tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15878374826135872982024-02-28T18:43:41.255-05:00Asia in U.S. CourtsMapping the Eastern Landscape of Transnational Litigation | By S. Nathan ParkNathan Parkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10316603768160472567noreply@blogger.comBlogger375125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1587837482613587298.post-81052451267117398332020-03-13T20:34:00.000-04:002020-03-13T20:34:25.976-04:00Case of the Day: Tule Lake Comm. v. City of Tulelake, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42459 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2020)<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Summary:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Plaintiff is the committee to commemorate the Tule Lake camp in which Japanese Americans were interned during World War II. Plaintiff sued to enjoin the City of Tulelake's sale of its municipal airport, because two-thirds of the airport site was the location of the barracks in which the Japanese Americans were imprisoned. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The parties reached an interim settlement agreement, in which they agreed that the plaintiff can prevail only if the controlling government authorities appear likely to approve the designation of the airport site as a national park. The court found that letters from the former acting director of the National Park Service and the current Deputy Regional Director of the NPS Pacific West Region were not sufficient to establish that the site was likely to be approved as a national park, and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the claim by specifically enforcing the interim settlement agreement.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Takeaway:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Worth remembering a major moment in Asian American history any time it appears before the judicial system.</div>
Nathan Parkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10316603768160472567noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1587837482613587298.post-58930757981064944792020-03-10T16:15:00.003-04:002020-03-10T16:15:51.350-04:00Case of the Day: Lutz v. Rakuten, Inc., 376 F.Supp.3d 455 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 22, 2019)<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Summary:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Plaintiff is a baseball player residing in Pennsylvania, who played for Rakuten Golden Eagles, a Japanese baseball team based in Sendai, Japan. Within weeks of having finalized the contract, Rakuten Baseball, Inc. (which operates the Golden Eagles) reneged on the contract, compelling the plaintiff to sign with Doosan Bears in South Korea for a smaller sum. Plaintiff sued Rakuten Baseball, and Rakuten Baseball moved to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The court rejected the motion to dismiss, finding that Rakuten Baseball purposefully directed its activities at Pennsylvania by knowingly negotiating with a Pennsylvania resident, recruiting in Pennsylvania and wiring money to Pennsylvania.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Takeaway:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
While the court is not wrong in terms of the law, this opinion seems unusual. What if the plaintiff was not a baseball player negotiating his own contract, but a manufacturer negotiating to purchase products from Japan? In such a situation, seems like the court would lean toward dismissing the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.</div>
Nathan Parkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10316603768160472567noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1587837482613587298.post-19224800002472306162020-03-10T15:26:00.001-04:002020-03-10T15:26:21.575-04:00Media Appearance: Oscar Winner 'Parasite' and the Hidden Backstory of Fried Chicken on KCRW "Good Food"I <a href="https://www.kcrw.com/culture/shows/good-food/are-restaurants-over/nathan-park-parasite-movie-fried-chicken">spoke with</a> Evan Kleiman at Good Food on KCRW radio, the NPR station for Santa Monica, CA.Nathan Parkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10316603768160472567noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1587837482613587298.post-47722172959306098982020-03-10T15:22:00.001-04:002020-03-10T15:22:34.836-04:00Media Appearance: Cults and Conservatives Spread Coronavirus in South Korea on Foreign Policy<div style="text-align: justify;">
South Korean media picked up this article, and its translation was one of the most read stories on daum.net for several days:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Since the discovery of Patient Number 31, the number of COVID-19 cases in South Korea jumped from 30 to 977 in eight days. Nearly all of the new cases are Shincheonji cultists, or traceable to them. Particularly tragic is the case of Cheongdo Daenam Hospital, where the funeral for Lee Man-hee’s brother was held. This hospital alone saw 113 cases, most of whom were patients in the psychiatric who were committed long term. Because these patients never left the hospital much less traveled abroad, they were not tested early for nCoV, nor were they properly quarantined. This led to an advanced stage of the disease among many of the psychiatric patients, resulting in seven out of the ten coronavirus deaths thus far.
