the aircraft or its operation. These included the respondent company, Airbus Industrie G.I.E. (Airbus), which designed and assembled the aircraft at Toulouse in France. Similar proceedings were brought in Texas by the heirs of the four American passengers who died in the same crash. In response to these proceedings in London, Airbus brought proceedings for obtaining an injunction from the American High Court restraining the appellants, who are American citizens, from continuing with their action against Airbus in London. Do you think Airbus would succeed in its action? Explain. Facts: A very serious air crash occurred at Delhi airport, in India. An Airbus A-320 aircraft crashed when coming in to land. Many of the passengers died and injured. Among the passengers on board were two families of Indian origin who were American citizens with homes resident in London. Four of them were killed, and the remaining four were injured. The cause of the crash was identified as error on the part of the pilots (both of whom were killed in the crash),as reported by the country of inquiry. The injured passengers claims were made against Indian Airlines Corporation (I.A.C.), the employers of the pilots. Meanwhile the same plaintiffs also commenced proceedings in London, where they sued a number of parties who might have had some connection with the aircraft or its operation. These included the respondent company, Airbus Industrie G.I.E. (Airbus), which designed and assembled the aircraft at Toulouse in France. Similar proceedings were brought in Texas by the heirs of the four American passengers who died in the same crash. In response to these proceedings in London, Airbus brought proceedings for obtaining an injunction from the American High Court restraining the appellants, who are American citizens, from continuing with their action against Airbus in London. Parties: Delhi Airport in India. London. Texas. Two families of Indian origin who were American citizens with homes resident in London (Patel). The injured passengers. Court of Inquiry in India. Indian Airlines Corporation (I.A.C.). The Respondent Company. Airbus Industries G.I.E. (Airbus). Heirs of the four American passengers who died in the same crash. American High Court. Legal Problem: Would Airbus succeed in its action?
Applied Rules: Forum non conveniens; doctrine that a municipal court will decline to hear a dispute when it can be better or more conveniently heard in a foreign state. This alternative form must be available, adequate and take into account private as well as public interest ( this might be used by foreign court) Anti-suit jurisdiction: court order directing a person not to proceed with litigation in a foreign court . (this might be used be the litigants home country court) In most countries, especially civil law and EU, courts has exclusive jurisdiction in certain cases, like real property located within its territory, the validity of a business firm formed or incorporated within the forum In personam jurisdiction ; the power of a court or tribunal in determine the rights of a party who appears before it since the dead and injured passengers were American citizens so the US court is competent to handle the case In this case the American or Indian governments are the best locations to handle this incident The American forum have a sufficient interest and connection with the incident and this is more than the English forums ( the only relevance between the English court and the case is because of the appellants who are residents in the country ) Conclusion: Airbus will succeed in the action and American high court will restrain the appellants who are American citizens from continuing their action against Airbus in London because The American or Indian courts are the best locations to handle this incident ( not the English one ) Based on the Anti-suit jurisdiction The American forum have a sufficient interest and connection with the incident and this is more than the English forums Meanwhile US courts are competent and has interest in protecting the interests of its individuals even outside the US
Next
2- Country R, decided to enter in a contract with the Harvester Company, a US corporation, to harvest lumber on its land. According to the contract the Harvester Company has the right to harvest lumber on Country Rs land for 20 years. The two parties agreed that Harvest company has one any dispute to be resolved by the municipal courts of country R. After two years, country R decided to end its contract with the Harvester Company and ordered it to cease its operations and leave the country without being recompensed. The Harvester Company initiated an proceeding in front of the US courts asking for compensation arguing that the courts of country R are corrupted and might deprive them from any sorts of remedies in such circumstances. Do you think that the case should be accepted? Facts: Country R, decided to enter in a contract with the Harvester Company, a US corporation, to harvest lumber on its land. According to the contract the Harvester Company has the right to harvest lumber on Country R s land for 20 years. The two parties agreed that Harvest company has one any dispute to be resolved by the municipal courts of country R. Country R decided to end its contract with the Harvester Company and ordered it to cease its operations and leave the country without being recompensed. The Harvester Company initiated a proceeding in front of the US courts asking for compensation. Parties: Country R. Harvester Company. Municipal courts of Country R. US courts. Legal Problem: Forum Selection clause in Personal Jurisdiction Country R decided to end its contract with the Harvester Company and ordered it to cease its operations and leave the country without being recompensed. The Harvester Company initiated proceeding in front of the US courts asking for compensation arguing that the courts of country R corrupted and might deprive them from any sorts of remedies in such circumstances. Will the US Court accept this? Applied Rules: In civil codes, courts can extend their jurisdiction over disputes between parties who appear within the territory of the forum state, upon of these two bases ; In personam jurisdiction ; the power of a court or tribunal in determine the rights of a party who appears before it In rem jurisdiction : the power of a court to determine the ownership rights of persons as to property located within the form state A forum selection clause is a provision in a contract designating a particular court or tribunal to resolve any dispute that may arise concerning the contract. However, there must be enough contact with the selected form state . Form clause is usually accompanied by a choice of law clause In this case , the 2 parties agreed to refer to the municipal courts of country R which is the forum selection clause in this case Country R could have jurisdiction because of the forum selection clause and because of the In rem jurisdiction because the events were on the land of country R Because of the In personam jurisdiction , US courts can accept the case because the case involves a US corporation A forum selection clause in an international agreement should be enforced unless the plaintiff can clearly show
The enforcement would be unreasonable or unfair which was the case in here since Harvester argued that the country R corrupted and might deprive them from any sort of remedies in such circumstances That the clause would was invalid for reasons such as fraud or overreaching US has long arm statute laws that can be used in dealing with issues the relate to US citizens outside the US Conclusion: The US court will accept the case This is because of what mentioned above and the fears of unjust treatment that would stimulate the intervention of US courts in addition to the nature of the American and long arm statute laws when it comes to their citizens or corporations even those working outside the US
Next
3- Auto dealership in Canada sold a new brand X automobile to Mr. Y in Toronto. Brand X automobile is manufactured in Germany by company A in order to avoid application of US taxes law. A year later Mr. Y and his family decided to move to Mexico. As they drove through the state of Oklahoma in USA, they were involved in an automobile accident. Mr. and Mrs. Y and their children were severely injured. They brought a product liability suit in an Oklahoma state court according to US Laws against the German manufacture of the automobile and the regional distributor of brand X in Canada. Brand X automobile are not sold or serviced in Oklahoma. Both defendants ask to have the suit against them dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Facts: Auto dealership in Canada sold a new brand X automobile to Mr. Y in Toronto. Brand X automobile is manufactured in Germany by company A in order to avoid application of US taxes law. A brand X has its dealer at Toronto, Canada where the dealer sells and serves the X Brand Cars. Mr. Y and his family lived in Toronto A year later Mr. Y and his family is traveling to Mexico. While driving through the state of Oklahoma in the United States, they were involved in an automobile accident. Mr. and Mrs. Y and their children were severely injured from the accident They claim that their injuries are due to a defect in the brand X automobile. Parties: Auto Dealer. Mr. Y & his family. Company A Manufacturer of Brand X Oklahoma State Court. Legal Problem: The defendants ask to have the suit against them dismissed for lake of personal jurisdiction. Would Oklahoma state court accept this case? Applied Rules: In personam jurisdiction is the power of a court to decide matters relating to a natural or juridical person physically present within the forum state. Natural persons subject to in personam jurisdiction include nationals of the forum state, individuals physically present within the state, individuals domiciled in the state, and individuals who consent to such jurisdiction. Consent to personal jurisdiction can come about in any of the following ways: by the individual appearing in court after a suit has commenced, by a party agreeing to the personal jurisdiction of a particular court in a forum selection clause contained in a contract, or by a party appointing an agent within a state to receive service of process on his behalf. Meanwhile Juridical persons are entities, other than natural persons, that have sufficient existence in the eyes of the law to function legally, sue, be sued, and make decisions through agents. Examples are business entities governmental and intergovernmental organizations. Juridical persons are subject to the in personam jurisdiction of a municipal court in much the same way that individuals are. Thus, legal entities created within a state are nationals of that state called domestic entities and they may sue or be sued there. Foreign entities, however, are amenable to the jurisdiction of another states municipal courts only if o (a) They are recognized in law as juridical persons o (b) They give their consent. Governments and intergovernmental organizations, accordingly ,must be formally recognized while other foreign entities (including business firms) must be created as juridical persons by recognized governments
According to the above , the brand X manufacturer and distributor are neither a natural nor juridical persons in this state and meanwhile even even the requirements for bringing a suit against a foreign entity is not met in this case Conclusion: Case will not be accepted and will be dismissed due to lack of personal jurisdiction This is because the brand X manufacturer and distributor are neither a natural nor juridical persons in this state and even the requirements for bringing a suit against a foreign entity is not met in this case.
Next
4- Grano owns a forty-room motel on Highway 100. Tanner is interested in purchasing the motel. During the course of negotiations, Grano tells Tanner that the motel netted $30,000 during the previous year and that it will net at least $45,000 the next year. The motel books, which Grano turns over to Tanner before the purchase clearly show that Granos motel netted only $15,000 the p revious year. Also, Grano fails to tell Tanner that a bypass to Highway 100 is being planned that will redirect most traffic away from the front of the motel. Tanner purchases the motel. During the first year under Tanners operation, the motel nets only $18,000. At this time, Tanner learns of the previous low profitability of the motel and the planned bypass Tanner wants his money back from Grano. Discuss fully Tanners probable success in getting his money back. Facts: Grano owns a forty-room motel on Highway 100. Tanner is interested in purchasing the motel. During the course of negotiations, Grano tells Tanner that the motel netted $30,000 during the previous year and that it will net at least $45,000 the next year. The motel books, which Grano turns over to Tanner before the purchase clearly show that Granos motel netted only $15,000 the previous year. Grano fails to tell Tanner that a bypass to Highway 100 is being planned that will redirect most traffic away from the front of the motel. Tanner purchases the motel. During the first year under Tanners operation, the motel nets only $18,000. At this time Tanner learns of the previous low profitability of the motel and the planned bypass. Tanner wants his money back from Grano Parties: Tanner. Grano. Legal Problem: Would Tanners success in getting his money back from Grano? Applied Rules: An actual breach occurs when one party without excuse fails to perform some or all of the obligations required by a contract. When the failure to perform happened the injured party may immediately declare the contract ended and sue for any damages caused by this breach. So the injured party sues the party who broke the contract. The breaching party may offer one of many defenses for not performing the contract such as claim the contract is void in lack of vices of consent or the vitiating factors which are: Duress - Misrepresentation Mistake Exploitation Fraud: Civil code -Elements of Contracts-section I Contracts- Article 125 States: A contract may be declared void on the grounds of fraudulent misrepresentation, when the artifices practiced by one of the parties, or by his representative are of such gravity that, but for them, the other party would not have concluded the contract. Intentional silence on the part of one of the parties as to a fact or as to the accompanying circumstances constitutes fraudulent misrepresentation if it can be shown that the contract would not have been concluded by the other party had he had knowledge thereof. Mistake: Mistake is defined as imagining something not true, or a state of mind that is not in accord with the facts. The general rule is that the mistake does not affect the validity of a contract. In law "a party to a contract may demand the avoidance of the contract if he committed an essential mistake, if the other party committed the same mistake or had knowledge thereof, or could have easily detected the mistake" Article 120 ECC.
