This article supports the NAFTA clause that lets foreign firms sue the US
governments for redress of trade wrongs. The story is especially interesting
because it shows how down and out people may enjoy punishing corporations. The
author obviously sympathizes with the Canadian firm, but the story of the trial
is
entertaining. The Canadian firm was totally outlawyered and maybe even treated
unfairly, but if it wins, the precedent will be terribly destructive.
"Nafta Meets the American Torts Process: O'Keefe V. Loewen." George Mason Law
Review, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 69-98, Fall 2000
Contact: MICHAEL I. KRAUSS
George Mason University School of Law
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Auth-Page: http://ssrn.com/author=153568
http://ssrn.com/abstract=271265
ABSTRACT: The systematic bias against out-of-state defendants in
American tort law is acutely illustrated in the important
Mississippi case, O'Keefe v Loewen. This case, which resulted in
the bankruptcy of the Canadian defendant, has itself become an
international cause celebre because of the NAFTA challenge it has
spawned. In this article, the factual backdrop of the case is
described, the NAFTA challenge analyzed, and the implications of
the challenge for tort reform are discussed.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
michaelperelman.wordpress.com