<br /><br />South Korea’s politics, meanwhile, is presenting another type of retrograde challenge. South Korea’s conservatives, still recovering from the impeachment and removal of the conservative president Park Geun-hye in 2017, have held large scale rallies in the middle of Seoul each week for months. Even as large corporations are advising the employees to work remotely and people are cancelling meetings, these conservative groups—largely made up of high-risk, geriatric population—continue to hold rallies, cavalierly ignoring the Seoul government’s advisory to the contrary. Shouting down Seoul mayor Park Won-soon’s plea to stop the rally, the conservative group leader and pastor Jeon Gwang-hun implausibly claimed it was impossible to contract coronavirus outdoors, while those attending claimed “God was making the wind blow to drive out the virus.” </div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/02/27/coronavirus-south-korea-cults-conservatives-china/">Cults and Conservatives Spread Coronavirus in South Korea</a> [Foreign Policy] </div>
Nathan Parkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10316603768160472567noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1587837482613587298.post-59605959228259382402020-02-24T21:17:00.005-05:002020-02-24T21:17:56.068-05:00Media Appearance: North Korea Isn't Ready for Coronavirus Devastation on Foreign Policy<div style="text-align: justify;">
Rahm Emanuel was onto something when he said: "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. It's an opportunity to do things you could not do before." This applies to the nCoV crisis sweeping East Asia as well:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
This makes it the right moment for the United States and its allies to extend a helping hand. The under-appreciated fact about sanctions is that they are effective only if they are eventually lifted. Never-ending sanctions and isolation achieve nothing; the point of imposing sanctions is to gradually lift them over time in exchange for a gradual change of behavior. This moment, when North Korea is more isolated than ever from its most important ally, offers the greatest opportunity for the United States to drive a wedge between Pyongyang and Beijing. The beauty of this is that helping North Korea in this situation requires no formal change in US policy at all. No sanctions need to be lifted, as medical and humanitarian assistance is not subject to sanctions. In addition to medical aid, US and South Korea may offer to open tourism for Americans and South Koreans to visit North Korea’s newly constructed resorts when the viral epidemic is over. Doing so would begin the process of weaning North Korea from its trade dependence to China, gradually pulling it toward the US sphere of influence.
<br /><br />Ultimately, denuclearization of North Korea can be achieved only after Washington and Seoul establish a peaceful relationship with Pyongyang. Establishing such “peace regime” is doubly beneficial, as it serves as a check against the increasingly illiberal and assertive China. Not even the most well-designed sanctions regime could have achieved the level of isolation that North Korea is currently experiencing. The United States should not miss this window of opportunity. </blockquote>
<a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/02/22/covid19-pyongyang-wuhan-virus-china-kim-does-north-korea-have-the-coronavirus/">North Korea Isn't Ready for Coronavirus Devastation</a> [Foreign Policy]</div>
Nathan Parkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10316603768160472567noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1587837482613587298.post-40723380900537371182020-02-24T21:03:00.000-05:002020-02-24T21:03:07.472-05:00Media Appearance: 'Parasite' Has a Hidden Backstory of Middle-Class Failure and Chicken Joints on Foreign Policy<div style="text-align: justify;">
More <i>Parasite </i>stuff! I wrote about how just a couple of phrases, "chicken place" and "king castella", Bong Joon-ho hinted at an entire backstory of the struggling Kim family:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
With the 1997 Financial Crisis, this system of lifetime employment failed catastrophically. Even those who managed to keep their jobs could no longer expect a tenured employment, much less a pension. A common situation is for people in their 40s and 50s being pushed into a “voluntary” retirement with a lump sum severance pay. Suddenly without a job with a company that anchored their lives, these young retirees had to fend for their family by turning that severance pay into a steady cash flow.
