Editors |
|
xiii | |
Contributors |
|
xv | |
|
|
xxiii | |
|
|
xxxiii | |
|
I COLLECTIVE REDRESS MECHANISMS IN A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE |
|
|
|
1 Class Actions and Collective Actions |
|
|
|
|
|
1 | (8) |
|
II The United States Model and Its Influence on Other Regimes |
|
|
9 | (27) |
|
III Developments Within the United States Model |
|
|
36 | (4) |
|
|
40 | |
|
2 Collective Redress Procedures: European Debates |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 | (12) |
|
II Developments at a National Level |
|
|
13 | (53) |
|
|
66 | (15) |
|
|
81 | |
|
3 Collective Action Reform in England and Wales |
|
|
|
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
II 1987-2004: The Long Road to Reform |
|
|
2 | (20) |
|
III 2004-10: Flattering to Deceive, Reform's False Dawn |
|
|
22 | (23) |
|
|
45 | |
|
4 Class Actions and Class Settlements Going Global: the Netherlands |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 | (2) |
|
II The Dutch System of Collective Redress |
|
|
3 | (34) |
|
III Cross-border Mass Disputes---The WCAM Going Global |
|
|
37 | (11) |
|
IV The Complementary Role of the WCAM |
|
|
48 | (5) |
|
V Unanticipated Problems with Going Global |
|
|
53 | (16) |
|
VI Recognition and Enforcement of United States Judgments |
|
|
69 | (7) |
|
|
76 | |
|
5 Collective Redress: Policy Objectives and Practical Problems |
|
|
|
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
|
2 | (14) |
|
|
16 | (31) |
|
|
47 | |
|
II PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW AND COLLECTIVE REDRESS |
|
|
|
6 A Coherent Approach to European Collective Redress |
|
|
|
|
|
1 | (8) |
|
II Different Perspectives and Objectives of Law-making |
|
|
9 | (21) |
|
|
30 | |
|
7 The Trouble with Cross-Border Collective Redress: Issues and Difficulties |
|
|
|
|
|
1 | (6) |
|
|
7 | (5) |
|
|
12 | |
|
8 Cross-Border Collective Redress and Jurisdiction under Brussels I: A Mismatch |
|
|
|
|
|
1 | (6) |
|
II One Court for All: Concentration of Jurisdiction under Brussels I |
|
|
7 | (9) |
|
III Too Many Courts Spoil the Broth: Dispersed Jurisdiction under Brussels I |
|
|
16 | (9) |
|
IV The Magic Trick? Article 6(1) Brussels I Regulation |
|
|
25 | (6) |
|
V Can the Parties Decide? |
|
|
31 | (2) |
|
VI Conclusions and Perspectives |
|
|
33 | |
|
9 Parallel Litigation and Cross-Border Collective Actions under the Brussels I Framework: Lessons from Abroad |
|
|
|
|
|
1 | (4) |
|
II Lis Pendens and Related Actions under the Brussels I Regulation |
|
|
5 | (8) |
|
III Collective Actions and Parallel Proceedings |
|
|
13 | (10) |
|
IV Proposed Amendments to the Brussels I Regulation |
|
|
23 | (8) |
|
|
31 | (41) |
|
|
72 | |
|
10 The Impact of the Brussels I Enforcement and Recognition Rules on Collective Actions |
|
|
|
|
|
1 | (3) |
|
II The Scheme of Brussels I |
|
|
4 | (14) |
|
III The Notion of Ordre Public under Brussels I, Article 34(1) |
|
|
18 | (8) |
|
IV Approach in Individual Member States: Public Policy and Collective Redress |
|
|
26 | (29) |
|
V Article 34(2): Procedural Issues |
|
|
55 | (3) |
|
VI Article 34(3): Irreconcilability |
|
|
58 | (4) |
|
|
62 | |
|
11 Conflicts of Laws in Multinational Collective Actions---a Judicial Nightmare? |
|
|
|
|
|
1 | (10) |
|
II Choice of Law and European Mass Litigation |
|
|
11 | (24) |
|
|
35 | (22) |
|
|
57 | |
|
12 Extraterritoriality of Evidence Gathering in US Class Action Proceedings |
|
|
|
|
|
1 | (7) |
|
II The Scope of Extraterritoriality of United States Discovery |
|
|
8 | (30) |
|
III The Conflict between Extraterritorial United States Discovery Rules and Foreign Laws |
|
|
38 | (17) |
|
|
55 | |
|
13 The ILA Rio Resolution on Transnational Group Actions |