The mistake is considered essential when its gravity is of such degree that if it hadnt been committed, the party who was mistaken would not have been concluded the contract. In particular, the mistake considered essential in the following cases: o When it has a bearing on the quality of the thing. o When it has a bearing on the identity or on one of the qualities of the person with whom the contract is entered. Conclusion: Granos statement that the motel would make at least $45,000 next year would probably be treated as a prediction or opinion; thus one of the elements necessary to prove fraud misrepresentation of factswould be missing. The statement that the motel netted $30,000 last year is a deliberate falsehood (with intent and knowledge) Granos defense will be that the books in Tanners possession clearly indicated that the figure stated was untrue, and therefore Tanner cannot be said to have purchased the motel in reliance on the falsehood. If the innocent party, Tanner, knew the true facts, or should have known the true facts because they were available to him, Granos argument will prevail. Finally, the issue centers on Granos duty to tell Tanner of the bypass. Ordinarily, neither party in a non-fiduciary relationship has a duty to disclose facts, even when the information might bear materially on the others decision to enter into the contract. Exceptions are made, however, when the buyer cannot reasonably be expected to discover the information known by the seller, in which case fairness imposes a duty to speak on the seller. Here, the court can go either way. If the court decides there was no duty to disclose, deems the prediction of future profits to be opinion rather than a statement of fact, and also decides there was no justifiable reliance by Tanner because the books available to Tanner clearly indicated Granos profit statement for the last year to be false, then Tanner cannot get his money back on the basis of fraud. And If the Court decided that it was Granos duty to tell Tanner about the bypass and consider this action as a Fraud Tanner will get his money back.
Next
5- In August 2000, in California, Terry Reigelsperger sought treatment for pain in his lower back from Chiropractor James Siller. Reigelsperger felt better after the treatment and did not intend to return for more, although he did not mention this to Siller. Before lea ving the office, Reigelsperger signed an informed consent form that read, in part, I intend this consent form to cover the entire course of treatment for my present condition and for any future condition(s) for which I seek treatment. He also signed an agreement that required the parties to submit to arbitration any dispute as to medical malpractice. This agreement is intended to bind the patient and the health care provider who now or in the future treat the patient. Two years later, Reigelsperger sought treatment from Siller for a different condition relating to his cervical spine and shoulder. Claiming malpractice with respect to the second treatment, Reigelsperger filed a suit in a California state court against Siller. Siller asked the court to order that the dispute be submitted to arbitration. Facts: In August 2000, in California, Terry Reigelsperger sought treatment for pain in his lower back from chiropractor James Siller. Reigelsperger felt better after the treatment and did not intend to return for more, although he did not mention this to Siller. Before leaving the office, Reigelsperger signed an informed consent form that read, in part, I intend this consent form to cover the entire course of treatment for my present condition and for any future condition(s) for which I seek treatment. He also signed an agreement that required the parties to submit to arbitration any dispute as to medical malpractice. This agreement is intended to bind the patient and the health care provider who now or in the future treat the patient. Two years later, Reigelsperger sought treatment from Siller for a different condition relating to his cervical spine and shoulder. Claiming malpractice with respect to the second treatment, Reigelsperger filed a suit in a California state court against Siller Siller asked the court to order that the dispute be submitted to arbitration Parties: Terry Reigelsperger Chiropractor James Siller Legal Problem: Would the court submit the dispute to arbitration? Would the court dismiss the case? Applied Rules: An informal contract is the contract which doesnt require any particular formalities. Consent is enough to bind the contract. The informal contract may be oral or written. If a written element is required for the contract to be binding; it will still be informal because there is no particular form required. The informal contract can be proven by oath or witness. The contract has four essential elements, which are: Agreement (between the parties arrived through offer and acceptance), Consideration (something of value exchanged by each party), Competent parties (parties have the legal and mental ability to enter into binding contract), and Cause of contracts (the motive to enter the contract, which must be lawful).So when these four elements come together, they form a contract. All of these elements must be present for any agreement to have the status of contract. If any one of these elements is not present then the contract will be rendered invalid.
10
Conclusion: The court will accept to submit the case to arbitration, this contract has the essential four elements that make it valid : Agreement: The offer which is the proposal indicated in the offeror intention to enter into a contract with the offeree and the acceptance is made when the offeree agrees or accepts the offer which the offeror made, in this case the first requirement of a valid contract has been satisfied Consideration-The consideration here is : Obligation to Do In the obligation to do, the object must have certain conditions which are, the possibility and legality of the object Competent parties : Both parties are those persons legally and mentally capable of entering into agreements that are enforceable by law The Cause: Must be lawful and it must be continued also I intend this consent form to cover the entire course of treatment for my present condition and for any future condition(s ) Concerning the informality of the contract we said before that that in order to make an informal to be biding it has to be written and the consent is enough to bind the contract. The written arbitration agreement any dispute as to medical malpractice. This agreement is intended to bind the patient and the health care provider who now or in the future treat the patient If Reigelsperger asserted that he had not intended to return to Siller for treatment, his un-communicated subjective intent is irrelevant. Mutual consent is gathered from the reasonable meaning of the words and acts of the parties, and not from their unexpressed intentions or understanding.
11
Next
6- First Hartford Corporation (FHC) incorporated in Texas in 1909 to compete in the textile industry. As textiles declined, FHC focused on buying, developing and managing of real estate. During the 1980s and 1990s FHC struggled to stay in business. The company went through bankruptcy downsized from 143 employees to 21. It held no official board or shareholder meetings and issued no audited financial statements. During this time Ned Ellis managed FHC, he had been a director since 1966 and president since 1968 he owned about 43% of FHC stock. Ellis also owned and operated Green Manor Corporation, which owned still other companies, often documents both companies are filled together, which included interest free loans, property exchanges, forgiveness of debts and other deals totaling millions of dollars. By 2000, Ellis nursed FHC back to profitability, there was a market for FHC shares; the stock price since then has trended upward, FHC planned its first shareholders meeting. In 2005 Kaplan bought a defective textile shipment from Green Manor Corp. , Kaplan filled a suit in a federal district court against FHC and Ellis could such an action succeed ? Facts: First Hartford Corporation (FHC) incorporated in Texas in 1909 to compete in the textile industry. As textiles declined, FHC focused on buying, developing and managing of real estate. During the 1980s and 1990s FHC struggled to stay in business The company went through bankruptcy downsized from 143 employees to 21 It held no official board or shareholder meetings and issued no audited financial statements. During this time Ned Ellis managed FHC, he had been a director since 1966 and president since 1968 he owned about 43% of FHC stock Ellis also owned and operated Green Manor Corporation, which owned still other companies, often documents both companies are filled together, which included interest free loans, property exchanges, forgiveness of debts and other deals totaling millions of dollars By 2000 , Ellis nursed FHC back to profitability, there was a market for FHC shares; the stock price since then has trended upward, FHC planned its first shareholders meeting In 2005 Kaplan bought a defective textile shipment from Green Manor Corp. Kaplan filled a suit in a federal district court against FHC and Ellis Parties: First Hartford Corporation (FHC) Ned Ellis Green Manor Corporation Kaplan Legal Problem: Could Kaplan sue FHC and Ned Ellis? Applied Rules: Joint Venture: An association of persons or companies collaborating in a business venture for more than a transitory time period. Common enterprise liability o When individuals or companies (including related subsidiary companies of a multinational firm) function as part of a common enterprise, courts will treat them as if they were members of a joint venture or partnership, with each of them having joint or joint and several liability for the obligations of the entire enterprise. In determining whether persons or firms are members of a common enterprise, courts look at the intent of the parties. o If the parties have not entered into a formal agreement creating a partnership or joint venture, the courts will consider several factors in determining intent, including :
12
Sharing of profits or losses. Sharing in the management. Joint ownership of the business Peirce the company veil: An expression indicating that the company is a separate legal entity that will be set aside and the shareholders of the company will be held liable for its conduct as if they were partners in a partnership. o There are four circumstances under which courts will pierce the corporate veil: The controlled company. The alter ego company Undercapitalization. Personal assumption of liability The Controlled Company: the corporate status of a controlled company will be ignored if : Its financing and management are so closely connected to its parent that it does not have any independent decision-making authority It is induced to enter into a transaction beneficial to the parent but detrimental to it and to third parties Conclusion: Kaplan suitcase will be succeed as according to the common enterprise liability and Peirce of the company veil because as stated in the facts above Ellis owned and operated Green Manor Corporation, which owned still other companies, often documents both companies are filled together, which included interest free loans, property exchanges, forgiveness of debts and other deals totaling millions of dollars ( Shared Management)
13
Next
7- Kazaa BV, is a limited liability company organized under the laws of The Netherlands with a representative office in California, Kazaa distributed an application software program entitled the KaZaA Media Desktop which enabled users to exchange digital media with un fair prices, including movies and music via peer to peer transfer network. Kazaa also operated the kazaa.com website, through which is distributed the KMD software to millions of California residents and other users. Metro- Goldwyn-Mayer studios, Inc. and other parties in the entertainment industries in California filed a suit in a federal district court against Kazaa and others, alleging copyright infringement. Kazaa filed a counterclaim but while legal action was bending the firm passed its assets and its website to one of its subsidiary named Sharman Networks, LTD. A company incorporated in the South Pacific Island of Vanuatu, but operating out of Australia. Sharman explicitly disclaimed the assumptions of any of Kazaa liabilities. The plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaints to name Sharman as a defendant. In response, Sharman filed motion to dismiss the case, principally arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction over it. Would be legally correct to subject Sharman to the suit in this case? Explain Facts: Parties: Kazaa BV, is a limited liability company organized under the laws of The Netherlands with a representative office in California, Kazaa distributed an application software program entitled the KaZaA Media Desktop which enabled users to exchange digital media with unfair prices, including movies and music via peer to peer transfer network. Kazaa also operated the kazaa.com website, through which is distributed the KMD software to millions of California residents and other users. Metro- Goldwyn-Mayer studios, Inc. and other parties in the entertainment industries in California filed a suit in a federal district court against Kazaa and others, alleging copyright infringement. Kazaa filed a counterclaim but while legal action was bending the firm passed its assets and its website to one of its subsidiary named Sharman Networks, LTD Sharman is a company incorporated in the South Pacific Island of Vanuatu, but operating out of Australia. Sharman explicitly disclaimed the assumptions of any of Kazaa liabilities. The plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaints to name Sharman as a defendant. Sharman filed motion to dismiss the case principally arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction over it.
Kazaa BV Metro- Goldwyn-Mayer studios, Inc. and other parties Sharman Legal Problem: Would be legally correct to subject Sharman to the suit in this case? Applied Rules: Choice of Law Rule: In order to decide which court has subject matter jurisdiction, in defamation proceedings the place of defamation (=place of the infliction of the damage) has to be identified. Personal Jurisdiction: It refers to the power of a court to enter a binding judgment against a person or other legal entity. A court must be able to exercise personal jurisdiction over a party in order for that party to be bound by an order of the court. Long arm statute: A law defining the conduct of a foreign person within a state that will subject that person to the jurisdiction of the state. United States minimum contacts tests: A jurisdictional test required by due process that looks to see if a person had such contacts with a state that it could reasonably have anticipated that it would have to defend itself there.
14
Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction of a court over the subject-matter of the case: As the assets transferred to Sharman include the Kazaa.com website and domain does Kazaa BV's has any liability? Forum non conveniens: Doctrine that a municipal court will decline to hear a dispute when it can be better or more conveniently settled in a foreign forum. This allows courts applying this device to determine if the forum state has enough interest in the outcome of the dispute to take jurisdiction. The factors considered are: o The private interests of the parties (i.e., the ease and cost of access to documents and witnesses) o The public interest factors (i.e., the interest of the forum state, the burden on the courts and notions of judicial comity).
Conclusion: Sharma is an Australian company that is not registered or licensed to do business in California, nor does it appear to have any substantial presence there , US court have does not have a jurisdiction over this case.
15
Company of Persons dispute Cases

