Facing up to multinationalcomplex litigation in the united states
| Autor | Ángel R. Oquendo |
| Cargo | George J. and Helen M. England Professor of Law, University of Connecticut; CAPES Visiting Professor from Abroad, Federal & State Universities of Rio de Janeiro |
| Páginas | 68-122 |
Revista Eletrônica de Direito Processual – REDP.
Rio de Janeiro. Ano 11. Volume 18. Número 1. Janeiro a Abril de 2017
Periódico Quadrimestral da Pós-Graduação Stricto Sensu em Direito Processual da UERJ
Patrono: José Carlos Barbosa Moreira. ISSN 1982-7636. pp. 68-122
www.redp.uerj.br
68
FACING UP TO MULTINATIONALCOMPLEX LITIGATION
IN THE UNITED STATES
1
-
2
Ángel R. Oquendo
George J. and Helen M. England Professor of Law, University of
Connecticut; CAPES Visiting Professor from Abroad, Federal &
State Universities of Rio de Janeiro; DAAD Visiting Professor,
Free University of Berlin. Ph.D., M.A. (Philosophy), A.B. (Eco-
nomics and Philosophy), Harvard University; J.D., Yale Law
School. The author himself has translated the quoted non-English
texts and vouches for the accuracy of the translation. He would
like to thank Ben Haldeman and Claudia Schubert for their in-
valuable contribution to the development of the ideas of this arti-
cle. oquendo@zedat.fu-berlin.de
RESUMO: Uma Corte Federal deve buscar a presença de estrangeiros em uma global class
action, com vistas a obter uma reparação monetária, com a mente aberta. Deve mantê-los con-
sigo enquanto concluem, mediante a análise profunda do direito comparado, o que o Judiciário
da nação de origem daquele indivíduo decidiria ao final. Por exemplo, os membros da Améri-
ca Latina deveriam permanecer na medida em que fosse deferido a um juiz norte-americano o
dever de chegar àquela conclusão. E, como consequência da res iudicata, eles não consegui-
ram obter o rejulgamento da causa em seus países após serem derrotados no mérito nos Esta-
dos Unidos. Particularmente, um Tribunal de qualquer um dos outros sete países representan-
tes da região (México, Brasil, Venezuela, Colômbia, Panamá, Peru e Equador) provavelmente
entenderia que o julgamento proferido nos Estados Unidos respeitou o devido processo legal,
assim como os demais requisitos para a sua homologação. Ou seja, sustentaria aqueles que não
se submeteram à jurisdição nacional não poderiam, legitimamente, se queixar do efeito preclu-
sivo da coisa julgada, eis que tiveram a possibilidade de lançar os esforços possíveis, sobre a
1
Artigo recebido em 19/04/2017 sob dispensa de revisão.
2
An earlier version appeared in 16 WASHINGTON U. GLOBAL STUDIES L. REV. 71-124 (2017).
Revista Eletrônica de Direito Processual – REDP.
Rio de Janeiro. Ano 11. Volume 18. Número 1. Janeiro a Abril de 2017
Periódico Quadrimestral da Pós-Graduação Stricto Sensu em Direito Processual da UERJ
Patrono: José Carlos Barbosa Moreira. ISSN 1982-7636. pp. 68-122
www.redp.uerj.br
69
ação de seus representantes, para obter uma compensação, teriam se beneficiado de numerosos
controles da justiça da decisão, e teriam obtido semelhante resultado em sua terá natal baseado
em um processo conduzido por alguém sem sua autorização. Os juízes dos Estados Unidos
deverão deliberar, de maneira aprofundada, sobre se querem receber cidadãos de qualquer
outro lugar do mundo para litigar.
PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Ações complexas, partes estrangeiras, ações coletivas, execução de
sentenças estrangeiras.
ABSTRACT: A federal court should approach the presence of foreigners in a global class
action for monetary relief with an openmind. It should keep them in so long as it can conclude,
upon a reflective comparative law analysis, that the judiciary in theirnationof origin would
upholdtheultimate ruling.For example, Latin American absent class members should normally
stay on board inasmuchas virtually every jurisdictionin their regionwould allow a U.S. adjudi-
cator to arrive at this conclusion.Accordingly, they would fail, on grounds of res judicata, if
they ever tried to re-litigate the matter back home upon a defeat on the merits in the United
States. In particular, a tribunal from any one of seven representative regional countries (Mexi-
co, Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia, Panama, Peru, and Ecuador) wouldmost probably find such
a U.S.judgment consistent with local due process, as well as with the remaining requirements
for recognition.In other words, it would hold thatabsentees stemming from its jurisdictional
territory could not legitimately complain about the preclusive effect since they would have
free ridden on the efforts of their representatives with a chance at compensation, would have
benefited from numerous fairness controls, and could have similarly faced preclusion in their
homeland based on a suit prosecuted by someone else without their authorization.Judges in the
United States should engage in a similar in-depth deliberationto decide whether to welcome-
citizens from anywhere else in the worldto the litigation.
KEYWORDS: Complex litigation, foreign litigants, class actions, enforcement of foreign
judgments.
Revista Eletrônica de Direito Processual – REDP.
Rio de Janeiro. Ano 11. Volume 18. Número 1. Janeiro a Abril de 2017
Periódico Quadrimestral da Pós-Graduação Stricto Sensu em Direito Processual da UERJ
Patrono: José Carlos Barbosa Moreira. ISSN 1982-7636. pp. 68-122
www.redp.uerj.br
70
INTRODUCTION
The internationalization of businessand the diversification of thepopulation have pro-
foundly impacted the law.Ever more often, the U.S. judiciary hashad to adjudicate claims
stakedbyforeigners, whomay or may not reside in the United States, and has had to face the
corresponding logistical and cultural challenges.
3
In class actions, it has additionally confront-
ed the problem of not knowing whether its ultimate ruling wouldattain recognition in the event
of re-litigation abroad inforumspossessingdifferentsystems of collective adjudication.
4
Under
these circumstances, the temptation simply to dismissforeign absent class members from the
suit looms large.
This article will arguethat, particularly when dealing with a global class, which encom-
passes a sizeable proportion of non-citizens,federal courts shouldactually engage in intense
comparative reflection in order to determine whether their counterparts in other nations would
or would not enforce their judgments.Concentrating on Latin America, it willmaintain that
they should keep apassive claimant on board so long as his or her jurisdiction of origin could
appreciate U.S. class actions as fair and compatible with local fundamental legal principles.A
similar approach suggests itself with respect to absentees from other parts of the world.
Consequently, the article will itself assesswhethertribunalsin Latin America would likely
uphold a final decision in a damages class suit lodged in the United States.In particular, it will
ascertainwhether they would do so if any of the absent Latin American class members institut-
ed an essentially identicalcomplaint back home upon an adverse definitive determination north
of the border.The discussion will consider Latin America generally, but focus specifically ona
representative sample of seven countries:Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia, Panama, Peru,
and Ecuador.It will determine the likelihood of judicial enforcement in the region as a whole
and in these specific jurisdictions.
3
See, e.g., Sosa v. Álvarez-Machaín, 542 U.S. 692 (2004).
4
See, e.g., Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich, Ltd., 289 F.R.D. 105, 120 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), partially aff’d sub. nom.
Lomeli v. Sec. & Inv. Co. Bahr., 546 F App’x 37 (2d Cir. 2013) (summary order), vacated on unrelated grounds
sub. no m. St. Stephen’s Sch. v. Pricewaterho useCoopers Accountants N.V., 570 F. Appx. 37 (2d Cir. 2014)
(summary order).
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃO
COPYRIGHT Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro- Uerj
