DOCSLIB.ORG

Ex-Parte Petition for Leave to Serve John Doe Summons

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Case 3:17-mc-00094 Document 1 Filed 03/28/17 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION IN THE MATTER OF THE TAX and ) LIABILITIES OF:, ) Case No. 3:17-mc-00094 ) ) JOHN DOES, Dutch taxpayers, who at any ) time during the period January 1, 2009, through ) December 31, 2016, held an American Express ) payment card linked to a bank account located ) outside the Netherlands. ) ) _______________________________________) EX PARTE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE “JOHN DOE” SUMMONS The United States of America avers as follows: 1. This ex parte proceeding is commenced pursuant to sections 7402(a), 7609(f) and 7609(h) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.), for leave to serve an Internal Revenue Service “John Doe” summons on American Express Company. 2. American Express Company’s Subpoena Compliance Department is found at 43 Butterfield Circle, El Paso, Texas 79906-5202, within the jurisdiction of this Court. 3. The Internal Revenue Service is in receipt of a request from the Kingdom of the Netherlands for information pursuant to Article 30 of the Convention Between the Government of the United States of America and the Kingdom of the Netherlands for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion With Respect to Taxes on Income (“the Convention”). (See Declarations of Deputy Commissioner Douglas W. O’Donnell and Revenue Agent Godwin O. Ndukwe, attached to this Petition as Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively.) The Case 3:17-mc-00094 Document 1 Filed 03/28/17 Page 2 of 3 request states that the information is to be used to determine the correct income tax liabilities of certain as-yet-unidentified taxpayers under the laws of the Netherlands. 4. In furtherance of that request, the Internal Revenue Service, once service of the summons is authorized by the Court, will issue under the authority of section 7602 of the Internal Revenue Code an administrative “John Doe” summons to American Express Travel Related Services Company. A copy of the summons is attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Revenue Agent Ndukwe. 5. The “John Doe” summons relates to the investigation of a particular person or ascertainable group or class of persons, that is, Dutch taxpayers, who at any time during the period January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2016, held an American Express payment card linked to a bank account located outside the Netherlands. There is a reasonable basis for believing that such person or group or class of persons may fail, or may have failed, to comply with one or more provisions of the internal revenue laws of the Netherlands. The information sought to be obtained from the examination of the records or testimony (and the identity of the person with respect to whose tax liability the summons has been issued) is not readily available from other sources. 6. In support of this Petition, the United States submits the Declarations of Deputy Commissioner Douglas W. O’Donnell and Revenue Agent Godwin O. Ndukwe, the exhibits attached thereto, and a supporting memorandum. 2 Case 3:17-mc-00094 Document 1 Filed 03/28/17 Page 3 of 3 WHEREFORE, the petitioner respectfully prays: A. That this Court enter an order permitting service of the Internal Revenue Service “John Doe” summons issued to American Express Company in a form substantially similar to Exhibit A to the Declaration of Revenue Agent Godwin O. Ndukwe; and B. That this Court grant such other and further relief as the Court deems proper or justice may require. Respectfully submitted, DAVID A. HUBBERT Acting Assistant Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division /s/ Joshua D. Smeltzer JOSHUA D. SMELTZER CURTIS C. SMITH Trial Attorneys, Tax Division U.S. Department of Justice 717 N. Harwood Street, Suite 400 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 880-9735/9734 Facsimile: (214) 880-9741 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] Of Counsel: Richard Durbin United States Attorney Western District of Texas 3 Case 3:17-mc-00094 Document 1-1 Filed 03/28/17 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION IN THE MATTER OF THE TAX ) LIABILITIES OF: ) Case No. 3:17-mc-00094 ) ) JOHN DOES, Dutch taxpayers, who at any ) time during the period January 1, 2009, through ) December 31, 2016, held an American Express ) payment card linked to a bank account located ) outside the Netherlands. ) ) _______________________________________) NOTICE OF FILING EX PARTE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE “JOHN DOE” SUMMONS The United States of America notifies the Court that it has commenced this ex parte proceeding pursuant to section 7609(f) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) for leave to serve an Internal Revenue Service “John Doe” summons upon American Express Company. The Court’s determination “shall be made ex parte and shall be made solely on the petition and supporting affidavits.” 