General Rules in resolving company of persons disputes
First , Company's liability for acts of Director : Second , The New Partner (optional): Third , The withdrawing Partner (mandatory): Fourth , The concessioner partner of his share (optional): Fifth , The limited partner converted into General partner : Sixth , The General partner by contribution of services :
First , Company's liability for acts of Director : - In the case of contract on behalf of the company and in its name the company is liable. - In the case of contract on behalf of the company and in the name of the director the company is liable. - In the case of contract on behalf of the director and in the name of the company two solutions
Good faith of third party Bad faith of the third party Company liable Company not liable
Second , The New Partner (optional): The new partner is responsible since the date of his joining the company for all prior and subsequent debits unless there is an agreement exempted him from prior debits. Third , The withdrawing Partner (mandatory): Prior debits liable for 5 years since the date of his withdrawal published. New debits he is not liable if he finished the withdrawal publicity and his name was deleted from the company title in case it exist. Debits before deleting the name from the company title the withdrawal partner is liable and the five years limitation only apply from the deleting date of the partner name from the title. Fourth , The concessioner partner of his share (optional): The partner is liable for debits prior to the concessions till the end of five years from date of the publicity of the concession, unless there is an agreement to exempt him from that liability. Fifth , The limited partner converted into General partner : His name is mentioned in the title of the company with his permission or without his objection. Interference in external affairs of the company. Unlimited Joint personal liability. Sixth , The General partner by contribution of services : The rule is any general partner is personally and jointly liable disregarding the kind of his contribution. An agreement could be settled to exempt the loss liability without considering that one of the lionen conditions that leads to absolute invalidity. we have to differentiate between : This agreement is valid between the partners. This agreement is not valid towards third parties and the partner still personally and joint liable.
16
The General Characteristics 1. The name
2. The unlimited liability of all partners
3. A partner is considered a merchant
4. The capital contributions made by partners are represented by interests.
Partnership - All legal acts performed by a partnership should be made under its name. - This name should be composed of the name of one or more of its partners. - If the company uses the names of some of its partners, their names should be followed by the words (and cy). - The name of the partnership cannot include the name of a person who is not a partner (third party) - This rule is of public policy. - First, every partner is personally liable for all debts of partnership, as if they were his own debts. This liability unlimited. - This unlimited liability is of public policy. It cannot be excluded by a clause in the partnership contract. - Secondly, all the partners are jointly liable for all the debts of the partnership. - This joint liability cannot be excluded by a contractual clause. - Consequently any creditor of the partnership can claim the payment of the totality of his debt against any partner of his choice. - A partner in a partnership is considered a merchant; Hence he should have the commercial capacity. - A minor cannot be admitted as a partner. - As a merchant, a partner can be declared bankrupt if he stops paying his commercial debts. But such bankruptcy does not lead to the bankruptcy of the partnership, but it may lead to its dissolution. But if the partnership is declared bankrupt, every partner will be automatically declared bankrupted. - Contributions are not negotiable - A partner cannot sell his interests to a third party without the prior acceptance of all the other partners unless the contract decides otherwise
The limited partnership (Civil Law States Ex. France): At least one partner must be a general partner (with personal unlimited liability) and one must be a limited partner. Limited partners have limited liability of the kind that investors in stock companies have. They may only invest cash or property in France, but in Germany, services may be fixed and recognized as a contribution. In both countries, persons can be either a general or a limited partner, but they cannot be both. In France, limited partners may participate in the internal administration of the partnership but may not deal with third parties. In Germany, they can participate in internal administration and be given powers to deal with third parties on behalf of the partnership. The limited partnership (Common Law States Ex. USA and Egypt): This is a partnership consisting of one or more general partners who manage the business and who are jointly and severally responsible as ordinary partners for its obligations and one or more limited partners who contribute a specific sum to the capital account and share in the profits.
17
A limited partner does not participate in the management of the firm and does not have liability for the debts of the partnership beyond the funds he or she contributed. Although a limited partnership can be formed only upon registration with the state, it is regarded, like an ordinary partnership, as an aggregate of its general partners and not as a separate juridical entity.
18
1- There are six partners in a limited partnership, General partners Adam, Baher, Christine and Dalia and Limited Partners Essam and Fady. Under the LP agreement Essam and Fady are each entitled to 20% of the profits and each of them contributed 20,000 $. Adam, Baher, Christine and Dalia are each entitled to 15% of the profits each having contributed 2,500$ and also having assumed managerial duties. Christine assigns her interest in money receivable from the LP to Caroline on January 1. On February 1, Essam sells his partnership interest to CIB Bank. On March 1, Ghada is added as a new general as a new general partner she has made no capital contribution. On April 1, Baher dies , Assets and Liabilities are as follows : January 1 to February 14 : 95000$ in assets and no liabilities February 15 and thereafter : 95000$ in assets (minus a new liability Judgment of 20000$ against the LP)
The LP is now dissolved, it made no profits this year, but the previous year profits were 60000$, which has not been divided among the partners. A) Discuss the partners Liability, and B) Distribution of the remaining 75000$ Facts:
There are six partners in a limited partnership, General partners Adam, Baher, Christine and Dalia and Limited Partners Essam and Fady. Under the LP agreement Essam and Fady are each entitled to 20% of the profits and each of them contributed 20,000 $. Adam, Baher, Christine and Dalia are each entitled to 15% of the profits each having contributed 2,500$ and also having assumed managerial duties. Christine assigns her interest in money receivable from the LP to Caroline on January 1. On February 1, Essam sells his partnership interest to CIB Bank. On March 1, Ghada is added as a new general as a new general partner she has made no capital contribution. On April 1, Baher dies. Assets and Liabilities are as follows : o January 1 to February 14 : 95000$ in assets and no liabilities o February 15 and thereafter : 95000$ in assets (minus a new liability Judgment of 20000$ against the LP) The LP is now dissolved, it made no profits this year, but the previous year profits were 60000$, which has not been divided among the partners.
Parties: Adam Baher. Christine Dalia Essam Fady Caroline Ghada Legal Problem: What are the partners liabilities in Limited Partnership Company? What are their shares in the remaining profit? Applied Rules: Look at pages 14 , 15 and 16
19
Conclusion: Partner Liabilities: Ghada: (A General Partner by contribution Rule 6) the rule is any general partner is personally and jointly liable disregarding the kind of his contribution. An agreement could be settled to exempt the loss liability without considering that one of the lionen conditions that leads to absolute invalidity. we have to differentiate between : This agreement is valid between the partners. This agreement is not valid towards third parties and the partner still personally and joint liable. Adam, Baher and Dalia (General Managers with managerial duties Rule 1) In the case of contract on behalf of the company and in its name the company is liable. In the case of contract on behalf of the company and in the name of the director the company is liable. In the case of contract on behalf of the director and in the name of the company two solutions (Good Faith(Company Liable) Bad Faith(Company not liable)) Baher April 1: (General Manager Died) Duration of a limited partnership terminated by death of a general partner in unless the other general partners agreed to continue the partnership. Christine : (The concessioner partner- Rule 4) The partner is liable for debits prior to the concessions till the end of five years from date of the publicity of the concession, unless there is an agreement to exempt him from that liability Essam (Withdrawing Partner - Rule 3) Prior debits liable for 5 years since the date of his withdrawal published. New debits he is not liable if he finished the withdrawal publicity and his name was deleted from the company title in case it exist. Debits before deleting the name from the company title the withdrawal partner is liable and the five years limitation only apply from the deleting date of the partner name from the title. Caroline: (New Partner- Rule 2): The new partner is responsible since the date of his joining the company for all prior and subsequent debits unless there is an agreement exempted him from prior debits. Fady (Limited Partner) : Contributes a specific sum to the capital account and share in the profits. A limited partner does not participate in the management of the firm and does not have liability for the debts of the partnership beyond the funds he or she contributed. Although a limited partnership can be formed only upon registration with the state, it is regarded, like an ordinary partnership, as an aggregate of its general partners and not as a separate juridical entity Distribution of 75000$: Rule Distribution of Assets on Liquidation Order of Priorities o 1. Outside creditors and partner creditors. o 2. Partners and former partners entitled to distributions of partnership assets. o 3. Unless otherwise agreed, return of capital contributions and distribution of pro t to partners. Essam and Fady are each entitled to 20% of the profits (60000) and and the contribution of 20,000 $ each. Adam, Baher, Caroline and Dalia are each entitled to 15% of profits (60000) and the contribution of 2500$ each. Ghadas Share in the profits (60000) will be decided by the other partners.
