MC Law Students in Seoul

Well, summer is almost half over and it is time to start blogging once again! This summer 8 students and 2 law professors (Professor Greg Bowman and Professor Celie Edwards) from MCSOL are in Seoul, South Korea for 4 weeks. They arrived on June 11 and will be leaving on July 6. The original plan was to have the Students blog at least once or twice a week during their stay in Seoul; however, technological and translation difficulties have arisen preventing the group from blogging. Hopefully, we can have some of them provide some posts about their experiences upon their return. For some, it is their first time overseas. Others are a little more experienced. The students are taking 2 classes while in Seoul, International Business Transactions and Global Comparative Corporate law. The Students are studying at Sookmyung University in central Seoul.

ILS elects new officers for 2008-2009 year

Recently, the ILS elected new officers for next year.  We would like to thank all of the outgoing officers including President Andrew Stubbs and Secretary Brytt Ebeling-Belt for all of their hard work.  Both helped make this past year a wonderful one for the society.  

On a different note, we would like to welcome our new officers for the upcoming year.  The new President is Andy Thomas, who served as Vice-President this past year.  Our new Vice-President is Laura Moore, a rising 2L.  Finally, our new Secretary is Kat Pantazis, a rising 3L.  We are in the midst of planning some great events and speakers for the upcoming year and look forward to a great next year for the officers and the society.  Again, congratulations to all of the new officers.  

NAFTA: Good or Bad?

There has been much discussion in recent weeks whether NAFTA has been beneficial or not for the U.S.  Much of the discussion has come from the two Democratic Presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.  Both have expressed strong dislike for NAFTA stating that the treaty has been the cause of huge losses in American jobs (Obama claims that it has cost the U.S. over 1 million jobs).  Yet, many questions still remain: 1) Is NAFTA really the source of these job losses?; 2) How many jobs have actually been gained because of NAFTA and other FTAs similar to it?; 3) Is all of this "talk" just political rhetoric to reach out to union voters in Ohio and Pennsylvania?.  

In my International Trade Regulation class the other day, we had a discussion of the current Presidential candidates and their positions on trade (this included both Republican and Democratic candidates).  It can be plainly seen that John McCain is completely for FTAs.  He has a 100% voting record for FTAs in the senate.  The other two (Democratic) candidate's views are a little more murky.  Obama seems farther to the left (opposes free trade) while Hillary seems to be riding the fence (what a surprise!).  They will often vote for one agreement and then not vote for the next one, often citing lack of labor or environmental standards.  Yet, one student brought up an extremely good point--both Obama and Clinton did not start faulting NAFTA for job losses until the Ohio presidential primary got closer.  This opposition was not present in primaries in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Iowa, California, etc.  This fact makes a strong case that their opposition is strictly based on political motives in pandering to presidential voters.  Particularly Hillary, who's husband oversaw the signing and establishment of NAFTA seems to have no consistent stance toward trade--good for the country here but bad there.  Now, obviously, there have been job losses since the inception of NAFTA.  Many manufacturing jobs have been lost, but many jobs in services have been created.  Neither of which can be completely credited to NAFTA.  In all actuality, globalization (which neither America nor any other country can control) is mostly to blame.  Globalization is caused by multiple factors including liberalization of market access, rapidly developing foreign financial markets, changes in currency, media, etc.  Because of these factors and many more, the U.S. has no choice but to stay economically competitive with FTAs--this IS a situation where one can argue that since everyone else is doing it we should too.  

As a result, one should be careful not to put to much faith into the rhetoric of Presidential candidates in their positions to amend or even worse, do away with NAFTA or other similar agreements.  I would hope that voters in not only Ohio and Pennsylvania can see through this rhetoric, but also other Americans as well.  We as Americans must realize that our domestic economy is changing whether we like it or not.  Manufacturing jobs are going to continue to leave this country while other service oriented jobs will continue to grow.  We have to learn to sacrifice and change--we cannot stop the integration of our economy with the global economy.   While labor unions will not admit it, they may be the root cause of the loss of manufacturing jobs.  These organizations push for higher wages (sometimes $15-20 dollars an hour), less working hours, better working conditions, etc.  While these requests are commendable, corporations get tired of having to give in to these requests and end up going to less developed nations to manufacture products.  Take China for example: Companies can go there and pay workers 1/10 of what they pay workers in America, get workers to work 12-15 hour days, and have less desirable working conditions.  Strictly from a business point of view, what company would not take those jobs overseas.  Now, I am NOT advocating companies leaving or have lower wages and bad working conditions in America.  However, Americans need to understand that we have the highest wages and the best working conditions of any country on earth, and that when unions push for more and more, companies will finally get tired of the pressure and leave.  

