International
Officials from the United States and Mexico signed an agreement this
past Wednesday that will open up each country’s highways to trucks from
its neighbor. The agreement represents the overdue implementation of a
provision of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that was
signed nearly two decades ago.
The original NAFTA agreement
called for Mexican trucks to have access to highways in border states by
1995, which would be expanded to all U.S. highways by January 2000. In
contrast, Canadian trucks have no limits or restrictions on where they
can travel in the U.S. Despite the requirements of NAFTA, Mexican
trucks have been mostly restricted to a 25 mile from the border buffer
zone. Mexico has reacted to this limitation by imposing trade tariffs
on numerous U.S. goods. They have agreed to immediately cut those
tariffs in half, and to eliminate them all together once the first
Mexican hauler begins traveling on U.S. roads. This is expected to be
sometime in August.
Many farmers are praising the legislation and
expect to see a big jump in demand from Mexico for American farm
products, especially meat and fruit. However, everyone was not happy
about the agreement.
Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa
condemned it, saying it “lowers wages and robs jobs from hardworking
American truck drivers and warehouse workers.” In addition to the
concern about jobs, the safety of Mexican trucks and the ability of
their drivers had held up the agreement for a long time.
The
Trade department hopes those fears will be assuaged by the
implementation of strict safety requirements for the trucks and their
drivers. Mexican trucks will be required to carry electronic monitoring
devices to ensure they make only cross-border, and not domestic, runs
and to make sure they are in compliance with U.S. hours of service laws.
Mexican truck drivers wanting to operate in the U.S. must also pass
English-language proficiency, drug, and safety tests.
|
|
On June 27, 2011 the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision in the case of Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations v. Brown. This case made its way to the Supreme Court through the state courts of North Carolina.
In
2004 two North Carolina teenagers were killed in a bus accident in
France. The cause of the accident was alleged to be the faulty tires
manufactured in a Turkish plant by Goodyear Luxembourg, a subsidiary of
Goodyear USA, an Ohio corporation. The boys’ families sued Goodyear USA
in North Carolina court on the premise that although Goodyear
Luxembourg did no business with the United States, the parent-subsidiary
relationship with Goodyear USA provided the “continuous and systematic”
contacts necessary for jurisdiction by the North Carolina courts.
The
Supreme Court disagreed. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the court reversed the decision of the North
Carolina Appeals Court. The North Carolina court had based its ruling
on the theory that the “stream of commerce” provided the Turkish plant
and Luxembourg subsidiary enough contacts with the state. These
connections were too tenuous the court reasoned, and were not enough to
subject the companies to suit in North Carolina.
This is an
important decision for international trade and business. The Obama
administration and several business groups had written briefs supporting
the position denying jurisdiction, arguing that if the case were
allowed corporation could be sued anywhere their products are sold, even
there exists no connection between the legal claim and location where
the lawsuit is filed. The North Carolina court’s view of jurisdiction,
they argued, would have extended jurisdiction over foreign businesses
and could threaten to harm the foreign trade and diplomatic interests of
the United States.
|
|
As lawyers like to phrase it, "it depends..."
Kouichi Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd. (9th
Circuit, March 8, 2011) - Following the fall through a wooden deck at
Marianas Resort and Spa, the Japanese professional baseball player,
Kouichi Taniguchi, filed a negligence lawsuit against Kan Pacific Saipan
Ltd., the owner of Marianas Resort and Spa. The U.S. District Court for
the Northern Mariana Islands granted Kan Pacific’s motion for summary
judgment.
In his appeal, Taniguchi stated that the District
Court erred in awarding costs for translation services used by Kan
Pacific during the litigation according to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1827 and 1828.
Although he cited the wrong statute, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has dealt with the question
whether “translation services” and “interpretation services” are
interchangeable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6). There is a Circuit split
concerning the statutory interpretation of § 1920(6).
More Details: See Below.
|
|
weiter …
|
|
Introduced
on February 2, 2011, North Carolina House Bill 33 clearly states what
forms of identification are acceptable and can be used in order to
determine “a person’s actual identity by a justice, judge, clerk,
magistrate, law enforcement officer, or other government official.”
There are five different forms of identification cards included in House Bill 33:
(1) Drivers license issued by any state;
(2) Special identification card issued pursuant to G.S. 20-37.7;
(3) Military ID;
(4) Passport issued by a government with diplomatic ties to the U.S. (At this time only 5
countries have no official relation to the U.S.: Bhutan, Cuba,
Iran, North Korea, and Taiwan);
(5) Official document from the government showing the person to be a legal citizen.
Moreover
this bill points out that any Local Government Ordinances which
accepted any other form of identification not listed in this bill are
repealed. On February 7, 2011 the bill was referred by the House of
Representative to the committee on government.
We will continue to monitor this development, which may impact foreign investors from Taiwan as their national Passport will no longer be accepted in North Carolina for identification purposes.
|
|
Durch sein Urteil vom 19. Januar hat
der Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) die Rechte von Passagieren gegenüber
ausländischen Fluggesellschaften gestärkt. Wenn ein Start in
Deutschland annulliert wird, kann der Kunde eine Entschädigung bei
derUS-Airline nach EU-Recht einklagen.
Karlsruhe - Die bei Ausfall oder Verspätung von Flügen nach EU-Recht fällige
Entschädigung können Passagiere auch gegen ausländische
Fluggesellschaften in Deutschland einklagen. Nach einem am Mittwoch
bekanntgegebenen Urteil des BGH in Karlsruhe gilt dies für alle Flüge,
die von deutschen Flughäfen starten. Damit gab der BGH einem Passagier
der US-Gesellschaft Delta Air Lines Recht.
Die Kläger
hatten einen Flug von Frankfurt am Main in die USA gebucht. Wegen eines
Defekts am Flugzeug wurde der Flug annulliert, die Kläger konnten erst
am nächsten Tag abfliegen. Das EU-Recht sieht bei Verspätungen und
Annullierungen von Flügen verschiedene Leistungen wie Verpflegung und
Hotelkosten vor und gegebenenfalls auch eine "Ausgleichszahlung", hier
600 EUR je Person.
Delta Air Lines zahlte nicht und erklärte,
die dagegen gerichteten Klagen seien in Deutschland unzulässig. Doch
das ist falsch, urteilte der BGH: Verbraucher
könnten am "Erfüllungsort" gegen Hersteller und Dienstleister klagen.
Dies sei bei Flügen, unabhängig von den Geschäftsbedingungen der
Fluggesellschaft, der Ort des Abflugs.
|
|
| |
|
|
Wussten Sie schon? Sie können unseren monatlichen Newsletter, geschrieben von Reinhard von Hennigs, kostenlos beziehen. Zahlreiche Informationen über deutsches und amerikanisches Recht und aktuelle Änderungen. Der Newsletter ist bi-lingual