20
Next
2- In January 1989, Limited Partnership Company was established between Ahmed and Mohammed (as General partners) and Ibrahim and Aly as (Limited partners). The Company has entered into long negotiations with the National Bank of Egypt (NBE) for a loan, Ahmed and Mohammed and Ibrahim participated in loan negotiations, and ended with the conclusion of the loan contract in early June 1989, Ahmed has signed the contract that contains the name of Aly as part of the company name. In August 1989, Saeed joined the company as General Partner, and in January the bank raise the claim in order to claim the rest of the loan is 200,000. Partners defending the following: Aly: His name was mentioned in the title without his knowledge or permission. Ahmed: His share in the company is 20.000 . Mohammed: the invalidity of the company's contract because it was not released. Ibrahim: Limited partner with limited liability .Saeed: joined the company after the loan. If Ibrahim fulfilled the entire value of the loan, has he the right to return to other partners? Facts:
In January 1989, Limited Partnership Company was established between Ahmed and Mohammed (as General partners) and Ibrahim and Aly as (Limited partners) The Company has entered into long negotiations with the National Bank of Egypt (NBE) for a loan, Ahmed and Mohammed and Ibrahim participated in loan negotiations, and ended with the conclusion of the loan contract in early June 1989, Ahmed has signed the contract that contains the name of Aly as part of the company name. In August 1989, Saeed joined the company as General Partner In January the bank raise the claim in order to claim the rest of the loan is 200,000. Partners defending the following: o Aly: His name was mentioned in the title without his knowledge or permission. o Ahmed: His share in the company is 20.000. o Mohammed: the invalidity of the company's contract because it was not released. o Ibrahim: Limited partner with limited liability. o Saeed: joined the company after the loan.
Parties: Aly. Ahmed. Mohammed. Ibrahim. Saeed. NBE Legal Problem: If Ibrahim fulfilled the entire value of the loan, has he the right to return to other partners? Applied Rules: Look at pages 14 ,15 and 16 Conclusion: Ibrahim as a limited partner does not participate in the management of the firm and does not have liability for the debts of the partnership beyond the funds he contributed. So if he fulfilled the entire value of the loan, he has the right to return to other partners each should pay according to his role as a partner (General or Limited)
21
Next
3- In January 1980, a limited partnership company was established between Khalid, Mohsen and Farid (as limited partner). The company was titled (Khaled, Mohsen & Co.). In 1982 the company entered into a loan with Banque Misr (BM) based on Farid advice. In 1983, Khalid withdrew from the company, this withdrawal was proclaimed in January 1984. In July 1985, the company entered into a loan contract with the National Bank of Egypt (NBE) that Farid took part in signature. In October 1986, Khalid deleted his name from the companys title. In November 1968, the company entered into another loan contract with Alex bank. In 1989, BM claimed the payment of his debt against Khaled + Farid. In 1990, NBE claimed the payment of his debt against Khalid + Farid. In 1987, Alex Bank claimed the payment of his debt against Khaled. Show the extent of liability for both Khaled and Farid in each of the above cases. Facts: In January 1980, a limited partnership company was established between Khalid, Mohsen and Farid (as limited partner). The company was titled (Khaled, Mohsen & Co.). In 1982 the company entered into a loan with Banque Misr (BM) based on Farid advice. In 1983, Khalid withdrew from the company, this withdrawal was proclaimed in January 1984. In July 1985, the company entered into a loan contract with the National Bank of Egypt (NBE) that Farid took part in signature In October 1986, Khalid deleted his name from the companys title. In November 1968, the company entered into another loan contract with Alex bank. In 1989, BM claimed the payment of his debt against Khaled + Farid. In 1990, NBE claimed the payment of his debt against Khalid + Farid. In 1987, Alex Bank claimed the payment of his debt against Khaled Parties: Khalid Mohsen. Farid. Bank Misr Legal Problem: What is the extent of liability for both Khaled and Farid in each of the above cases? Applied Rules: Look at pages 14,15, and 16 Conclusion: Case 1: In 1989, BM claimed the payment of his debt against Khaled + Farid: o Khaled as (a Withdrawing partner): Prior debits liable for 5 years since the date of his withdrawal published. o Farid as a limited partner does not participate in the management of the firm and does not have liability for the debts of the partnership beyond the funds he or she contributed Case 2: In 1990, NBE claimed the payment of his debt against Khalid + Farid. o Khaled as (a Withdrawing partner): Debits before deleting the name from the company title the withdrawal partner is liable and the five years limitation only apply from the deleting date of the partner name from the title. o Farid will be treated as a General partner because a limited partner who participates in management (signing the contract) will be just as liable as a general partner to any creditor who transacts business
22
with the limited partnership and believes, based on the limited partners conduct, that the limited partner is a general partner. The limited partner converted into General partner : His name is mentioned in the title of the company with his permission or without his objection. Interference in external affairs of the company. Unlimited Joint personal liability. Case 3: In 1987, Alex Bank claimed the payment of his debt against Khaled o Khaled as (a Withdrawing partner): New debits he is not liable if he finished the withdrawal publicity and his name was deleted from the company title in case it exist
23
Next
4- In October 10th 2003, Limited Partnership Company was established between Ahmed, Ibrahim and Aly (as General partners) and Kamal as (Limited partner). They are all agreed that the company operates under the name Ahmed, Kamal & Co. Then Ibrahim appointed as sole manager of the company. In January 10th 2004, Ibrahim entered into a loan contract with the Bank Misr in the name of the company but used the borrowed loan in his own personal affairs. On April 10th 2004 Ahmed sold his interest in the company to Zeid. The manager of the company refused to pay back the loan to the bank at the maturity date the bank sued Ahmed, Aly, Kamal and Zeid for payment of the loan. Aly refused the bank claim as the company is not liable for such payment since the manager used the load for his own personal affairs. Kamal argued that hi is not liable for this as he is a limited partner with a limited liability and he already paid his share in the capital of the company. Ahmed argued that he is not a partner anymore since he sold his interest to Zeid. Zeid refused the bank claim since he was not a partner when the loan was contracted. Discuss Facts: In October 10th 2003, Limited Partnership Company was established between Ahmed, Ibrahim and Aly (as General partners) and Kamal as (Limited partner) They are all agreed that the company operates under the name Ahmed, Kamal & Co Ibrahim appointed as sole manager of the company In January 10th 2004, Ibrahim entered into a loan contract with the Bank Misr in the name of the company but used the borrowed loan in his own personal affairs On April 10th 2004 Ahmed sold his interest in the company to Zeid. The manager of the company refused to pay back the loan to the bank at the maturity date the bank sued Ahmed, Aly, Kamal and Zeid for payment of the loan Aly refused the bank claim as the company is not liable for such payment since the manager used the load for his own personal affairs. Kamal argued that hi is not liable for this as he is a limited partner with a limited liability and he already paid his share in the capital of the company. Ahmed argued that he is not a partner anymore since he sold his interest to Zeid. Zeid refused the bank claim since he was not a partner when the loan was contracted. Parties: Ahmed. Kamal. Aly. Ibrahim. Zeid. Bank Misr Legal Problem: What are partners responsibilities in Limited Partnership Company? Applied Rules: Look at pages 14 , 15 and 16 Conclusion: Ibrahim as a General Partner and the director of the company (Rule 1) o In the case of contract on behalf of the director and in the name of the company two solutions (Good
Faith(Company Liable) Bad Faith(Company not liable))
As for our case Ibrahim conducted a contract with the bank on behalf of him and in the name of the company but he had a bad faith as he refused to pay back the loan to the bank so the company is not liable as well as all the partners.
24
Book Chapter 4 Related Exercises