26 U.S.C. § 7609(h). Thus, the pleadings filed in this proceeding will not be served upon any person or entity, and no other filings are permitted from other persons or entities. This matter, therefore, is ripe for the Court’s consideration. The United States requests that the Court review the Petition and supporting documents and enter the proposed Order at the Court’s earliest opportunity. / / Case 3:17-mc-00094 Document 1-1 Filed 03/28/17 Page 2 of 2 DAVID A. HUBBERT Acting Assistant Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division /s/ Joshua D. Smeltzer JOSHUA D. SMELTZER CURTIS C. SMITH Trial Attorneys, Tax Division U.S. Department of Justice 717 N. Harwood Street, Suite 400 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 880-9735/9734 Facsimile: (214) 880-9741 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] Of Counsel: Richard Durbin United States Attorney Western District of Texas 2 Case 3:17-mc-00094 Document 1-2 Filed 03/28/17 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION IN THE MATTER OF THE TAX and ) LIABILITIES OF:, ) Case No. 3:17-mc-00094 ) ) JOHN DOES, Dutch taxpayers, who at any ) time during the period January 1, 2009, through ) December 31, 2016, held an American Express ) payment card linked to a bank account located ) outside the Netherlands. ) ) _______________________________________) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE "JOHN DOE" SUMMONS Introduction This is an ex parte proceeding brought by the United States of America, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §7609(f) and (h) of the Internal Revenue Code, for leave to serve an Internal Revenue Service “John Doe” summons upon American Express Company. “John Doe” summonses are used to further investigations where a tax authority has reason to believe taxpayers may not be complying with the law, but does not know their identity. Courts may grant leave to serve a “John Doe” summons that does not identify the person with respect to whose liability it is issued if the United States establishes three factors: the summons relates to a particular person or group of individuals; there is a reasonable basis to believe that person or group may have not complied with the internal revenue laws; and the information sought is not readily available from some other source. See 26 U.S.C. §7609(f). This Court has jurisdiction to determine this action because American Express Company is found in this judicial district, as it has its Subpoena Compliance Department in El Paso, Texas. See 26 U.S.C. § 7609(h)(1) (providing that the Case 3:17-mc-00094 Document 1-2 Filed 03/28/17 Page 2 of 14 district court in which the person to be summoned resides or is found shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any proceeding brought under section 7609(f)). This suit is out of the ordinary because the proposed “John Doe” summons will gather information on behalf of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.1 The United States has entered into tax treaties with other nations that provide, among other things, for gathering and exchanging information to assist each other in administering the tax laws. The tax treaty between the United States and the Netherlands is the law of the United States, and it provides that, if the Netherlands makes a proper request for information, the United States will use its internal revenue laws to collect the requested information. The Netherlands has made such a request. It is investigating whether individuals may owe tax in the Netherlands, and part of that investigation involves identifying individuals who are consistently using payment cards in the Netherlands that are linked to banks outside of the Netherlands. Netherlands taxpayers can use a foreign payment card as part of a scheme to avoid reporting income and paying Netherlands income tax. Individuals can divert income to a foreign country, deposit the proceeds in a bank there, and then use the income to make purchases in their “home” country through payment cards issued by foreign banks. The United States Internal Revenue Service has investigated this scheme with respect to U.S. taxpayers. See David R. Tillinghast, Issues of International Tax Enforcement, in THE CRISIS IN TAX ADMINISTRATION 38, 52 (Henry J. Aaron and Joel Slemrod, eds. 2004) (describing the “striking initiative” begun by the IRS in 2000 to issue summonses to American credit card 1 A similar request on behalf of the Kingdom of Norway was previously granted by this Court. See In the Matter of the Tax Liabilities of: John Doe, Norwegian taxpayer holding American Express Company payment card XXXXXXXXXXX2029, Civil Action No.
Recommended publications
  • 'What's in a Name'… John Doe Arrives in India Payel Chatterjee*

