Readers, here are two events you should check out. First, on November 12, at noon EST, the International Law Section of the Boston Bar Association is hosting Harry G. Broadman for a brownbag lunch event on CFIUS, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. Here’s a brief description of the event, which will be held online:
CFIUS has been in the news more and more in recent years. But what is it, and what do non-specialists need to know? The International Law section is hosting a discussion with Harry G. Broadman, chair of the Emerging Markets and CFIUS practice at Berkeley Research Group. Dr. Broadman has broad and deep experience with CFIUS, having served as chief economist to the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, the chief of staff of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors, an assistant US trade representative, and as a member of CFIUS. He serves on the Editorial Board of the International Financial Law Review (IFLR) and is also the IFLR’s Quarterly National Security Columnist (His most recent column is: CFIUS Annual Report Reveals a Maturing Agency With Increased Agility). Dr. Broadman will lead a discussion of CFIUS that will include time for questions and answers. Please join the International Law section for this timely and interesting discussion.
I am looking forward to the event because I am in the large category of lawyers who have heard of CFIUS and know what it is but who don’t know much about it. Dr. Broadman is a real subject-matter expert, so I think I will learn a lot!
The second event is International Law Weekend, hosted by the International Law Association, American Branch on October 28 to 30. There are a lot of interesting panels and talks. Letters Blogatory readers may be particularly interested in Rethinking the Service of Documents in Cross-Border Transactions, which will take place on Oct. 30 at 10:45 a.m. EST. The panel will be moderated by Ron Brand and Louise Ellen Teitz. I’ll be participating, along with Robin Effron, Lemuel Lopez, and Gifany Ten-Ten L. Tongohan. I’ll be presenting on waivers of objections to alternate methods of service under the Service Convention, and reprising my (unsuccessful) argument from the cert. petition in the Rockefeller case. Here’s my basic idea. I suspect that most of us would think that if the parties to a cross-border case had agreed that service of process should be made by personal delivery by a US sheriff or marshal, the state of destination would have a legitimate beef on judicial sovereignty grounds. (Of course, no one would ever make an agreement like this, but it’s a thought experiment, so bear with me). But not everyone agrees that if the parties agree to service of process by post, the state of destination has a legitimate beef, even when it has objected to service by post. Why are the two cases different? Probably because one seems to us like a greater infringement on the state of destination’s judicial sovereignty. But the whole point of the system of objections, which has been a feature of conventions on service since the original Civil Procedure Convention, is to put the judgment about what is and is not acceptable in the hands of the state of destination, not the forum state, and certainly not the hands of the litigants. Anyway, it should be interesting, and I would love to see you there!
Leave a Reply