1- Goliath, Inc., a U.S. producer of gem-quality sapphires, set up a subsidiary holding company in the Cayman Islands (Junior, Ltd.) to control all of Goliath's non-US. Subsidiaries. Junior then entered into a cartel agreement with producers of sapphires in those countries (other than the United States) where sapphires are found. The cartel agreement allocated markets and set prices for all sapphires sold outside of the United States. The U.S. government has now brought suit against both Goliath and Junior for violating the U.S. Sherman Antitrust Act. Goliath answers that it was not a party to the cartel agreement and that the agreement does not affect the U.S. market for sapphires. Junior answers that it is not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts. Are Goliath and Junior correct? Facts: Goliath, Inc., a United States producer of gem quality sapphires, set up a subsidiary holding company in the Cayman Islands (Junior, Ltd.) to control all of Goliath's non-United States subsidiaries. Junior then entered into a cartel agreement with producers of sapphires in those countries (other than the US) where sapphires are found The cartel agreement allocated markets and set prices for all sapphires sold outside of the United States. The United States government has now brought suit against both Goliath and Junior for violating the US Sherman Antitrust Act Goliath answers that it was not a party to the cartel agreement and that the agreement does not affect the US market for sapphires Junior answers that it is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US courts
Parties: Goliath, Inc. Junior United States government Legal Problem: Do Goliath and Junior Violate US Sherman Antitrust Act? Applied Rules: Sherman Antitrust Act Section 1: Forbids combinations and conspiracies in restraint of interstate and international trade. Personal jurisdiction, or in personam jurisdiction, refers to the power of a court to enter a binding judgment against a person or other legal entity. A court must be able to exercise personal jurisdiction over a party in order for that party to be bound by an order of the court. o Long arm statute: A law defining the conduct of a foreign person within a state that will subject that person to the jurisdiction of the state. o United States minimum contacts tests a jurisdictional test required by due process that looks to see if a person had such contacts with a state that it could reasonably have anticipated that it would have to defend itself there. o In other words the defendant (Person or Company) must have minimum contacts with USA (An office, a bank account or even related business property in the United States) Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Two tests are used to determine whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction in an American antitrust case: o United States effects test: A jurisdictional test that subjects foreign businesses to U.S. antitrust laws if their activities were intended to affect U.S. commerce and the effect was other than minimal. o U.S. jurisdictional rule of reason test: A jurisdictional test that allows U.S. courts to assume jurisdiction over a foreign business for violation of US- antitrust, laws if: The alleged conduct was intended to affect the foreign commerce of the United States. It was of such a type and magnitude as to violate the Sherman Act
25
As a matter of international comity and fairness, a U.S. court ought to assume extraterritorial jurisdiction over the matter. o Jurisdictional rule of reason: Was the conduct intended to affect the foreign commerce of USA? Did it violate the Sherman Act? Matter of international comity Clayton Act: Expands the enforcement provisions of the Sherman Antitrust Act. o Define exclusive dealing and trying clauses, mergers that result in monopolies and interlocking directorates as being unfair business practice. Conclusion: The Goliath company has violated the Sherman Act section 1 the two conditions of the Extraterritorially application of the US antitrust laws can be applied (Both Personal Jurisdiction and Subject Jurisdiction) The court should rule in the favor of The US Government.
26
Next
2- The Buena Banana Co., a U.S. corporation, has several subsidiaries in Central America that purchase bananas from local producers. Buena then sells the bananas under its trademark to wholesalers in the United States. The Compania del Platano Puro, SA (Puro), an Argentine corporation that markets bananas throughout South America, recently set up several subsidiaries in Central America in direct competition with those of Buena. Puro's subsidiaries have offered the Central American producers an arrangement that is remarkably generous by international standards. It will give them a guaranteed ten-year contract to purchase their entire production at 10 percent above world market prices. (Buena, by comparison, has never agreed to a long-term contract and only pays the going world prices.) Puro's sales are presently limited to South America, but it hopes to begin selling throughout the United States soon. In preparation for this, it has set up a small branch in Miami, Florida, and it is testing the local market with sales to several upscale market chains. In the meantime, Buena has brought suit against Puro in a U.S. federal court in Miami. It claims that Puro is attempting to monopolize the banana trade in Central America (there is only one other large banana-exporting company in competition with Buena and Puro). Buena claims that Puro's activities in Central America will force Buena to raise its prices and that this will affect American consumers. Does the US, court have jurisdiction to hear the case? Discuss. Facts: The Buena Banana Co., a U.S corporation, has several subsidiaries in Central America that purchase bananas from local producers Buena then sells the bananas under its trademark to wholesalers in the United States Puro, an Argentine corporation that markets bananas throughout South America, recently set up several subsidiaries in Central America in direct competition with those of Buena Puros subsidiaries have offered the Central American producers an arrangement that is remarkably generous by international standards. It will give them a guaranteed 10-year contract to purchase their entire production at 10 percent above world market price Puros sales are now limited to South America, but it hopes to sell throughout the US soon. so it has set up a branch in Miami, Florida, and it is testing the local market with sales. Buena has brought suit against Puro in a U.S. federal court in Miami. It claims that Puro is attempting to monopolize the banana trade in Central America There is only one other large banana exporting company in competition with Buena and Puro Buena claims that Puros activities in Central America will force Buena to raise its prices and that this will affect American consumers
Parties: Buena Banana Co. Puro. U.S. federal court in Miami. Legal Problem: Does Buena have the right to sue Puro for monopolistic activity? Does the U.S court have jurisdiction to hear the case? Applied Rules: Sherman Antitrust Act Section 2: Forbids monopolies and attempts to monopolize interstate and international trade.
27
Personal Jurisdiction: It refers to the power of a court to enter a binding judgment against a person or other legal entity. A court must be able to exercise personal jurisdiction over a party in order for that party to be bound by an order of the court. Long arm statute: A law defining the conduct of a foreign person within a state that will subject that person to the jurisdiction of the state. United States minimum contacts tests a jurisdictional test required by due process that looks to see if a person had such contacts with a state that it could reasonably have anticipated that it would have to defend itself there. In other words the defendant (Person or Company) must have minimum contacts with USA (An office, a bank account or even related business property in the United States) Subject Matter Jurisdiction :Two tests are used to determine whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction in an American antitrust case: United States effects test: A jurisdictional test that subjects foreign businesses to U.S. antitrust laws if their activities were intended to affect U.S. commerce and the effect was other than minimal. U.S. jurisdictional rule of reason test: A jurisdictional test that allows U.S. courts to assume jurisdiction over a foreign business for violation of US- antitrust, laws if (1) the alleged conduct was intended to affect the foreign commerce of the United States, (2) it was of such a type and magnitude as to violate the Sherman Act, and (3) as a matter of international comity and fairness, a U.S. court ought to assume extraterritorial jurisdiction over the matter. Jurisdictional rule of reason: Was the conduct intended to affect the foreign commerce of USA? Did it violate the Sherman Act? Matter of international comity Robinson Patman Act : Prohibits price discrimination It mandates that two or more purchasers of a commodity from the same seller must be charged identical prices
Conclusion: Puro Company has violated the Sherman Act section 2. The two conditions of the Extraterritorially application of the US antitrust laws can be applied (Both Personal Jurisdiction and Subject Jurisdiction) The court should rule in the favor of Buena Banana Company
28
Next
3-
I Company is a large American manufacturer of computers. It controls approximately 65 percent of the market in the European Community. It refuses to share the patents and copyrights it owns for the operating system software that controls its computers, thus not allowing other manufacturers to make computers that are compatible with I's computers (i.e., other manufacturers cannot make and sell computers that will run the same programs as I Company's computers). Is this a violation of Article 81 or 82 of the European Community Treaty? Discuss.
Facts:
Parties: I Company. Other manufacturers. Aly. Ibrahim. Zeid. Bank Misr Legal Problem: Is this a violation of Article 81 or 82 of the European Community Treaty? Applied Rules: The European Union has two provisions under the European Community Treaty: o Article 81: Prohibits normal arms-length competitors from entering into agreements or carrying on concerted practices that prevent, restrain or distort trade. Ex., Price fixing, limiting or controlling production, markets, technical development, or investment Paragraph 3 of Article 81 also sets out an exception in case of (1) contribute to improvement and (2) do not prevent competition in a substantial part of the market --> exempted from the application of the basic rule o Article 82: Forbids businesses with a dominant position in their marketplace to take improper advantage of their position to the detriment of consumers. There are 4 specific prohibitions listed: Directly or indirectly imposing unfair prices or trading conditions. Limiting production, markets, or technical developments to the prejudice of consumers. Applying unequal conditions to equivalent transactions with different trading partners. Imposing unrelated tying clauses. Unlike Article 81, there is no exception clause. Conclusion: The refusal of I Company to share the patents and copyrights it owns and NOT allowing other manufacturers to make computers compatible with Is computers is a prohibited practice according to Home state regulation EU Model article 82 and incompatible with the Common Market.
I Company is a large American manufacturer of computers It controls approximately 65 percent of the market in the European Community It refuses to share the patents and copyrights it owns for the operating system software that controls its computers, thus not allowing other manufacturers to make computers that are compatible with I's computers Other manufacturers cannot make and sell computers that will run the same programs as I Company's computers.
29
Next
4- Could I Company, in the previous question, be charged with violating American antitrust laws? Discuss. Facts: Same as previous case Parties: Same as previous case Legal Problem: Could I Company be charged with violating American antitrust laws? Applied Rules: Extraterritorial Application of U.S. Anti-trust: o If defendant is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court o If the court has subject matter jurisdiction Extraterritorial Application of U.S. Anti-trust o Personal Jurisdiction Requirements of U.S. Antitrust Laws: Anti-trust defendant who transacts business in the forum jurisdiction An applicable state long arm statue: A law defining a conduct of a foreign person within a state that will subject that person to the jurisdiction of the state o Subject Matter Jurisdiction Requirements of U.S. Antitrust Laws: Effects test: Foreign businesses are subject to U.S. Antitrust laws if there activities are intended to affect U.S. commerce and effect was other than minimal [trifles/of little importance] Sherman act: o Section 1: prohibits contracts, agreements, and conspiracies that restrain interstate or international trade o Section 2: forbids monopolies and attempts to monopolize commerce or trade either between the states of the U.S. or in international commerce affecting the U.S. Conclusion: Concerning the American Antitrust Laws: Personal Jurisdiction requirements are fulfilled since it is an American company. The Jurisdictional rule of reason test also fulfilled since : The company conduct intended to affect foreign commerce of the US as it may affect other US firms It was of such a type and magnitude to violate Sherman act [sort of monopolize trades] International fairness
30
Next
5- The Mighty Motor Car Co. and the Novel Automobile Corp. manufacture cars and trucks in Country J. They recently entered into a noncompetition agreement with the approval of the Country J Ministry of Trade. The agreement provides (a) that Mighty will sell its vehicles in the United States and that Novel will not and (b) that Novel will sell its vehicle in the EU and that Mighty will not, Since the signing of this agreement, the Foreign Car and Truck Import Co., a U.S. importer of Novel ears and light trucks, is unable to obtain vehicles to import to the United States. As a consequence, it has brought suit against Novel in a U.S. court alleging that the agreement between Mighty and Novel violated the U.S. Sherman Antitrust Act. Novel has asked the court to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Should it do so? Discuss. Facts: Mighty, & Novel both are vehicles manufacturers in country (J). Mighty, & Novel signed an agreement by which mighty will sell its vehicles in the US market, while Novel will sell its vehicles in the EU market both on exclusive bases. (J)s Ministry of trade approval was granted Foreign Car and Truck Importer Co., unable to obtain, & import vehicles from Novel to US. Foreign Car and Truck Importer Co., brought a suit against Novel in a U.S. court alleging that the agreement between Mighty, & Novel violated the U.S. Sherman Antitrust Act. Novel asked the court to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Parties: Car Manufacturers In Country (j) Mighty Motors Car Co. Novel Automobile Corp. Country (J)s ministry of trade. Foreign Car and Truck Importer Co., Novel US importer. Legal Problem: Validity of the US Sherman Antitrust Act. The US court power to have jurisdiction over this case. Competition Law & Jurisdiction Rule of Reason Does the US Court has the jurisdiction to investigate the case or it should dismiss the case because of the lack of the subject matter? Applied Rules: Sherman Antitrust Act o Case-by-case (rule of reason) While cases appeared to be similar, but circumstances of each case are varied. Case circumstances are the scale by which we can measure applicability of Sherman Act. Rule of reason distinguish between real antitrust violation & restrict competition. o Court perception Classifying the practice whether it negatively affected the foreign commerce of the US, or not. o Subject matter : Should the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the US be : Asserted to cover this matter or not. Type and magnitude of violation. Fairness and international comity. Conclusion: US court has the power of jurisdiction Novel request to dismiss the case will be rejected
31
Next
6- Assume the same facts as in the preceding question. Does the arrangement between Mighty and Novel violate either Article 81 or 82 of the European Community Treaty? Can the EU Commission take action against either Mighty or Novel? If it can, what action can it take? Discuss. Facts: Same as previous case Parties: Same as previous case Legal Problem: Violation of article 81 of free competition in the European Economic Area's common market. Applied Rules: Article 81: o The following shall be prohibited as incompatible with the common market: All agreements between undertakings, Decisions by associations of undertakings concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common market, and in particular those which Limit or control production, markets, technical development, or investment; This treaty of EU community prohibits Cartels, and all other agreements that could dispute competition in EU economic areas common market. Conclusion: The Agreement between Mighty and Novel violate article 81 of the European Community treaty. European commission can impose substantial fines.
32
Next
7- A Brand X auto dealership in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, sold a new Brand X automobile (manufactured in Germany) to Mr. Y in Toronto. A year later, Mr. Y and his family decided to move to Mexico. As they drove through the state of Oklahoma in the United States, they were involved in an automobile accident. Mr. and Mrs. Y and his children were severely injured. They claim that her injuries are due to a defect in the Brand X automobile. They have brought a product liability suit in an Oklahoma state court against the German manufacturer of the automobile and the regional distributor of Brand X automobiles in eastern Canada even though Brand X automobiles are not sold or serviced in Oklahoma. Both defendants ask to have the suit against them dis missed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The case is assigned to your court for a decision. Should the case be dismissed? Explain. Facts: A Brand X auto dealership in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, sold a new Brand X automobile (manufactured in Germany) to Mr. Y in Toronto A year later, Mr. Y and his family decided to move to Mexico As they drove through the state of Oklahoma in the United States, they were involved in an automobile accident. Mr. and Mrs. Y and his children were severely injured. They claim that her injuries are due to a defect in the Brand X automobile. They have brought a product liability suit in an Oklahoma state court against the German manufacturer of the automobile and the regional distributor of Brand X automobiles in eastern Canada even though Brand X automobiles are not sold or serviced in Oklahoma. Both defendants ask to have the suit against them dis missed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Parties: Mr. Y and his Family ( the buyer ) German Manufacturer of Automobile X Regional Distributor of Automobile X in eastern Canada. Oklahoma court in the United States Legal Problem: Shall the suit against the defendants dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction? Applied Rules: Product Liability Regulations: o Product liability means; liability of a manufacturer for injuries caused by its defective products o Three theories are known in this regard: Breach of contract Negligence Strict liability (principally in EU countries) US courts require two conditions for the extraterritorial application of product liability laws o First condition : personal jurisdiction Should be found in individual sates X not federal law (in this condition, Long arm statutes are normally enough) o Second condition : forum non convenience Case should be declined when it is appropriate to hear in in municipal court of another state (private and public interests factors) Extraterritorial application of US antitrust law o Long arm statue : A law defining the conduct of a foreign person within a state that will subject that person to the jurisdiction of the state
33