    'What's in a Name'… John Doe Arrives in India Payel Chatterjee*

    ‘What’s in a name’… John Doe arrives in India Payel Chatterjee* Intellectual property, (IP) though intangible, is probably the most important form of property today. The definition of IP has widened with the growth of international trade and globalization of economy, giving the whole business a new paradigm.1 IP having developed into a powerful commercial asset with the ever- evolving digital technology, its theft has also become rampant. As we all know, there are two sides to a coin–development of technology with its positives has also facilitated IP infringement by unknown and unidentified entities constituting class of infringers. This necessitates the need for evolution in IP protection, which considering its nature, is no easy task. This led to the introduction of Anton Pillar Orders, permitting the plaintiff's counsel to enter the infringer‟s premises and seize evidence of infringement, prior to the institution of an action.2 The Anton Piller order is a form of discovery preservation granted on an ex-parte application.3 The Indian Courts adopting the trend have granted several interim injunctions and Anton Piller orders for search and seizure in order to stop an infringer or a class of infringers from continuing unlawful activities. However, this did not address the issue of unknown infringers. This led to the adoption of „John Doe‟ orders, whose origin can be traced way back to the reign of England‟s King Edward III, when such orders were used to refer to unidentifiable defendants4. Thereafter, John Doe orders were granted mainly by U.S and Canadian Courts.
  • Human Rights Remedies for Violations of the Law Of

    Human Rights Remedies for Violations of the Law Of

    HUMAN RIGHTS REMEDIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT: REFLECTIONS ON THE RIGHT TO REPARATION IN LIGHT OF RECENT DOMESTIC COURT DECISIONS IN THE NETHERLANDS ICD Brief 26 AND DENMARK September 2019 Vessela Terzieva www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org ABSTRACT In recent decisions courts in the Netherlands and Denmark awarded compensation to individual victims for damage caused by the respective state’s armed forces in military operations abroad. The events to which the claims for compensation related took place in situations of armed conflict. Some of these events had been previously qualified as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Others may be qualified as violations of international humanitarian law. Currently, the state practice on the right to reparation for victims of international humanitarian law violations is not consistent and the existence of such a right itself is a subject of academic debate. The recent court decisions in the Netherlands and Denmark make a significant contribution to this debate and to the developing state practice. They de facto recognise a right of individual victims of international humanitarian law violations to claim compensation directly from the responsible state and clarify the application of international law in defining the standard of wrongfulness under domestic law, showing that domestic courts may serve as a mechanism to enforce international law in situations of armed conflict. These decisions also clarify the criteria for attribution of seconded military forces’ conduct to the sending state and suggest that domestic courts are able to handle large and complex compensation claims related to military forces’ activities abroad. I. INTRODUCTION After the fall of Srebrenica on 11 July 1995, thousands of Bosnian Muslim men, women, and children fled to Potočari, where the headquarters of the Dutch military contingent (Dutchbat), part of the United Nations Protection Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNPROFOR), were located.
  • Criminal Code

    Criminal Code

    Criminal Code Warning: this is not an official translation. Under all circumstances the original text in Dutch language of the Criminal Code (Wetboek van Strafrecht) prevails. The State accepts no liability for damage of any kind resulting from the use of this translation. Criminal Code (Text valid on: 01-10-2012) Act of 3 March 1881 We WILLEM III, by the grace of God, King of the Netherlands, Prince of Orange-Nassau, Grand Duke of Luxemburg etc. etc. etc. Greetings to all who shall see or hear these presents! Be it known: Whereas We have considered that it is necessary to enact a new Criminal Code; We therefore, having heard the Council of State, and in consultation with the States General, have approved and decreed as We hereby approve and decree, to establish the following provisions which shall constitute the Criminal Code: Book One. General Provisions Part I. Scope of Application of Criminal Law Section 1 1. No act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under the law at the time of its commission shall be punishable by law. 2. Where the statutory provisions in force at the time when the criminal offence was committed are later amended, the provisions most favourable to the suspect or the defendant shall apply. Section 2 The criminal law of the Netherlands shall apply to any person who commits a criminal offence in the Netherlands. Section 3 The criminal law of the Netherlands shall apply to any person who commits a criminal offence on board a Dutch vessel or aircraft outside the territory of the Netherlands.
  • Academic Rhapsodies

