#foreign law

A May 3 filing to the United States Bankruptcy Court brings new objections to a motion that aimed to redact customer identities.

New Post has been published on https://is.gd/FfcNdT

WASHINGTON | Supreme Court addresses question of foreign law in US courts

WASHINGTON (AP) — Nyet. Non. Nein. No. That’s the answer the Supreme Court gave Thursday to the question of whether federal courts in the United States must accept statements from foreign governments about their own laws as binding.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for a unanimous court that a “federal court should accord respectful consideration to a foreign government’s submission,” but is not required to treat it as conclusive.

Given “the world’s many and diverse legal systems and the range of circumstances in which a foreign government’s views may be presented,” there is no single formula on how to treat the information a foreign government provides, Ginsburg wrote.

Ginsburg said the appropriate weight given to a government’s statement in each case will depend on the circumstances. Among the factors that U.S. courts should weigh in looking at what a foreign government has said about its own law are: the statement’s clarity, thoroughness and support as well as the transparency of the foreign legal system and the role and authority of the statement’s author.

The ruling came in a case that involves trade with China, a class action lawsuit filed by two U.S.-based purchasers of vitamin C: Nacogdoches, Texas-based Animal Science Products and Elizabeth, New Jersey-based The Ranis Company. The companies sued vitamin C exporters in China. They alleged the exporters had violated U.S. antitrust laws by fixing the prices and amounts of vitamin C exported to the United States.

The vitamin C exporters argued that Chinese law had required their actions and that the lawsuit should therefore be dismissed. China’s Ministry of Commerce filed a brief arguing the same.

A federal trial court said the ministry was entitled to “substantial deference” in its interpretation of its own law but didn’t find its statements conclusive. The judge ruled that Chinese law did not require the companies to fix the price or quantity of vitamin C exports, and after a jury found against the exporters, the judge awarded the U.S. companies $147 million.

The New York-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit reversed the award and dismissed the lawsuit, saying when a foreign government participates in U.S. court proceeding and submits a statement about its laws and regulations the U.S. court is “bound to defer to those statements.” The Supreme Court disagreed.

The Trump administration had urged the court to side, as it did, with the Vitamin C purchasers.

The case is 16-1220, Animal Science Products v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co.

Juliana Rocco Nunes

Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed the semester learning more about the American justice system. Coming from Brazil, the justice system is not the same and the differences in the two were immediately obvious to me. Thus, the portion of the class that I enjoyed the most was the trial. During the course of the trial it was made clear to me just how different justice systems can be from different countries. For example, in Brazil a trial can only have a jury in crimes against life, specifically: homicide, abortion, inducing someone to commit suicide, or infanticide. In all other cases a judge hands down a decision. I find the system in Brazil to be a bit more practical because a judge can give a more informed decision, being an expert of the law, than an average group of my peers in the jury. Therefore, I think it is more appropriate and perhaps even more efficient when a judge handles most of the cases in court alone. Seeing this difference highlighted in the class and being able to take part in a mock trial first hand was a really interesting experience for me, and one that I learned a lot from.

White House: GOP Congress Must Approve TPP “Obamatrade” Soon

Following a signing ceremony on February 4 in New Zealand, the Obama administration is calling on the GOP-controlled Congress to hurry up and approve the massive “free-trade” regime known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Despite fierce opposition and the ongoing presidential primaries, Obama’s Trade Representative, Michael Froman, said he was confident that Republican lawmakers would…

TPP Makes “Buy American” ILLEGAL, but Wait There’s More

TPP is Now Complete: Here is What You Get – KrisAnne Hall The cold hard facts about TPP. Its not a trade agreement. It is foreign rule.  Protections for foreign Corporations, NO PROTECTIONS FOR U.S. Corporations, mass jobs exodus.  Monsanto WINS BIG, America?  Stick a Fork In Her…

http://krisanne-hall.podomatic.com/embed/frame/posting/2016-02-04T05_15_04-08_00?json_url=http%3A%2F%2Fkrisanne-hal…