|
|
|
|
|
1 | (3) |
|
II The Resolution of the 2008 ILA Rio de Janeiro Conference |
|
|
4 | (4) |
|
III Factors Determining the Type of Procedure |
|
|
8 | (12) |
|
IV Analysis of the Resolution |
|
|
20 | (21) |
|
|
41 | |
|
14 In Defence of the Requirement for Foreign Class Members to Opt In to an English Class Action |
|
|
|
|
|
1 | (3) |
|
II The Draft Statutory Framework |
|
|
4 | (11) |
|
III Requiring Non-domiciled Class Members to Opt In: Key Canadian Precedent |
|
|
15 | (18) |
|
IV Further Support Derived from Some Key United States Decisions |
|
|
33 | (22) |
|
|
55 | |
|
III RECEPTION OF FOREIGN COLLECTIVE REDRESS AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES DECISION IN NATIONAL JURISDICTIONS |
|
|
|
15 Foreign Punitive Damages Decisions and Class Actions in Italy |
|
|
|
|
|
1 | (2) |
|
II Compatibility of US Class Action Procedure with European Jurisprudence |
|
|
3 | (37) |
|
|
40 | |
|
16 The Perils of Certifying International Class Actions in Canada |
|
|
|
|
|
1 | (9) |
|
II Traditional Judgment Recognition Rules Are Inadequate for Enforcing Multi-jurisdictional Class Action Judgments |
|
|
10 | (5) |
|
III Why the `Real and Substantial Connection' Test Should Not Be Applied to Absent Foreign Claimants |
|
|
15 | (13) |
|
IV The `Real and Substantial Connection' Test---Applied Rigorously |
|
|
28 | (19) |
|
V Canadian Courts Should Not Certify Multi-jurisdictional Opt-out Classes |
|
|
47 | (28) |
|
|
75 | |
|
17 Collective Redress in Spain: Recognition and Enforcement of Class Action Judgments and Class Settlements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 | (3) |
|
II Collective Redress in Spain |
|
|
4 | (18) |
|
III Recognition and Enforcement in Spain |
|
|
22 | (43) |
|
|
65 | |
|
IV EXTRATERRITORIALITY AND US LAW |
|
|
|
18 Morrison v National Australia Bank: The US Supreme Court Limits Collective Redress for Securities Fraud |
|
|
|
|
|
1 | (4) |
|
|
5 | (43) |
|
III The Court's Opinion and the Presumption Against Extraterritoriality |
|
|
48 | (38) |
|
|
86 | |
|
19 Morrison v National Australia Bank: Implications for Global Securities Class Actions |
|
|
|
|
|
1 | (1) |
|
II Background of Morrison |
|
|
2 | (1) |
|
III The Morrison Decision |
|
|
3 | (4) |
|
IV The Presumption Against Extraterritoriality in Morrison |
|
|
7 | (5) |
|
V The Influence of Comity Concerns in Morrison |
|
|
12 | (5) |
|
VI Implications for Global Class Actions Post-Morrison |
|
|
17 | (22) |
|
|
39 | |
|
20 Morrison v National Australia Bank: Foreign Securities and the Jurisdiction to Prescribe |
|
|
|
|
|
1 | (4) |
|
II Choice of Law and Jurisdiction |
|
|
5 | (1) |
|
III International Jurisdiction |
|
|
6 | (8) |
|
IV Extraterritorial Application of United States Law |
|
|
14 | (6) |
|
V International Comity and the Approach in England |
|
|
20 | (8) |
|
|
28 | |
|
21 `Bridging the Gap': Contrasting Effects of US Supreme Court Territorial Restraint on European Collective Claims |
|
|
|
|
I Introduction: Morrison and Empagran |
|
|
1 | (20) |
|
II How Might this New Situation Affect Collective Claims in Europe? |
|
|
21 | (12) |
|
III Conclusion: Increasing Collective Claims in Europe? |
|
|
33 | |
|
22 Transnational Issuer Liability after the Financial Crisis: Seeking a Coherent Choice of Law Standard |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 | (8) |
|
II International Securities Class Actions |
|
|
9 | (6) |
|
III Classification of Primary Capital Markets Duties |
|
|
15 | (8) |
|
IV Current State of the Conflict of Laws Discussion |
|
|
23 | (19) |
|
V Suggested Solution: Synchronism between Duties and Liability |
|
|
42 | (27) |
|
|
69 | (6) |
|
|
75 | (356) |
Index |
|
431 | |