    Academic Rhapsodies

    EDITED BY SOPHIA HENDRIKX MEREL OUDSHOORN LIEKE SMITS TIM VERGEER Arts in Society Academic Rhapsodies IIO1 | ARTS IN SOCIETY EDITORIAL BOARD Sophia Hendrikx, Merel Oudshoorn, Lieke Smits, Tim Vergeer LAYOUT Tatiana Kolganova COVER IMAGE © Marion Bracq (2019) Arts in Society. Academic Rhapsodies, 2020. ISBN/EAN: 978-90-9032417-3 OPEN ACCESS STATEMENT All content of this work is available immediately upon publication. Our policy aligns with Creative Common License CC BY-NC-ND: we welcome all readers to download and share the content of this publication freely, as long as the author and publication are appropriately credited. Content cannot however be altered or used commercially. DISCLAIMER Statements of fact and opinion in the articles are those of the respective authors and not necessarily of the editors, or LUCAS. Neither LUCAS, nor the editors of this publication make any representation, explicit or implied, in respect of the accuracy of the material in this publication and cannot accept any responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions that may be made. EDITED BY SOPHIA HENDRIKX, MEREL OUDSHOORN, LIEKE SMITS, TIM VERGEER Arts in Society Academic Rhapsodies IIO3 | ARTS IN SOCIETY contents Introduction 1 Collection and reproduction Small worlds: The miniature logic of the seventeenth-century 5 Dutch dollhouse Jun P. Nakamura Authenticity vs 3D reproduction: Never the twain shall meet? 21 Liselore Tissen Texts and readers To read or not to read: Textual vs media interpretation 42 Andrea Reyes Elizondo To delight and instruct:
  • Printmgr File

    Printmgr File

    IMPORTANT NOTICE THIS OFFERING IS AVAILABLE ONLY TO INVESTORS WHO ARE EITHER (1) QUALIFIED INSTITUTIONAL BUYERS (“QIBs”) IN RELIANCE ON THE EXEMPTION FROM THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE U.S. SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 (THE “SECURITIES ACT”) PROVIDED BY RULE 144A THAT ARE ALSO QUALIFIED PURCHASERS (“QPs”), AS DEFINED IN SECTION 2(a)(51)(A) OF THE U.S. INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940 OR (2) NON-U.S. PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES IN COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATION S UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT (“REGULATION S”). IMPORTANT: You must read the following before continuing. The following applies to the preliminary prospectus following this page (the “Prospectus”), and you are therefore advised to read this carefully before reading, accessing or making any other use of the Prospectus. In accessing the Prospectus, you agree to be bound by the following terms and conditions, including any modifications to them any time you receive any information from Ardshinbank CJSC (“Ardshinbank”) as a result of such access. NOTHING IN THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION CONSTITUTES AN OFFER OF SECURITIES FOR SALE IN ANY JURISDICTION WHERE IT IS UNLAWFUL TO DO SO. THE SECURITIES HAVE NOT BEEN, AND WILL NOT BE, REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT, OR THE SECURITIES LAWS OF ANY STATE OF THE UNITED STATES OR OTHER JURISDICTION AND THE SECURITIES MAY NOT BE OFFERED OR SOLD WITHIN THE UNITED STATES (AS DEFINED IN REGULATION S) OR TO, OR FOR THE ACCOUNT OR BENEFIT OF, U.S. PERSONS (AS DEFINED IN REGULATION S), EXCEPT PURSUANT TO AN EXEMPTION FROM, OR IN A TRANSACTION NOT SUBJECT TO, THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE SECURITIES ACT AND APPLICABLE STATE OR LOCAL SECURITIES LAWS.
  • Security Note Pharming Group Nv

