l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 https://matthewvadum.com/2022/06/scotus-chinese-manufacturer-cannot-use-us-
courts-to-press-american-firm-for-evidence/
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled on June 13 that a Chinese
manufacturer is not allowed to use the U.S. legal system to compel the
production of evidence in a private arbitration taking place overseas.
The high court held that federal district courts are unable to compel
discovery in an arbitration case outside the United States governed by a
private organization, even when an international treaty makes discovery a
possibility, unless the nations in the treaty intended the arbitration panel
to possess governmental authority.
The decision comes in a complex case pitting a Hong Kong-based company
against a U.S. automobile parts manufacturer.
Luxshare, a Hong Kong limited liability company, manufactures consumer
electronics, communications, and automotive products. Luxshare is sometimes
called “little Foxconn,” after Taiwan-based Foxconn, a contract
manufacturer of electronics in the Apple supply chain that has a large
number of Chinese supplier locations.
Livonia, Michigan-based ZF Automotive manufactures automotive parts and
industrial technology.
Luxshare is disputing the value of assets of a business unit in ZF’s German
parent company, ZF Friedrichshafen AG, that Luxshare purchased in 2017 for
about $1 billion. Luxshare claims it was misled about the profitability of
two of ZF’s businesses. The deal stipulated that disputes would be resolved
according to the rules of the German Arbitration Institute, which goes by
the German acronym DIS.
A U.S. District Court in Detroit approved a request to subpoena ZF
Automotive, ordering it to hand over the relevant documents to Luxshare.
But the Supreme Court granted the petition in ZF Automotive U.S. Inc. v.
Luxshare Ltd., court file 21-401, on Dec. 10, 2021, sidestepping the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit before it had ruled on the case. Before
that, on Oct. 27, 2021, the Supreme Court also blocked the lower court’s
order compelling ZF Automotive to produce the documents demanded by Luxshare.
Oral arguments in the ZF Automotive case, which was consolidated with
AlixPartners v. Fund for Protection of Investor’s Rights, court file 21-518
, were heard on March 23.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion (pdf) for a unanimous Supreme
Court.
“Congress has long allowed federal courts to assist foreign or
international adjudicative bodies in evidence gathering,” Barrett wrote.
“The current statute, 28 U.S.C. §1782, permits district courts to order
testimony or the production of evidence ‘for use in a proceeding in a
foreign or international tribunal.’ These consolidated cases require us to
decide whether private adjudicatory bodies count as ‘foreign or
international tribunals.’ They do not. The statute reaches only
governmental or intergovernmental adjudicative bodies, and neither of the
arbitral panels involved in these cases fits that bill.”
Governments may give official authority to an ad hoc arbitration panel, but
“just because nations agree in a treaty to submit to arbitration before it
” doesn’t mean the body possesses governmental authority, according to
Barnett.
“The relevant question is whether the nations intended that the ad hoc
panel exercise governmental authority. And here, all indications are that
they did not,” she wrote.
Counsel for ZF Automotive, Roman Martinez V, was pleased with the ruling.
“We are thrilled with today’s decision,” Martinez said in an emailed
statement.
“As the Court made clear, Section 1782 is carefully limited to authorize
discovery only for use in governmental and intergovernmental adjudicatory
bodies, not purely private arbitrations abroad. This opinion will ensure
that parties to foreign commercial arbitrations will not be able to
improperly take advantage of discovery in U.S. courts and will have
immediate impact on a broad range of current and future international
arbitrations.”
Alex Yanos, counsel for the Fund for Protection of Investor’s Rights, told
The Epoch Times by email: “No comment from our end.”
The Epoch Times also reached out to counsel for Luxshare, Andrew Rhys Davies
, but didn’t receive a reply as of press time.
This article by Matthew Vadum appeared June 13, 2022, in The Epoch Times. |
|