Based on unfair competition law, the US court applies the long arm statute that allows the court to apply its rules (including the Product liability law) Outside of its territory. Personal jurisdiction o Based on personal jurisdiction defendant must have a contact with US jurisdiction o The defendant must transact business in the forum jurisdiction. This is given a broad interpretation ( office, bank account, property or even subsidiary managed by non-American parent corporation) o The principal limitation is the constitutional respect of due process. This forbids courts to hear cases unless the defendant has a minimum contact with the forum. Forum non conveniens: This allows courts applying this device to determine if the forum state has enough interest in the outcome of the dispute to take jurisdiction o The factors considered are The private interests of the parties (i.e., the ease and cost of access to documents and witnesses) The public interest factors (i.e., interest of the forum state, the burden on the courts and notions of judicial comity). Conclusion: Oklahoma does not have personal jurisdiction over the Brand X (Auto dealership) Manufactured in Germany and Eastern Canada ,The facts of this case dont establish minimum contacts
34
Next
8- The dictator of State X lets it be known that a certain lucrative contract will be granted only to the foreign company that gives the most expensive "Birthday present" to the dictator's sevenyear-old son. An American, Japanese, and a European company are all vying for the contract. With what legal and ethical limitations must they comply? Discuss. Facts:
Parties: The dictator of State X The dictator's. An American company Japanese company European company Legal Problem: With what legal and ethical limitations must they comply? Applied Rules: Sharp Practices: Business dealings meant to obtain a benefit for a person or firm regardless of the means used. With the adoption of the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development ) Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business transactions OECD's member states are the wealthiest countries including Japan, Germany, France, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States Applied at American companies and foreign companies registered in the US, knowingly bribe a foreign government, officials or political parties or a candidate for foreign political office According to FCPA (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ) the bribery is not only money but anything of value to influence a foreign official to conduct new business or continue existing business Conclusion: All three companies are in breach of the FCP Act , all three companies are liable and subject to OECD Convention , if they give, or give a promise to give a bribe
The dictator of State X lets it be known that a certain lucrative contract will be granted only to the foreign company that gives the most expensive "Birthday present" to the dictator's seven-year-old son. An American, Japanese, and a European company are all vying for the contract.
35
Next
9- Good, Better & Best (GBB) is the name used by several firms of business consultants located in many different countries, including countries in Western Europe, North America, South America, and the Orient. Depending on local laws, the firms are organized either as partnerships or as limited liability stock companies. The senior partners or presidents of the several firms meet on a regular basis to coordinate worldwide advertising and standardize the policies and practices of the several firms. The firms exchange information, and they share employees as the need may arise. Multinational clients are assured that they will be served by the local GBB firm in any country where the client does business. One of the GBB firms in Country X (GBB-X) provided marketing information to Local Company. The information had been negligently prepared by GBB-X, and it contained gross errors. Relying on that information, Local made several disastrous investments, and it lost most of its net worth. Local wants to sue CxBB-X, but it knows that GBB-X has few assets. Will Local be successful if it asks the court in which it is suing the GBB-X firm to join others of the GBB firms as codefendants? Would the choice of the court in which GBB brings its suit be important in deciding this? Discuss. Facts: Good, Better & Best (GBB) is the name used by several firms of business consultants located in many different countries, including countries in Western Europe, North America, South America, and the Orient. One of the GBB firms in Country X (GBB-X) provided marketing information to Local Company. The information had been negligently prepared by GBB-X, and it contained gross errors. Relying on that information, Local made several disastrous investments, and it lost most of its net worth.
Parties: Good, Better & Best (GBB). Country X (GBB-X). Local Company. Legal Problem: Will Local be successful if it asks the court in which it is suing the GBB-X firm to join others of the GBB firms as codefendants? Would the choice of the court in which GBB brings its suit be important in deciding this? Applied Rules: Common Enterprise Liability: When individuals or companies function as part of a common enterprise, courts will treat them as if they were members of a joint venture or partnership with each of them having joint or joint and several liability for the obligations of the entire enterprise. There are several factors that courts consider in determining whether persons or firms are members of a common enterprise: o Sharing of profits and losses o Sharing in management o Joint ownership of the business When a firm is deemed to be part of a common enterprise, all firms in the enterprise have joint liability for the obligations of each other. But any particular court may not have personal jurisdiction over many of the foreign firms that form the common enterprise. Thus, plaintiffs would well be served to bring suit in a state where at least one firm has plentiful assets. Conclusion: All firms in the enterprise of GBB consultancy will have joint liability for the obligations of GBB -X however Local Company will have to choose a court with plentiful assets as there are few assets in GBB - X
36
Next
10- Big Shipping Lines is a transoceanic freight company incorporated in Country Z. To avoid potential liability from shipping crude oil from the Persian Gulf to Europe in the antiquated single-hull ships that it owns, it set up 14 different companies (including the Small Shipping Co.) and transferred ownership of one ship to each of them. Each company then purchased insurance to cover the losses of the ship and the ship's cargo, but nothing else. The SS Small, which belonged to the Small Shipping Co., negligently ran aground on a shoal in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, spilling its entire load of some 5 million barrels of crude oil. The oil has washed ashore in Greece, Turkey, Cyprus, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, and Libya. Each of these countries has brought suit in Country Z against the Small Shipping Co., its sister companies, and Big Shipping Lines, the sister companies and Big Shipping Lines have asked the court to dismiss the complaints against them. They contend that the Small Shipping Co. is a separate company and is solely liable for its own torts. How should the court rule? Discuss. Facts: Big Shipping Lines is a transoceanic freight company incorporated in Country Z. To avoid potential liability from shipping crude oil from the Persian Gulf to Europe in the antiquated single-hull ships that it owns, it set up 14 different companies (including the Small Shipping Co.) and transferred ownership of one ship to each of them. Each company then purchased insurance to cover the losses of the ship and the ship's cargo, but nothing else. The SS Small, which belonged to the Small Shipping Co., negligently ran aground on a shoal in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, spilling its entire load of some 5 million barrels of crude oil. The oil has washed ashore in Greece, Turkey, Cyprus, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, and Libya Each of these countries has brought suit in Country Z against the Small Shipping Co., its sister companies, and Big Shipping Lines. The sister companies and Big Shipping Lines have asked the court to dismiss the complaints against them. They contend that the Small Shipping Co. is a separate company and is solely liable for its own torts
Parties: Big Shipping Lines. Country Z. Small Shipping Co. and Others Greece, Turkey, Cyprus, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, and Libya Legal Problem: Is Small Shipping Co. a separate company and is solely liable from its parent company (Big Shipping lines ) and its sister companies? Applied Rules: Peirce the company veil: An expression indicating that the company is a separate legal entity that will be set aside and the shareholders of the company will be held liable for its conduct as if they were partners in a partnership. o There are four circumstances under which courts will pierce the corporate veil: (1) The controlled company. (2) The alter ego company (3) Undercapitalization. (4) Personal assumption of liability o The Controlled Company: the corporate status of a controlled company will be ignored if :
37
Its financing and management are so closely connected to its parent that it does not have any independent decision-making authority It is induced to enter into a transaction beneficial to the parent but detrimental to it and to third parties. The Alter Ego Company: the company veil will be pierced if the company is not treated by its shareholders as a separate juridical entitythat is, if it is treated as the alter ego of the shareholders. Examples of such conduct include the commingling of corporate and personal assets, the use of company assets by shareholders for their personal benefit, and the failure to hold and record minutes of board of directors meetings. Undercapitalization: When a company has insufficient capital at the time it is formed to meet its prospective debts or potential liabilities, the courts will sometimes set aside the corporate veil. This is especially so if the corporation later fails to obtain the amount of insurance that any reasonable business would be expected to have as a matter of public responsibility. Personal Assumption of Liability: Shareholders can, of course, personally assume liability for the obligations of a company. This is especially common if a company is new, small, or marginally successful. Creditors will seldom lend money to such a company unless the shareholders personally guarantee the performance of the company.
Conclusion: In this case: Subsidiary is a An Alter Ego Company so, the court will not dismiss the complaints against the sister companies and the Big Shipping Lines, who will be considered liable for the occurred loses.
38
Book Chapter 5 - Exercises

