Illinois Supreme Court Allows Claims for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Without Expert Testimony

Here is defense lawyer Russell Jackson's post summarizing the ruling and providing a link to the opinion that he characterizes as dispensing with a need to prove physical symptoms or expert proof.

FAQ - Where are 50 State Surveys on Particular Tort Issues

This late 2008 post from the Beck and Herrmann Drug and Device Law blog is a good jumping off point for researching or arguing the legal issues regarding informal contacts with physicians.

Here is an April 15, 2009 post on state and federal law on medical monitoring from the Beck and Herrmann blog on Drug and Device Law.

Update on Toyota's Efforts to Use the MDL to Control the Situation as to Inside Counsel and Documents

Here is a Corporate Counsel that provides an update on and links to documents regarding Toyota's issues with its former inside counsel who claims that documents were wrongfully destroyed regarding alleged defects in cars.

Binding a Successor Corporation to a Forum Selection Clause in International Litigation Related to a Sovereign-Owned Entity

With a hat tip to Mondaq, this article from Proskauer summarizes a recent 2d Circuit ruling holding that forum selection clauses may be enforced against successor entities in the context of an entity 90% owned by the Argentine government. The case arises in the context of business to business litigation, but the same principles presumably will apply to consumer claims where a contract terms is interposed as a substantive defense or as controlling forum. That may be a mixed blessing for corporations as choosing one forum or law may actually foster class action claims because it will simplify otherwise extant issues regarding choice of law and/or forum.

The article's key excerpt explains the following:


"On October 23, 2009, the Second Circuit definitively ruled in Aguas Lenders Recovery Group LLC v. Suez, S.A (ALRG) that U.S. forum selection clauses are enforceable against successors in interest under ordinary principles of contract law – even when the successor is a non-U.S. entity. The opinion ( found here) clarifies this key legal issue, further strengthening predictability in international transactions. Applying ordinary successorship law to forum selection clauses prevents a defaulting successor from escaping liability on a jurisdictional theory when substance and jurisdiction were negotiated as one contractual package.

In ALRG, Proskauer represents the Plaintiff-Appellant in claims against an Argentine entity, AySA. ALRG sued AySA to recover on more than $125 million in loans made to Aguas Argentinas – a now-defunct Argentine entity that ran Buenos Aires' water and sewage system. ALRG alleges that AySA is Aguas' successor in interest. Among other things, ALRG alleges that AySA (owned 90% by the Argentine government) was specifically created to, and did, take over Aguas' contracts and operations after Aguas' shareholders opted to get out of their arrangement with Argentina and that, as part of that takeover, AySA received the physical assets that had been built, improved or acquired using money borrowed by Aguas, the accounts receivable, and assumed various of Aguas' employment and other contracts – yet shirked its obligations under Aguas' loan agreements (which were expressly binding on all successors). Proskauer filed claims against AySA (and others) in the Southern District of New York based, in part, on express forum selection clauses in the operative agreements."

Korea to Open Law Firms to Outside Investment and Ownership, and Allow MDP Entities

Here is an interesting AmLaw post on the Korean government seeking to deregulate legal services and end restrictions on nonlawyers investing in and providing legal services. The key excerpts say:

"The Korean government is planning a major deregulation of the nation's legal and other professional services markets, the Korea Herald reports.

At a government meeting Tuesday, Finance Minister Yoon Jeung-hyun explained the move as a way to boost employment in the high-value services sector.

"The government will lower entry barriers to the professional service market to spur competition and to boost the size of the market," Yoon said.

A number of measures aimed at reducing regulation have been recommended to the government by the Korean Development Institute, a think tank. Perhaps most controversially, the KDI has proposed that non-lawyers and conglomerates be permitted to own stakes in law firms. The institute has also recommended an end to restrictions on lawyers, patent agents and certified public accountants practicing together."

More from Spain on Contingent Fees, Plus Word on a Spanish Law Website and Blog Regarding Spanish Law Issues

You may recall this prior post regarding Spain's high court striking down a statute prohibiting contingent fees. A friend and Spanish law school instructor, Albert Azagra, was kind enough to to provide the following additional specifics on the ruling. I posed the questions and Albert provided the answers, with a caveat that he is not an expert on the issues and I edited a word here and there:

(1) Was the source of the restriction based on what American lawyers
would call legal ethics rules?

Yes. Section 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility of the Spanish
Bar Association expressly banned contingency fees as the sole form of
compensation. It only allowed a fraction of the compensation to be linked
to the results and, in any event, the client had to pay at least the costs
of rendering the service. Note further that the rule prohibiting
contingency fees was also included in a national regulation governing
lawyers – albeit not an Act of Parliament- that had been upheld by the
Supreme Court some years ago. This makes the November decision even more
important.

(2) Did the court strike down the rule based on some "constitutional"
grounds or based on EU or Spanish laws on restrictions on competition.

The Court struck down the rule mainly on the grounds of Spanish competition
law.

(3) How wide an impact might we expect from this decision. (eg is this a precedent for all EU countries) and whether the outcome can be changed by, for example, an amendment to existing legislation?

Spanish statutes and case law are generally not very influential in other European countries. Actually, traditionally we copy the French and, to a lesser extent, the German, and the Italian. German and US law are becoming more and more influential.

Also, generally speaking, in the Civil Law tradition decisions by the courts of other Civil Law countries do not constitute precedent. Of course, EU courts and the European Court of Human Rights decisions are a different story.

Spanish Law Review and Blog

Albert also sent word this weekend about a website and blog that cover tort law issues in Spain, with the website including a section in English for some but not all of the papers. Here's what he explained, and the links:

"My research group is now launching a blog. It publishes brief analytical comments on bills, judgments, legal education and other topics. The blog is called Abogares (http://www.abogares.com/) and it is the blog of InDret (http://www.indret.com), our SSRN-listed electronic law review with more than 3,000 subscribers from around 30 countries. The law review has published 77 of its 708 articles entirely in English, and we expect the blog to have posts in English, too."


Albert is a great person and quite learned - you can find him on LinkedIn.