<br /><br />Quick-serve restaurants, including fried chicken joints, offered an outlet for Koreans in such situation. They required a low amount of capital and little to no skill to start. Overhead could be kept low by enlisting the whole family as free labor. The low interest rate following the economic crisis made it easy to obtain a loan to add to the severance pay and form a seed money. The result is that as of late 2018, South Korea had 125 restaurants per 10,000 people, more than double the rate of Japan (59 per 10,000) and six times the rate of the United States (21 per 10,000). South Korea’s huge number of restaurants do not just reflect the fact that Koreans enjoy dining out; it also reflects the structure of the economy that pushes people into small, subsistence level businesses. </blockquote>
<a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/02/21/korea-bong-oscars-parasite-hidden-backstory-middle-class-chicken-bong-joon-ho/">'Parasite' Has a Hidden Backstory of Middle-Class Failure and Chicken Joints</a> [Foreign Policy]<br />
<br />
This article, as well as my op-ed on the nCoV epidemic in North Korea, were the top two most read articles on foreignpolicy.com on February 23. </div>
Nathan Parkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10316603768160472567noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1587837482613587298.post-10984670316439534372020-02-24T20:41:00.003-05:002020-02-24T20:41:34.704-05:00Media Appearance: How 'Parasite' Almost Never Saw the Light of Day on Washington Post<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Parasite</i> made history by becoming the first non-English language film to win the Best Picture in the Oscars. For the Washington Post, I wrote about how South Korea's conservative administration blacklisted its director Bong Joon-ho and lead actor Song Kang-ho:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But Bong’s career was jeopardized in the 2010s, after South Korea elected two conservative presidents with retrograde attitudes toward freedom: Lee Myung-bak, a former chief executive of Hyundai Group, and Park Geun-hye, daughter of former dictator Park Chung-hee. Lee and Park Geun-hye turned Kim Dae-jung’s principle on pop culture on its head by using governmental support to interfere with pop culture. In the name of “balancing cultural power,” the Lee administration compiled a detailed list of left-leaning celebrities to cut off from public support and pressure away from major platforms.
<br /><br />The Park administration vastly expanded this blacklist to include nearly 10,000 names. Internal papers from the Park administration on Bong’s movies reads as if Joseph McCarthy were a film critic. “Memories of Murder” was criticized for “injecting negative impressions of the police by depicting them as corrupt and incompetent”; “The Host” “highlights anti-Americanism and governmental incompetence, pushing the society leftward”; “Snowpiercer” “denies the legitimacy of market economy and provokes social resistance.”</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/10/parasites-oscars-success-was-also-victory-democracy/?fbclid=IwAR3Pzt4MKeNP_Re7E-fyPO5TEoTpcJrx7pklTjqrdaZm1cMfpqy5wUGUIaY">How 'Parasite' Almost Never Saw the Light of Day</a> [Washington Post]</div>
Nathan Parkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10316603768160472567noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1587837482613587298.post-48856909665581302052020-02-24T20:28:00.003-05:002020-02-24T20:28:41.500-05:00Media Appearance: How Escalating Tensions Between the US and Iran Affect South Korea on Responsible Statecraft<div style="text-align: justify;">
I was very excited to make my debut on Responsible Statecraft, the blog for the newly founded Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. In this article (whose rejected headline was: "What happens in the Middle East affects Far East"), I discussed how the tensions following the killing of general Qassem Soleimani affects US alliance with South Korea:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Should the U.S.-Iran tensions boil over to a war, the South Korean military would be joining yet another U.S.-led war in the Middle East — which is not an appealing prospect for Moon Jae-in administration. When South Korea sent troops to Iraq in 2003, the liberal administration led by then-president Roh Moo-hyun took a significant hit in support as over 70 percent of the South Korean public opposed joining the Iraq War. That memory must be particularly vivid for Moon, who began his political career as Roh’s senior presidential staff. A recent poll indicates that 48 percent of South Koreans opposed sending troops to the Strait of Hormuz, with 40 percent in favor. The gap between the two will likely widen if the U.S.-Iran conflict turns even more kinetic. </div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2020/01/15/how-escalating-tensions-between-the-u-s-and-iran-affect-south-korea/?fbclid=IwAR0klb50KNMxSv0uboPAGdjdqhZy0PeFv3ORo_xCOKGWai02Y2KlrPqCYwY">How Escalating Tensions Between the US and Iran Affect South Korea</a> [Responsible Statecraft]</div>
Nathan Parkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10316603768160472567noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1587837482613587298.post-72860015637422188042020-02-24T20:20:00.001-05:002020-02-24T20:20:32.835-05:00Media Appearance: South Korea's Groundhog Year on Foreign PolicyA review of South Korea's diplomacy in 2019:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In 2019, Moon Jae-in was fighting hard for a draw in all fronts. South Korea is not paying five times in defense contribution to the US, but it will continue to face the issue as long as Trump is the president. Japan is gradually reconsidering its trade war, but its export control against South Korea persists. South Korea’s air force repelled the incursion by Russian and Chinese air force, but one ferocious response is not changing the lopsided balance of power that South Korea faces against the two former communist superpowers. Most importantly, despite the deteriorating inter-Korean relations with no denuclearized North Korea in sight, the Korean Peninsula is not back in the days of “fire and fury” in 2017—at least, not yet.