1- Overseas Investment Co. (OIC), a multinational enterprise with its headquarters in State W, entered into a joint venture with Investment Promotions Facility, Ltd. (IPF), a stateowned company whose board of directors and principal officers had been appointed by the minister of finance of State X. The joint venture agreement provided that, in the event of any dispute, the dispute would be resolved by arbitration. Additionally, because the law of State X says that all foreign investment agreements must be approved by the minister of finance, the minister was present at the signing of the agreement; and after representatives of the two parties put their signatures on the document, the foreign minister added the words "approved and ratified" and his own signature. Unfortunately, a dispute did arise, and OIC initiated an arbitration proceeding according to the procedures set out in the joint venture agreement, naming both IPF and State X as parties. State X responded by arguing that the arbitration tribunal has no jurisdiction over it. Should State X be excused from participating in the suit? Discuss. Facts: Overseas Investment Co. (OIC), a multinational enterprise with its headquarters in State W, entered into a joint venture with Investment Promotions Facility, Ltd. (IPF), a state-owned company whose board of directors and principal officers had been appointed by the minister of finance of State X. The joint venture agreement provided that, in the event of any dispute, the dispute would be resolved by arbitration. because the law of State X says that all foreign investment agreements must be approved by the minister of finance, the minister was present at the signing of the agreement After representatives of the two parties put their signatures on the document, the foreign minister added the words "approved and ratified" and his own signature. A dispute did arise, and OIC initiated an arbitration proceeding according to the procedures set out in the joint venture agreement, naming both IPF and State X as parties. State X responded by arguing that the arbitration tribunal has no jurisdiction over it.
Parties: Overseas Investment Co. (OIC), State W. Investment Promotions Facility, Ltd. (IPF). State X. State X minister of finance. Legal Problem: Should State X be excused from participating in the suit? Applied Rules: Joint Venture Law of State X says that all foreign investment agreements must be approved by the minister of finance The host state will approve or disapprove a foreign investor's proposal. If the proposal did not ask for the host to grant any incentives, and if the host state does not insist upon any concessions from the investor, the approval will often be in the form of a letter from the appropriate agency. If the host state grants an incentive or the investor agrees to some concession, the arrangement will be set out in a formal investment agreement. Such an agreement will be governed by the host state's contract laws, and any disputes will be resolved in that state's courts unless the parties agree otherwise. The burden for ensuring that the proper approval has been granted rests with the investor. Conclusion: By endorsing the contract, the minister of finance was giving the endorsement required by law. He was not making the government a party to the contract and accordingly, the arbitration tribunal had no power over State X.
39
Next
2- The Video Assembly Co. (VAC), a company organized in State Z, entered into an agreement with the U.S. Government to assemble video cassette recorders from foreign manufactured parts inside a U.S. FTZ. Before this could be done, however, VAC had to set up an assembly plant. Rather than using an American facility, it imported a completely prefabricated plant. The plant consisted of the building, all of the assembly and packaging equipment, and all of the ancillary tools. The U.S. Customs Service claims that the plant itself did not qualify for exemption from customs duties at the time it came into the FTZ because it was not "merchandise" for assembly, as required by U.S. law, and the Customs Service levied duties on the plant. VAC has appealed to the U.S. Court of International Trade, asking for an order compelling the Customs Service to return the duties it collected. How should the court rule? Discuss. Facts: The Video Assembly Co. (VAC), a company organized in State Z, entered into an agreement with the U.S. Government to assemble video cassette recorders from foreign manufactured parts inside a U.S FTZ. Before this could be done, however, VAC had to set up an assembly plant Rather than using an American facility, it imported a completely prefabricated plant. The plant consisted of the building, all of the assembly and packaging equipment, and all of the ancillary tools. The U.S. Customs Service claims that the plant itself did not qualify for exemption from customs duties at the time it came into the FTZ because it was not "merchandise" for assembly, as required by U.S. law, and the Customs Service levied duties on the plant. VAC has appealed to the U.S. Court of International Trade, asking for an order compelling the Customs Service to return the duties it collected.
Parties: Video Assembly Co Kamal. U.S. Government. The U.S. Customs Service. U.S. Court of International Trade Legal Problem: The issue that the Appeal Court must decide is: Whether the equipment imported by VAC qualified for exemption from customs duties or not? Applied Rules: The Foreign Trade Zones Act (FTZA): o Authorizes the establishment of foreign trade zones within the United States. o The Act is administered by a Board which has authority to grant to corporations the privilege of establishing, operating, and maintaining foreign trade zones in or adjacent to ports of entry under the jurisdiction of the United States. o Merchandise may be brought into a foreign trade zone for the purposes set forth in the statute "without being subject to the customs laws of the United States." o In 1952 title 19, 81h States "zones for specialized purposes" or "subzones" in areas separate from existing free trade zones "for one or more of the specialized purposes of storing, manipulating, manufacturing, or exhibiting goods" when the Board finds that existing or authorized zones will not serve adequately the convenience of commerce with respect to the proposed purposes. o In contrast to general purpose zones where a municipal corporation leases a portion of the zone to firms that subsequently locate within that zone, subzones are generally used by a single firm. Foreign Trade Zones Act of 1934 In 1950, section 3 of the Act was amended to provide:
40
Foreign and domestic merchandise of every description, except such as is prohibited by law, may, without being subject to the customs laws of the United States, except as otherwise provided in this chapter, be brought into a zone and may. be stored, sold, exhibited,, broken up, repacked, assembled, distributed, sorted, graded, cleaned, mixed with foreign or domestic merchandise, or otherwise manipulated, or be manufactured except as otherwise provided in this chapter, and be exported, destroyed, or sent into customs territory of the United States therefrom, in the original package or otherwise. But when foreign merchandise is so sent, from a zone into customs territory of the United States it shall be; subject to the laws and regulations of the United States affecting imported merchandise. Section 81c States: ''imports used or intended to be used to produce motor vehicles" are not within the activities enumerated in FTZA. Section 81c provides that merchandise brought into a foreign trade zone may be "Stored, sold, exhibited, broken up, repacked, assembled, distributed, sorted, graded, cleaned, mixed with foreign or domestic merchandise, or otherwise manipulated, or be manufactured" The 1984 amendments to the Foreign Trade Act, described the "current law" as providing that the "exemption does not apply to machinery and equipment that is imported for use (for manufacturing or the like) within a foreign trade zone." Conclusion: The Court will determine that the importation by VAC of the building, all of the assembly and packaging equipment, and all of the ancillary tools The plant consisted of at issue into the FTZ because it was a "merchandise" for assembly, as required by U.S. law Under the 1950 amendment to the Act and the legislative history of that amendment, such a use does entitle the equipment to exemption from Customs duties. Accordingly, VAC will win the appeal.
41
Next
3- The Modern Exploration Co. (MEC), a firm organized in State P, entered into an investment contract with State Q to explore for and harvest magnesium nodules from the seabed of State Q's continental shelf. MEC agreed to pay State Q U.S. $100 million in advance for this privilege. State Q, however, did not inform MEC that it would be promulgating certain environmental protection laws within days after signing this contract that would make the endeavor so expensive that it would be effectively impossible for MEC to perform. When MEC discovered this, it asked State Q to either modify the environmental laws or give MEC back its money. State Q refused. MEC then initiated an arbitration proceeding under the auspices of the ICSID in accordance with the terms of the investment agreement and State Q law. How should the tribunal rule? Discuss. Facts: The Modern Exploration Co. (MEC), a firm organized in State P, entered into an investment contract with State Q to explore for and harvest magnesium nodules from the seabed of State Q's continental shelf MEC agreed to pay State Q U.S. $100 million in advance for this privilege. State Q, did not inform MEC that it would be promulgating certain environmental protection laws within days after signing this contract that would make the endeavor so expensive that it would be effectively impossible for MEC to perform When MEC discovered this, it asked State Q to either modify the environmental laws or give MEC back its money State Q refused MEC then initiated an arbitration proceeding under the auspices of the ICSID in accordance with the terms of the investment agreement and State Q law
Parties: The Modern Exploration Co State P State Q Legal Problem: How should the tribunal rule? Applied Rules: Host countries provide a variety of guarantees to foreign investors to make investment in their territories more attractive. The most important guarantees relate to the following: Compensation in the event of nationalization of a foreign-owned enterprise and repatriation of the payments made. Repatriation of the proceeds upon the sale of the enterprise. Repatriation of profits and dividends. Repatriation of other forms of current income (such as royalties, licensing fees, and fees for managerial and other services). Repatriation of the principal and interest from loans. Non-discriminatory treatment. Stabilization of taxes and other regulations. Convertibility of local currency. Guarantees are granted either: Automatically when an investment application is approved or certified by the appropriate host state agency or On an ad hoc basis.
42
Modification of foreign investment agreements: Investment laws usually provide that any modification to an investment agreement, including an increase or decrease in the size or scope of a project, has to be approved by the host state. Sudan's Encouragement of Investment Act of 1980, provided that any change in the size or purpose of a project has to be approved by the minister of finance and national economy and any transfer of ownership of all or any part of a project also needs the minister's approval. o Investment laws and investment agreements usually require the host state to act in good faith on requests for modification. o This is also the rule applied by courts and tribunals in cases where an investment law or agreement sets no standard. Conclusion: State Q has a duty to negotiate in good faith on the joint investment to explore for and harvest magnesium nodules from the seabed of State continental shelf. The tribunal found that State Q had negotiated in bad faith did not inform MEC that it would be promulgating certain environmental protection laws within days after signing this contract that would make the endeavor so expensive that it would be effectively impossible for MEC to perform So of the ICSID in accordance with the terms of the investment agreement and State Q law will determine that If State Q did not modify the environmental laws then it should give MEC back their money.
43

Law Cases

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Law Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cases April 18 & 2012 Solutions

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

Sharp practices Product liability

"Enforcement of Securities Regulation Internationally"

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

Company of Persons dispute Cases

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

The General Characteristics 1. The name

2. The unlimited liability of all partners

3. A partner is considered a merchant

4. The capital contributions made by partners are represented by interests.

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

Book Chapter 4 Related Exercises

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

Book Chapter 5 - Exercises

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

2012 Copyright Amira Melouk All rights reserved

You might also like