In conclusion, one should not be quick to blame FTAs for the loss of jobs or other economic woes that the U.S. is facing.  There are many problems that will involve intelligent solutions rather than undoing past accomplishments (such as NAFTA).  

For more info, see here.

A. Thomas

UBS International tax attorneys speak for ILS

Recently, Mr. Christopher Andrews St. Victor de Pinho and Ms. Jennifer Sinclaire spoke about "Structured Finance and the Global Credit Crisis" at MCSOL for a group of students and practitioners.  Mr. Pinho and Ms. Sinclaire are in-house tax attorneys for UBS Financial Firm in Stamford, Connecticut.  Mr. Pinho spoke about the devastating economic results stemming from the credit crisis and Ms. Sinclaire explained structured finance and how it is used by the investment banks.  Their dual presentation was extremely enlightening and educational, especially for students (like me) who are trying to understand the market and how this current credit crisis began and implications it has for the future.  

The ILS would like to thank Mr. Pinho and Ms. Sinclaire for taking time out of their busy schedules to come speak at the law school.  Their presentation was a great learning experience and one that will not be forgotten.  

Why do Latin Americans sue U.S. companies?

I haven't been able to nail down one particular unifying theme to this quandary. What I do know is that, as U.S. markets expand in an increasingly globalized world, they become subject to many new laws while still operating under the cloak of United States' judicial protection.

For example, companies are quickly opening branches, manufacturing plants, agricultural endeavors and selling an increasing number of products to Latin American countries. Although there are no Regional Trade Agreements or Free Trade Agreements between the U.S. and many, if not most, of these countries (Mexico excluded) this commercialism grows nearly uninhibited. As a result, hundreds, if not thousands of law suits hit U.S. courts from Latin American workers suing their U.S. employers for various reasons. Suits have been filed based on chemical usage in Dole banana farms in Nicaragua and Honduras and Guatemala. Suits have been filed for injuries in manufacturing plants. Suits have been filed based on products liability even when the product was built or created in the Latin American country of origin for the plaintiff. All of these suits are brought in the United States and filed, either within the federal court system, or the state court system for the domiciliary state of the U.S. company. Nearly every one of these suits is regurgitated from the U.S. court system on grounds of forum non conveniens.

After this happens, the Latino Plaintiffs are forced to file suit in their home country if they carry any hope of a remedy. However, due to Latin American Blocking Statutes, these Plaintiffs are typically not allowed to file a subsequent suit in their home country after having already chosen a foreign venue to pursue their action.

Whatever the court, the question remains, why are these suits continuously brought in the U.S.?
Why can Latin Americans not get to the deep U.S. corporate pockets by suing in their home country where the cause of action occurred and all the evidence is that will be needed at trial to prove their case?

There is obviously an underlying problem here and I want to find out what it is.

Anybody have any links or input?

AJ - MCSOL ILS President

ILS Thanks Judge Southwick for Speaking

The ILS would like to thank Judge Southwick for taking the time to come and speak with the society.  

Judge Southwick offered unique insight into his personal experiences in Iraq with JAG and dealing with Iraqi civilians on a day-to-day basis.  He specifically spoke about Iraqi civilian claims he dealt with for property damage and wrongful death claims under the U.S. Foreign Claims Act.  

Again, we appreciate you coming to speak for us and good luck with the 5th Circuit.

Fifth Circuit Judge Leslie Southwick to Speak for ILS

This coming Thursday, March 6, Judge Southwick, who was recently appointed to the Fifth Circuit, will be speaking for the ILS at MCSOL.  The meeting will be at 11:45 in Room 250.  The topic is "Paying Iraqi Claims: A Job for the JAG's."  

In 2005, Judge Southwick served in Iraq as a member of the Mississippi National Guard's 155th Brigade Combat Team.  While on active duty, he served as Deputy Staff Judge Advocate from Aug. 2004 to July 2005 and then as Staff Judge Advocate from July to Jan. 2006.  He also served in the Judge Advocate General's Corps in the U.S. Army Reserves from 1992 to 1997.  As a result, he has extensive knowledge and experience in this area.

For more information about Judge Southwick, see http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/judicialnominees/southwick.html