    Security Note Pharming Group Nv

    SECURITY NOTE PHARMING GROUP N.V. (a limited liability company incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands, with its corporate seat in Leiden) Admission to listing and trading of a maximum of 100 million newly issued ordinary shares with a nominal value of €0.04 per share and with an issue price of €0.12 per share This security note (the "Security Note") is published in connection with the admission to listing and trading of a minimum of 66.7 million and a maximum of 100 million ordinary shares in the capital of Pharming Group N.V. ("Pharming" or the "Company", which shall, where the context so requires, include one or more of its subsidiaries) with a nominal value of €0.04 per share (the "New Shares") and with an issue price of €0.12 per New Share (the "Issue Price"). The New Shares will be issued pursuant to a private placement with institutional investors and other qualifying investors who subscribe for at least €50,000 per investor for New Shares in various jurisdictions in order to raise a minimum of €8 million and a maximum €12 million gross proceeds (the "Private Placement"), including (a) qualified investors outside of the United States in reliance on Rule 902(k) of Regulation S under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act") and (b) "accredited investors" as defined in Rule 501(a) of Regulation D under the Securities Act inside the United States in reliance on Rule 506 thereof, provided that such investors are "qualified institutional buyers" as defined in Rule 144A under the Securities Act.
  • Proposed Acquisition by Reach Energy Or a Wholly

    Proposed Acquisition by Reach Energy Or a Wholly

    REACH ENERGY BERHAD (“REACH ENERGY” OR “COMPANY”) PROPOSED ACQUISITION BY REACH ENERGY OR A WHOLLY-OWNED SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLE (“SPV”) TO BE INCORPORATED BY REACH ENERGY, OF 60% EQUITY INTEREST IN PALAEONTOL B.V., A WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF PALAEONTOL COOPERATIEF U.A. (“PALAEONTOL COOP” OR “VENDOR”) WHICH IN TURN IS AN INDIRECT WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF MIE HOLDINGS CORPORATION (“MIEH”) AND 60% OF THE SHAREHOLDER LOANS (AS DEFINED HEREIN) IN PALAEONTOL B.V. FROM MIEH FOR A TOTAL PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF UNITED STATES DOLLAR (“USD”) 154.9 MILLION (EQUIVALENT TO RM638.2 MILLION) (“PURCHASE CONSIDERATION”), SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENTS (“PROPOSED ACQUISITION”) (Unless otherwise stated, the exchange rate of USD1.00 : Ringgit Malaysia (“RM”) 4.1200, being the middle rate prevailing at 5.00 p.m. on 4 March 2016, being the latest practicable date prior to this announcement (“LPD”) as published by Bank Negara Malaysia (“BNM”), has been applied in this announcement for illustration purposes.) 1. INTRODUCTION On behalf of the Board of Directors of Reach Energy (“Board”), Hong Leong Investment Bank Berhad (“HLIB”) and Maybank Investment Bank Berhad (“Maybank IB”) wish to announce that Reach Energy has on 5 March 2016 entered into a tri-partite conditional Sale and Purchase Agreement with Palaeontol COOP and MIEH (collectively referred to as “Vendors”) for the Proposed Acquisition (“SPA”). In conjunction with the Proposed Acquisition, the following will also be entered into: (i) deed of transfer between Reach Energy (or the SPV), Palaeontol COOP and Palaeontol B.V. whereby Palaeontol COOP will transfer 60% of its equity interest in Palaeontol B.V.
  • The Private International Law of the Netherlands