<br />
<br />
That will likely change in 2020. North Korea has set a deadline of year end 2019 for talks, and there is no indication that any breakthrough is in store in the short remaining time of this year. The Trump administration, distracted with the ongoing impeachment that implicates many of its senior diplomats, is unlikely to make much progress in North Korean diplomacy. North Korea’s unwillingness to have a meaningful discussion in Stockholm in October indicates that the window for diplomacy may have already closed at any rate. Once diplomacy ends, in all likelihood we are headed back to the times of missiles and nuclear testing, raising once again the specter of a nuclear war.
</div>
</blockquote>
<a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/12/31/south-korea-2019-moon-diplomacy-groundhog-year/?fbclid=IwAR3bVLNzBjWHN87WKUq6jaAJVb6pf2fXEvfKlThuEke6Q3VSr3FuDEJld3Q">South Korea's Groundhog Year</a> [Foreign Policy]Nathan Parkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10316603768160472567noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1587837482613587298.post-16065278828436662162020-02-24T20:08:00.002-05:002020-02-24T20:08:57.969-05:00Media Appearance: Qualcomm Loses Fine Appeal to Korean Court on Global Competition Review<div style="text-align: justify;">
A very belated roundup of my media appearances from late last year. Here is my comment on Qualcomm's big antitrust loss against KFTC in Korean court:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Nathan Park, of counsel at Kobre & Kim, said considering that the Supreme Court vacated the 2009 KFTC fine –
even though it upheld most of Qualcomm’s legal liability – the Seoul High Court’s ruling today affirming the
KFTC’s 2016 fine likely will not be the end of this story.
<br />
<br />
Park highlighted two key takeaways to the High Court’s decision: that the KFTC is solidifying its reputation as one
of the world’s most active regulators of anticompetitive behaviours; and that competition enforcement has become
increasingly globalised.
“Given how well-connected the Korean economy is to the world, especially in areas of high tech industry,
multinational corporations have to be cognisant of the regulatory risk posed by KFTC,” he said.
