What relevance would them having or not having a US holding company have?
"These Kronies are not dying as fast as I'd like them to"Nanashi Mumei
vReverie Implosion Watch - Cheri Lupina and Erika Byakko graduation announced, other talents suddenly on PL accounts
- Thread starter reinigen
- Start date
What relevance would them having or not having a US holding company have?
Dangers of doxxing are greatly exaggerated. And two dumbfucks in singapore are in extremely weak legal position too, they literally risking confiscation of their physical properties for debts, be it their talents or other entities. I highly doubt they can throw at talents anything that could survive motion to dismiss, if it even gets to that. Talent, on the other hand, have really good chances to fuck up founders if they choose so. Especially if they're also in SG.
Legal rights. They need to have some sort of USA-based holdings to sue in a US court over things like breach-of-contract, NDA violation, etc.
Ehm... not really? They will have bad standing in court and will be heavily scrutinized for tax situation, but this is not a requirement to sue.
This is way outside my normal practice, but my understanding is that the Alien Tort Statute only allows non-US parties to sue US parties in US courts if the claim falls under those defined as prohibited norms under either the law of nations or treaties adopted by the United States. It's more about human rights violations or piracy than about things like breach of contract.
Suing people in another country is a huge pain in the ass, specially if both countries don't have diplomatic relations. You can't force a foreign court to take a case.
Yup, this is why i wrote "if it even gets to motion to dismiss part". Judge can just decline without reading, and local lawyer you hired won't run to file any complaints to the board, unless it's some surefire case worth literally millions to his pocket.
That doesn't pass the sniff test. So you can order something from a US company, pay up, they ship you nothing, and you have no recourse? No-one would do business with the US if they didn't enforce contracts even with foreign entities.
So sue the US company in your own court; if they entered into a contract in your own country, then jurisdiction should be proper there.
what decides which court the case goes to is a bunch of bullshit.
It's a bunch of rules, which you may or may not like depending on your circumstances, but having a free-for-all of rando Nigerian/Indian scammers suing you from their home countries to try and force settlements wouldn't be much fun either. Hire a lawyer to help you sort it out.
I studied to be one I know.
Contracts written without either expectation of governing authority or agreed location under which laws it's operating are just pieces of paper? Jurisdictions matter.
You not getting any money this way, defendant will be free to ignore foreign ruling.
No matter what governing law and courts are stated in contract, lawsuits are filed where the money of defendant are.
There is a ritual dance of legal correspondence to it, bit essentially, you can only bring defendant to foreign court if you're gonna pay for all his legal (and potentially travel) expenses there. And defendant still can rebute that riling locally, so good luck extracting money.
Last edited:
You can enforce foreign judgments in US courts unless the foreign court is considered unreliable or the ruling would be contrary to constitutional protections. There are also treaties that expressly allow for mutual enforcement of judgments.
If you have choice of venue/law terms in the contract that specify US courts, then presumably the defendant has consented to jurisdiction, in which case why would you be claiming an inability to sue them in US courts?
Aside from the "can it even be enforced" angle, keep in mind that there's a societal pressure to keep a contract too. If you become known as a contract-breaker, even if the contract is a complete joke, that's a stigma that other people wanting to enter contracts with you will have to consider, and many of them won't bother to take the time to look into it and consider the validity of the contract, how poorly the company treated you, and other factors.
Not necessarily. Many jurisdictions apply the principle of lex loci contractus in the absence of stipulation for employment contracts. Meaning, the place where the contract was executed is what binds. Depending on the jurisdiction, stipulation on venue can either be mandatory or just suppletory. Either way, no stipulation doesn't mean no one has jurisdiction. Generally, labor laws are presumed to be written in every employment contract, and those usually designate where disputes should be settled.
Fixed with simple letter "sorry i have no finances to represent myself in your foreign court" which nullify any hypothetical ruling. They would have to prove that you lie about lack of resources which can't be done abroad at all.
Generally, when someone comes into your country with foreign ruling, it has to be validated and signed for enforcement by your local court. First question the judge will ask: did you even hear about it all? If claimant can't produce enough proof that defendant was fully informed and willfully ignored the proceedings while having resources to defend in that foreign court - then sucks to suck, to the trash bin you go. Even if defeandant lost fair and square, he can still find plenty reasons to object locally and stall for years. And that's even before employment aspect comes to play.
Depends on matter of the deal. Disputes regarding employment are solved in jurisdiction where employee factually reside while performing the job majority of the time. If local labor laws are strong, they usually override everything (think california and EU), so contract's choice of law become irrelevant.
While generally, yes, since most functional countries have innate rights in contracting, in practice cross-border contracts are mostly pieces of paper unless the numbers or contracts are really big. Which also has the flip side issue of some jurisdictions being very easy to abusively get out of a contract in a one-sided manner. Though I probably should have thought through the response more between practicalities (where I as thinking at the time) and full technicalities (which can get wildly complex depending on where the parties are; what's super fun is when you 3 jurisdictions involved). It's a good point to bring up, especially for a good number of streamers who clearly signed contracts that aren't enforceable.