    The Private International Law of the Netherlands

    THE PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE NETHERLANDS J. OFFERHAUS Of the Dutch Bar, Amsterdam (Continued from the December number.) Torts. Torts are governed by the law of the place where they have occurred. The security of individuals and property within the limits of each territory demand this. On the other hand, when a person within a certain territory performs an act, which the local law does not forbid, his immunity ought to be recognized also abroad. Such freedom from liability was recognized by the court of Amsterdam with respect to a seizure made abroad, the seizure being legal accord- ing to foreign law, but illegal according to Dutch law.75 But the act of a bookkeeper, who had collected money without authority by means of a forged receipt, was regarded as a tort, in accordance with the law of the place where the act had been done. 78 The same rule pre- vails on the subject of collision of ships,77 so far as the provisions of 7 8 the International Treaty of September 23 d, i9io, are not applicable. When a collision occurs on the high seas between ships of different nationality, many systems are possible. A Dutch decision applies the 7 8 ° lez fori " and with this Kosters agrees. LAW CONCERNING RELATIONSHIP Marriage. In general there is a clear distinction in the law of marriage between form and capacity. Many theories are possible in respect to the selection of the law governing marriage and the power to marry; the personal law of the husband governs matrimonial matters in general, and the personal law of each of the parties, their power to marry.
  • Thirty-Six Defendants Indicted for Alleged Roles in Transnational Criminal Organization Responsible for More Than $530 Million in Losses from Cybercrimes

    Thirty-Six Defendants Indicted for Alleged Roles in Transnational Criminal Organization Responsible for More Than $530 Million in Losses from Cybercrimes

    THIRTY-SIX DEFENDANTS INDICTED FOR ALLEGED ROLES IN TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBLE FOR MORE THAN $530 MILLION IN LOSSES FROM CYBERCRIMES Law Enforcement Dismantles Forum Used to Victimize Millions in all 50 States and Worldwide in One of the Largest Cyberfraud Enterprises Ever Prosecuted by the Department of Justice LAS VEGAS, Nev. – A federal indictment was unsealed today charging 36 individuals for their alleged roles in the Infraud Organization, an Internet-based cybercriminal enterprise engaged in the large-scale acquisition, sale, and dissemination of stolen identities, compromised debit and credit cards, personally identifiable information, financial and banking information, computer malware, and other contraband. Following the return of a nine-count superseding indictment by a Las Vegas, Nevada, grand jury alleging racketeering conspiracy and other crimes, federal, state, local, and international law enforcement authorities arrested 13 defendants from the United States and six countries: Australia, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Kosovo and Serbia. Acting Assistant Attorney General John P. Cronan of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Dayle Elieson of the District of Nevada, and Acting Executive Associate Director Derek N. Benner of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) made the announcement. “Today’s indictment and arrests mark one of the largest cyberfraud enterprise prosecutions ever undertaken by the Department of Justice,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Cronan. “As alleged in the indictment, Infraud operated like a business to facilitate cyberfraud on a global scale. Its members allegedly caused more than $530 million in actual losses to consumers, businesses, and financial institutions alike—and it is alleged that the losses they intended to cause amounted to more than $2.2 billion.
  • Dutch Articles on Rome I (Updated)

    Dutch Articles on Rome I (Updated)

    Dutch Articles on Rome I (updated) The last issue of the Dutch review of private international lawNIPR ( Nederlands internationaal privaatrecht) includes several articles on the Rome I Regulation, including four in English. Michael Bogdan (Lund University): The Rome I Regulation on the law applicable to contractual obligations and the choice of law by the parties The Rome Convention of 19 June 1980 on the Law Applicable to Contratual Obligations (in the following ‘the Rome Convention’) will be replaced on 17 December 2009, in all Member States of the European Union except Denmark, by the EC Regulation No 593/2008 on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (the Rome I Regulation) although only in relation to contracts concluded after that date. The Commission’s proposal of 2005 (in the following ‘The Commission’s proposal’), which led to the adoption of the Rome I Regulation after a number of amendments, stated that it did not set out to establish a new set of conflict rules but rather convert an existing convention into a Community law instrument. Nevertheless, the Regulation brings about several important changes in comparison with the Rome Convention. Luc Strikwerda (Advocate-General, Dutch Supreme Court): Toepasselijk recht bij gebreke van rechtskeuze; Artikel 4 Rome I-Verordening If contractual parties have not availed themselves of the possibility to choose the law applicable to their contract (Art. 3, Rome I), the applicable law will be determined according to rules laid down in Article 4, Rome I. Similar to the equivalent provision of the 1980 Rome Convention, Article 4, Rome I is based upon the doctrine of the characteristic performance.
  • In Doe V. Nestlé