<br />
<br />
Park also noted that the High Court’s ruling, that KFTC’s corrective action to Qualcomm’s practice involving
licensing agreements was unlawful, contrasts what the US federal court previously ruled on the same practice.</div>
</blockquote>
<a href="https://globalcompetitionreview.com/article/1211701/qualcomm-loses-fine-appeal-to-korean-court?fbclid=IwAR1IhUp_ARKK1fiLjZL4LqqeS_eDwJKVKUtCF_KC0XZo86ubockcBX8knl0">Qualcomm Loses Fine Appeal to Korean Court</a> [Global Competition Review]Nathan Parkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10316603768160472567noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1587837482613587298.post-54586375990564988922020-02-24T20:00:00.000-05:002020-02-24T20:00:09.879-05:00Media Appearance: Asset Recovery on Getting the Deal Through (2019)<div style="text-align: justify;">
Happy to report that I was a part of the joint effort between Bae, Kim & Lee LLC and Kobre & Kim LLP in contributing the South Korea chapter on <i>Asset Recovery</i>, edited by Getting the Deal Through. The chapter is available online here: <a href="https://www.lexology.com/gtdt/tool/workareas/report/asset-recovery/chapter/south-korea">https://www.lexology.com/gtdt/tool/workareas/report/asset-recovery/chapter/south-korea</a></div>
Nathan Parkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10316603768160472567noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1587837482613587298.post-33755068059031538202020-01-13T23:51:00.003-05:002020-01-13T23:51:39.160-05:00Media Appearance: Book Chapter on Bridging the Divide - Moon Jae-in's Korean Peace Initiative<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMr0bA_pbR0pdKC32Di57vimmy9L9Hl2msBRYLP_5pRt9qK0f9wwI4ee58EJTQDO0-pjjdcYSxKHR-gfy5Hf-dqhDjGXurTf5KUXm3eH5msUrdd6Uo7IFnXTKU_NCyyWHAYC_G1fOE7mzz/s1600/20191202_144935_HDR.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="800" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMr0bA_pbR0pdKC32Di57vimmy9L9Hl2msBRYLP_5pRt9qK0f9wwI4ee58EJTQDO0-pjjdcYSxKHR-gfy5Hf-dqhDjGXurTf5KUXm3eH5msUrdd6Uo7IFnXTKU_NCyyWHAYC_G1fOE7mzz/s640/20191202_144935_HDR.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I was honored to be invited to contribute to this book by Dr. Chung-in Moon and Professor John Delury at Yonsei University. I have previously contributed book chapters for legal publications, but first time on a foreign policy book.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjDKd800aKpLiFcmlma4ZGi0VTtybn5n3rBRWZvBrc9WSiSL0plhrckKsV1xCgP5vPF0BEQsDymdyEPPDJL-xV2eHeFbtwhFHPNff12WIrc0Phu8_8K6oN2wWPRrZqAtdv9b-sTlLNYSzH/s1600/20191202_145005.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="1600" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjDKd800aKpLiFcmlma4ZGi0VTtybn5n3rBRWZvBrc9WSiSL0plhrckKsV1xCgP5vPF0BEQsDymdyEPPDJL-xV2eHeFbtwhFHPNff12WIrc0Phu8_8K6oN2wWPRrZqAtdv9b-sTlLNYSzH/s640/20191202_145005.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Here is my chapter.Nathan Parkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10316603768160472567noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1587837482613587298.post-6659554921815322512020-01-13T23:45:00.001-05:002020-01-13T23:45:32.504-05:00Media Appearance: How to Impeach a President (in Korea) on Foreign Policy<div style="text-align: justify;">
A very belated happy new year and the new decade! It's been far too long on this blog, but one of my new year's resolutions is to pick up the blog once again, especially since Asia is becoming all the more important in US courts.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But first, a roundup of my media appearances from late last year. Here is one from October 10, 2019, as Congress impeached Donald Trump:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The South Korean experience offers two lessons for US liberals who wish to impeach and remove Donald Trump. The first lesson is: don’t lose hope. Many liberals despaired at the seemingly indestructible support for Trump. They fret that the Republican electorate is so emotionally committed to Trump that they will overlook any wrongdoing, while the Republican lawmakers are too cowardly to stand up against Trump. South Koreans liberals made the exact same charge until 2016, that Park Geun-hye’s “concrete floor” of support was too impenetrable and her hold over the Saenuri Party was too complete.
