Möglicher Einfluss der Entscheidung Morrison v. National Australia Bank …Global Forum Shopping – die Diskussion geht weiter

Wir hatten über die Entscheidung des U.S.Supreme Court am 25.7.2010 in diesem Blog (und eventuellem Einfluss auf andere die deutsche Industrie betreffende Verfahren) berichtet, zudem die FAZ etc. In einer am Southern District of New York rechtshängigen Securities Class Action gegen Vivendi spielen die im U.S.Supreme Court ausgetauschten Argumente nunmehr ebenfalls eine Rolle und das Web ist fleißig am diskutuieren. Nachfolgend Auszug aus der entsprechenden US-Blogszene. Der weitere Verlauf des Vivendi Verfahrens bleibt auch aus europäischer Sicht interessant.

The D & O Diary

Posted at 3:29 AM on August 2, 2010 by Kevin LaCroix

Guest Post: Vivendi Plaintiffs’ Argument on the Impact of Morrison v. National Australia Bank

In a series of recent posts (most recently here), I have been taking a look at the practical impact that the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 24, 2010 decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank will have on securities litigation in the United States involving non-U.S. companies. Among the cases seemingly most impacted by the decision is the Vivendi securities class action lawsuit pending in the Southern District of New York. Not only is the defendant company domiciled outside the United States, but about three quarters of its shareholders reside in France and most presumably purchased their shares on non-U.S. exchanges.

The question of whether these shareholders may assert a claim in a U.S. court under U.S. law is particularly acute due to the verdict that the jury returned on behalf of the plaintiffs in the case in January 2010.

As Andrew Longstreth reported on July 27, 2010 in the Am Law Litigation Daily (here), the parties to the Vivendi case recently presented their arguments to the court on the impact of Morrison. Among other things, the article characterized the plaintiffs’ argument that the foreign plaintiffs may proceed in the case as “highly creative” and the article also quoted George T. Conway III of the Wachtell Lipton law firm – who briefed and argued the Morrison case for the defendants – as describing the plaintiffs arguments as “Completely nuts, N-U-T-S.”

After I linked to the Am Law Litigation Daily article, counsel for the plaintiffs in the Vivendi case reached out to me to express their concerns that their position has been misunderstood and is not receiving a fair hearing in the press and the blogosphere. In response, I offered to host a guest blog post on this site, in which the plaintiffs counsel could present their position as they wished. What follows is the guest post submitted to me by Michael Spencer of the Milberg law firm.

The emerging conventional wisdom in legal circles and the media is that the Supreme Court’s decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank sounded the death knell for use of Section 10(b) of the Securities Ex…