    In Doe V. Nestlé

    Nos. 19-416 & 19-453 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States NESTLÉ USA, INC., Petitioner, v. JOHN DOE I, ET AL., Respondents. CARGILL, INC., Petitioner, v. JOHN DOE I, ET AL., Respondents. On Writs of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit BRIEF OF RESPONDENTS IN 19-416 PAUL L. HOFFMAN TERRENCE Counsel of Record COLLINGSWORTH JOHN C. WASHINGTON INTERNATIONAL HELEN ZELDES RIGHTS ADVOCATES SCHONBRUN SEPLOW 621 MARYLAND AVE., NE HARRIS HOFFMAN & WASHINGTON, DC 20002 ZELDES LLP TEL: (202) 543-5811 200 PIER AVENUE, #226 Email: [email protected] HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90245 TEL: (310) 396-0731 EMAIL: [email protected] Counsel for Respondents, Additional counsel continued on next page CATHERINE SWEETSER ERWIN CHEMERINSKY HUMAN RIGHTS UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LITIGATION CLINIC BERKELEY SCHOOL OF LAW UCLA LAW CLINICS 215 Law Building 385 Charles E. Young Berkeley, CA 94720 Drive East Los Angeles, CA 90095 MELANIE PARTOW MARY H. HANSEL UCI SCHOOL OF LAW CIVIL RIGHTS LITIGATION CLINIC; INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS CLINIC AND INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE CLINIC. UCI SCHOOL OF LAW 401 East Peltason, Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92697 i QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether Respondents' claims that Nestlé USA from U.S. territory aided and abetted the slavery and forced labor they suffered satisfies the "touch and concern" test set forth in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108, 124–25 (2013). 2. Whether this Court should create an immunity for U.S. corporations under the Alien Tort Statute even though corporate tort liability has been an established feature of American law since the Founding and Respondents’ slavery and forced labor claims apply to corporations in international law.
  • Iba Toolkit on Insolvency and Arbitration Questionnaire National Report of the Netherlands

    Iba Toolkit on Insolvency and Arbitration Questionnaire National Report of the Netherlands

    January 2021 IBA TOOLKIT ON INSOLVENCY AND ARBITRATION QUESTIONNAIRE NATIONAL REPORT OF THE NETHERLANDS Ms. Barbara Rumora-Scheltema Lawyer admitted to the Amsterdam bar and Partner, NautaDutilh N.V. [email protected] Ms. Vesna Lazić Senior researcher, Asser Institute and Associate Professor, Utrecht University [email protected]; [email protected] * * The authors wish to thank Aalt Colenbrander of NautaDutilh for his invaluable assistance in this project. For the avoidance of doubt, this report is not intended to provide legal advice applicable to specific fact situations. IBA Toolkit on Insolvency and Arbitration Questionnaire – Report of the Netherlands IMPACT OF NATIONAL INSOLVENCY ON DOMESTIC OR FOREIGN ARBITRATION [These questions relate to the effects that insolvency proceedings initiated in the Netherlands produce on arbitration commitments (foreign as well as national/local) involving the insolvent party.] Part I: Impact of Insolvency Proceedings on Ability to Commence or Continue Arbitration 1. Does the law of the Netherlands contain any provision on the effect that the opening of insolvency proceedings produces on arbitration? If so, what is the source of the provision or provisions providing for the effects? That is, are the effects provided by the insolvency legislation as part of the consequences produced by the opening of insolvency proceedings? Or, are they provided by the arbitration legislation or law as a matter concerning the arbitrability of disputes, the capacity of the parties to arbitrate, the validity and effectiveness of arbitration agreements, or any other arbitration-specific category? 1. Insolvency law is primarily contained in the Dutch Bankruptcy Act (“DBA”).1 There are two types of insolvency proceedings for companies under the DBA.2 A bankruptcy procedure (faillissement) is typically aimed at a liquidation of the debtor and distribution of its assets to its creditors (hereinafter referred to as “bankruptcy”).