Slides: 5

Presentation #5 (International Litigation and Arbitration):
https://yadi.sk/i/PkUP04ClgrkFk

Slides: 3 & 4

Presentation #3 (Intellectual Property & Licensing):

https://yadi.sk/i/sPy8Qm-NgjAnp

Presentation #4 (Investment Law):

https://yadi.sk/i/IEEG98GwgjAyf

Essay

The mid-term essay is supposed to be a case study.  

It is to be devoted to an actual international business case: you should analyze legal aspects of the case and draw practical conclusions.  

The plan of the essay is approximately as follows (this is also an approximate plan for reporting a case): 

(1) introduction (what it is about and why it is important), 

(2) facts, 

(3) applicable legal rules, 

(4) application of the rules to the facts, 

(5) discussion (including your personal opinions on the relevant issues), 

(6) practical conclusions.  

The essay should have about 2,000-3,000 words.

For those who have reported cases in class, I suggest to use the case he or she has reported as the essay topic.  Those who have not reported cases yet, may either find a case to his or her taste, or use any of the cases I have mentioned during lectures, or else ask me for further cases.  

If you do not like the case-study idea, you may suggest your own topic for the essay. Write me and we will discuss it.

VTB V. NUTRITEK (2011-2013)

Essential reading:

VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VTB_Capital_plc_v_Nutritek_International_Corp

Piercing the corporate veil: An update in light of VTB v. Nutritek [Court of Appeal]

http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/knowledge/publications/68488/piercing-the-corporate-veil-an-update-in-light-of-vtb-v-nutritek

VTB v. Nutritek: Supreme Court confirms corporate veil cannot be pierced to make a puppeteer party to his puppet’s contract

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=cb0148bb-db26-4f3c-a7ab-7b2fb3790f42

Additional reading:

Case Comment: VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp & Ors [2013] UKSC 5

http://ukscblog.com/case-comment-vtb-capital-plc-v-nutritek-international-corp-ors-2013-uksc-5/

Technical reading:

Court of Appeal: VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 808 (20 June 2012) 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/808.html

UK Supreme Court: VTB Capital Plc v Nutritek International Corp & Ors (Rev 1) [2013] UKSC 5 (6 February 2013) 

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2013/5.html

Issues for discussion:

1)      What courts considered the disputes?  Who were the parties?  What were the essential facts?

2)      Did the bank have a contract with the defendant?  Was the claim grounded on contract or tort law?

3)      Did Russian or English law govern the alleged tortuous conduct?  What were the opinions of the courts of different instances on that?

4)      Did English courts have jurisdiction to resolve the case?  Was the English court “appropriate forum” for that?  Why or why not?  What were parties’ opinions on that issue?  What was the decision of the Supreme Court?

5)      What is meant by “piercing the corporate veil”?  What should be proved to “pierce the veil”?  The veil of which company did the claimant want to pierce?  Who the claimant thought was behind the veil?

6)      Do you think a “puppeteer” should be responsible for contracts of his “puppet”?  What has the Supreme Court decided?

7)      Do you think the outcome of the case was fair?

8)      Does the claimant have any remedy now, after English courts have refused to hear its claim? 

RUSSIAN CUSTOMS V. BANK OF NEW YORK (2007-2009)

Sources:

Essential reading:

Russia Sues Bank of New York Over 1990s Scandal

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB117941480401306281;

Bank of New York Settles a Protracted Russian Lawsuit

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/business/global/17bony.html?_r=0.

Additional reading:

RUSSIAN CUSTOMS V. BANK OF NEW YORK: IS RICO APPLICABLE IN RUSSIA?

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/multimedia/international_law/docs/committees/russia_eurasia/russiaeurasianewslettersummer2008.authcheckdam.pdf (p.p. 11-15).

Technical reading:

Legal Expert Witness Statement of Alan M. Dershowitz

http://www.nysun.com/files/dershowitzmoscow.pdf;

Non-Prosecution Agreement between the Bank of New York and the U.S. Attorney's Offices for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York (Nov. 4, 2005)

http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFs/BNY-USAO051104.pdf;

Congressional Testimony of Thomas A. Renyi, Chairman of the Board of the Bank of New York, Sep. 22, 1999

http://www.russianlaw.org/renyi_congress.htm.

Issues for discussion:

1)      What court considered the dispute? Who were the parties? Was it a civil-law or a public-law case? What were the essential facts?

2)      Did the Russian court have jurisdiction to resolve the case? Why or why not?

3)      What statute was the claim grounded on?  Was it a Russian or a US law? Was it a criminal statute, a civil-law statute, or a mixed one?  Why a Russian court had to apply a US statute?

4)      What evidence did the plaintiff have? How did it obtain that evidence?

5)      How much did he plaintiff ask?  How did it arrive to that figure?

6)      What were the issues to be resolved? What were parties’ cases and arguments?

7)      Who were parties’ experts?  What issues did they opine on?

8)      Do you think the Russian court was in a good position to resolve factual issues in relation to the events occurred in the US?

9)      Do you think the Russian court was sophisticated enough to apply a highly technical US statute? 

10)  If the plaintiff had won the case, would it have been able to get the money from the defendant? If so, how?

11)  What was the ultimate outcome of the case?