Source: https://www.expertguides.com/articles/the-united-states-no-longer-a-shangri-la-for-plaintiffs-lawyers/arczycjy
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 19:01:07+00:00

Document:
Historically, plaintiffs' lawyers around the world have viewed the United States as the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction, and sought to file their cases in U.S. courts even when the underlying parties and facts have much stronger ties to other countries. As the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wryly noted in the context of securities cases, "some fear that [the United States] has become the Shangri-La of class-action litigation for lawyers representing those allegedly cheated in foreign securities markets."2 Recently, however, U.S. federal and state courts have increasingly refused to hear claims that have stronger connections to other countries. If this trend continues, it could significantly reduce the litigation exposure that non-U.S. companies face within the United States and encourage further investment in the U.S. economy.
Several distinct procedural and substantive aspects of the American legal system have made U.S. courts a particularly appealing place for plaintiffs.
Procedure. Contrary to most other jurisdictions, the United States, inter alia, (i) allows class actions, in which a single plaintiff can seek damages and other relief on behalf of hundreds or thousands of non-present plaintiffs, thus dramatically increasing defendants' exposure to large monetary awards, (ii) provides plaintiffs with the right to seek relatively broad and, for defendants, expensive "discovery" into documents and witness testimony, (iii) provides for trial by jury in most civil actions, (iv) does not require losing plaintiffs to pay the legal fees of victorious defendants, and (v) permits the award of contingent fees to plaintiffs' lawyers. These procedural mechanisms often afford plaintiffs a better opportunity to either win their claims or pressure defendants into a multi-million dollar settlement.
Substance. Certain American substantive laws are also relatively plaintiff-friendly. For example, in some circumstances, plaintiffs need not prove that they actually relied on any alleged misstatement to recover on private securities fraud claims. And plaintiffs can sometimes recover treble–yes, treble–damages on antitrust and products liability claims where other countries might not allow any lawsuit at all. Unsurprisingly, the prospect of showing less and recovering more makes the United States a good bet for plaintiffs' lawyers. Indeed, prominent U.S. plaintiffs' firms are increasingly opening overseas offices or teaming up with foreign consultants to recruit plaintiffs to U.S. courts. As with Coca-Cola, the United States is seen as exporting its plaintiff-friendly litigation system to the rest of the world.
In recent years, however, U.S. courts have increasingly said enough is enough. With heavy caseloads, U.S. federal and state courts have been less willing to expend limited judicial resources on cases that have little to nothing to do with the United States. This trend has been particularly evident in three areas of the law: personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens, securities, and antitrust.
Daimler, Morrison, Empagran, and the cases that follow suggest that U.S. courts are striking a new balance in cases involving non-U.S. defendants. Where plaintiffs' claims have limited or no ties to the United States and extensive ties to other countries, U.S. courts are increasingly not hearing them.
Vivek V. Tata contributed to this article.
Morrison v. Nat’l Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247, 270 (2010).
Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746, 750-51 (2014).
Id. at 754 (citing Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011)).
2016 WL 7158077, at *6 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. Dec. 8, 2016).
958 N.Y.S.2d 35, 36 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012).
2014 WL 1978768, at *3 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. May 16, 2014).
Cornwell v. Credit Suisse Grp., 729 F. Supp. 2d 620, 623 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).
In re Société Générale Sec. Litig., 2010 WL 3910286, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2010).
752 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2014).
542 U.S. 155, 159 (2004).
775 F.3d 816, 817 (7th Cir. 2014).
74 F. Supp. 3d 581 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).
Global Reinsurance Corp. v. Equitas Ltd., 969 N.E.2d 187, 196 (N.Y. 2012).

References: V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.