<br /><br />Fortunately, they were wrong. Both in case of South Korea and the US, the structure is never as strong as it seems. It erodes gradually, then falls apart suddenly. Since Pelosi began the impeachment inquiry, the popular support for removing Trump from office has been steadily rising. Former Arizona Senator Jeff Flake predicted at least 35 Republican Senators would vote to remove Trump if the vote was anonymous. It is hardly outlandish to think the next outrageous action from Trump will finally cause the GOP to break with Trump. A straw may not look like much, but when placed on top of the right amount of load, it can break a camel’s back. </blockquote>
<a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/10/impeachment-president-south-korea-us-donald-trump-park-geun-hye/?fbclid=IwAR15ebb5FMZZkuxxkYQhXqSGGtWa_Hese57105T1KQLrHkapX1FG4LSMua0">How to Impeach a President (in Korea)</a> [Foreign Policy]</div>
Nathan Parkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10316603768160472567noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1587837482613587298.post-83934317003496810612019-09-12T12:15:00.000-04:002019-09-24T15:15:40.843-04:00Case of the Day: Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61780 (D.D.C. Apr. 10, 2019)<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Summary:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The government of Pakistan petitioned to take discovery of a DC-based international law firm pursuant to 28 U.S.C. s. 1782, in order to obtain materials relevant to the corruption investigation of one of the law firm's clients, a Turkish company operating in Pakistan. In addition to the investigation, the Turkish corporation was involved in an investor-state arbitration against the government of Pakistan. The Turkish company resisted document production, the government lost the arbitration, and the government filed for annulment. The defendant law firm opposed, arguing the investigation was a bad faith, political harassment campaign.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The court largely rejected the defendant law firm's arguments. The court found the investor-state arbitration was sufficient grounds for 1782 discovery, and declined weigh the propriety of the Pakistani investigation. The court denied the request for production of the materials that the defendant claimed to not have, but ordered the defendant to respond to interrogatories asking where the materials are located.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Takeaway:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What's remarkable is how this case is not all that different from any other 1782 discovery litigation, although the defendant is a law firm. There may be additional background that does not appear on the face of this opinion, but the law firm never attempted to raise any point about attorney client privilege.</div>
Nathan Parkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10316603768160472567noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1587837482613587298.post-47694019551559208662019-09-05T11:03:00.000-04:002019-09-05T11:03:24.659-04:00Case of the Day: Cho v. Kim, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 2603 (Tex. App. Apr. 2, 2019)<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Summary:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A group of Korean American investors sued one another over a failed joint investment project, which was a shopping center. The plaintiff sued for <i>inter alia</i> breach of fiduciary duty, lost, and appealed. The plaintiff-appellant claimed an informal fiduciary relationship existed, because Houston's Korean American community was tight-knit and Korea's hierarchical culture created an unusually close relationship based on trust.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The appellate court rejected the argument, noting "particularly in the business arena, trust and reliance alone are not sufficient ingredients to create a fiduciary relationship."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Takeaway:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Well, that was a creative argument. As a Korean American myself, I'd say it was quite a bit of reach to claim the Korean culture creates a fiduciary relationship among business partners. But as Wayne Gretzky said, you miss 100 percent of the shots you don't take.</div>
Nathan Parkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10316603768160472567noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1587837482613587298.post-8796025716110700022019-08-28T12:04:00.001-04:002019-08-28T12:04:31.072-04:00Case of the Day: Vista Peak Ventures v. Giantplus Tech. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144941 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 27, 2019)<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Summary:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Plaintiff served a Taiwanese defendant by mail with a registered mail, return receipt requested. Defendant moved to dismiss based on defective service, arguing Taiwanese law prohibits service by mailing a summons directly to the defendant.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The court rejected the argument, finding that Taiwanese law does not prohibit service of process by mail. The court also found that "mail received" stamp sufficed as a signature.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Takeaway:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Taiwan always presents a tricky case because it is not a signatory to the Hague Convention. This decision seems a bit aggressive, but it certainly makes service of process in Taiwan easier.</div>
