3 ms·

The question is rather: Why should a foreign company have to care about whether it is fraud in your jurisdiction? I can see that you possibly can sue whoever is

The question is rather: Why should a foreign company have to care about whether it is fraud in your jurisdiction? I can see that you possibly can sue whoever is offering the ADR in your jurisdiction, and that they can possibly sue the company in their home jurisdiction, but not like this.

duxup 7y ago
Hasn't the question of if a foreign company can be sued in another country largely been answered in most countries as, yes?
- testvox 7y ago
  No, most countries will not allow their courts to assert original jurisdiction for torts or crimes committed in other countries by foreign actors. The US has more exceptions to this then most other countries, for instance the controversial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_Tort_Statute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_Tort_Statute But even the Alien Tort Claims Act only applies to torts, and only to those which are "...committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States."
  - rolltiide 7y ago
    Other countries have a mixture of ideology and consequences which limit the scope of their jurisdiction. The ideology itself formed mostly from historical consequences and collaboration with neighbors. The consequences being their relationship with other countries. Specifically related to negative consequences that have an impact. The US ideology has no limit to its scope, and the consequences are non-existent. When other countries disagree with US ideology, their desire to maintain a relationship with the US is greater. This allows the US to so far operate with impunity, with notable exceptions being Russia and China, which do ignore administrative requests from the US for things within their territory. This should give a lot of color and context to why the US has a different meaning of jurisdiction than what people expect. A future US could be subject to unilateral drone strikes and internationally coordinated sanctions, forcing more mutual cooperation and limitations in its enforcement scope.
    - duxup 7y ago
      I think it has less to do with drone strikes and more to do if if you want to do business in a given place and they have courts who take action, you're more attentive to the law there. Nobody is worried about China drone strikes, but they'll hand over IP or whatever is needed.
      - rolltiide 7y ago
        It was just an illustrative example which in particular can be severed from the rest without changing the point one bit.
  - jtbayly 7y ago
    And GDPR.

duxup 7y ago

Hasn't the question of if a foreign company can be sued in another country largely been answered in most countries as, yes?

testvox 7y ago
No, most countries will not allow their courts to assert original jurisdiction for torts or crimes committed in other countries by foreign actors. The US has more exceptions to this then most other countries, for instance the controversial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_Tort_Statute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_Tort_Statute But even the Alien Tort Claims Act only applies to torts, and only to those which are "...committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States."
- rolltiide 7y ago
  Other countries have a mixture of ideology and consequences which limit the scope of their jurisdiction. The ideology itself formed mostly from historical consequences and collaboration with neighbors. The consequences being their relationship with other countries. Specifically related to negative consequences that have an impact. The US ideology has no limit to its scope, and the consequences are non-existent. When other countries disagree with US ideology, their desire to maintain a relationship with the US is greater. This allows the US to so far operate with impunity, with notable exceptions being Russia and China, which do ignore administrative requests from the US for things within their territory. This should give a lot of color and context to why the US has a different meaning of jurisdiction than what people expect. A future US could be subject to unilateral drone strikes and internationally coordinated sanctions, forcing more mutual cooperation and limitations in its enforcement scope.
  - duxup 7y ago
    I think it has less to do with drone strikes and more to do if if you want to do business in a given place and they have courts who take action, you're more attentive to the law there. Nobody is worried about China drone strikes, but they'll hand over IP or whatever is needed.
    - rolltiide 7y ago
      It was just an illustrative example which in particular can be severed from the rest without changing the point one bit.
- jtbayly 7y ago
  And GDPR.