Nathan Parkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10316603768160472567noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1587837482613587298.post-73964242577796315442019-08-23T12:21:00.000-04:002019-08-23T12:21:31.525-04:00Case of the Day: James v. Ifinex, Inc., Case No. 450545/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 19, 2019)<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Summary:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Defendants are Bitfinex and Tether, major cryptocurrency companies based in Hong Kong and other parts of Asia. New York attorney general investigated them for potential violation of the Martin Act, and the defendants challenged the personal and subject matter jurisdiction, as they consciously avoided New York contact in order to avoid being subject to such investigations.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The court rejected the defendants' arguments. The court found the defendants had sufficient New York contacts, as they allowed New York customers to access trading platform, opened accounts in New York bank and had an executive based in New York. The court also held Martin Act was applicable to the defendants, and documents located abroad were subject to discovery.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Takeaway:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We are back from vacation! <br />
<br />
The opinion is available <a href="https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=3VoKZl7wi8ozNi6K6wcxCA==">here</a>. The opinion itself is not surprising or radical--it is a standard application of the personal jurisdiction doctrine and Martin Act coverage. But because digital currency is new and the companies have consciously attempted to avoid New York contact, it makes for a notable news.</div>
Nathan Parkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10316603768160472567noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1587837482613587298.post-12212102276097707502019-08-08T12:38:00.000-04:002019-08-08T12:38:04.653-04:00Media Appearance: "The Road Remains Open: Moon Jae-in's Berlin Speech as a Pathway to Peace" on GlobalAsia<div style="text-align: justify;">
This is a piece based on my presentation at the Yonsei University earlier this year:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But if the conclusion is that no deal for denuclearization is possible with North Korea, the only remaining options are a military conflict or continuation of the status quo. Neither is acceptable, because it invites a realistic risk of a nuclear war either in the immediate term (on the Korean Peninsula) or in the longer term (through North Korea’s nuclear proliferation). At any rate, the Hanoi summit showed that there indeed is a deal to be had if it can be agreed that the only realistic way forward is for both the US and North Korea to climb down from their maximalist positions and engage in a step-by-step exchange of denuclearization and sanctions relief. The trust-building process that the Berlin speech outlined with North Korea remains the best path forward, if only because all other paths lead to a blind alley.</div>
</blockquote>
<a href="http://www.globalasia.org/v14no2/cover/the-road-remains-open-moon-jae-ins-berlin-speech-as-a-pathway-to-peace_s-nathan-park">The Road Remains Open: Moon Jae-in's Berlin Speech as a Pathway to Peace</a> [GlobalAsia]<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This paragraph basically sums up my thoughts on North Korea: if we accept that a nuclear war is not an option, we cannot stop diplomacy. </div>
Nathan Parkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10316603768160472567noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1587837482613587298.post-588368707966398032019-07-30T10:54:00.000-04:002019-07-30T10:54:50.423-04:00Case of the Day: Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Baglouisvuitton.Store, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78748 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 21, 2019)<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Summary:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
LVMH, maker of Louis Vuitton bags, sought to serve process on counterfeit bag makers located in China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, among others and petitioned the court for an alternate means of service. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The court permitted service by alternate means under Rule 4(f)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and allowed the petitioner to effectuate service by sending emails and posting on a designated website. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Takeaway:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Service is becoming more and more of an issue as the global economy is more integrated. With the multilateral treaties slower to function, expect more of these measures that simply circumvent the multilateral structure in the Hague.</div>
Nathan Parkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10316603768160472567noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1587837482613587298.post-84033465166507310152019-07-25T13:38:00.000-04:002019-07-25T13:38:07.578-04:00Media Appearance: "The United States is Going After China's Banks" on Foreign Policy<div style="text-align: justify;">
I promise we will soon return to our regularly scheduled programming about litigating Asia-related cases before US courts! But with so much of Asia being in the news all the time, there is a constant demand for media articles. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
At any rate, here is a very important article that I wrote with my colleagues Wade Weems and Beau Barnes. </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
[T]he all-tools approach provides new angles of attack by blurring the distinction between different functions of the government: National security <i>is</i> trade <i>is</i> technology controls <i>is</i> financial regulation <i>is</i> law enforcement. . . . The recent Washington court ruling opens a more direct and expedient path and dramatically increases the breadth, reach and potential frequency of using this tool. Under Section 319 of the Patriot Act, it is not necessary to show the company knew it was violating sanctions; any foreign bank could lose its
access to U.S. dollar end transactions when its only transgression is refusal to comply with a subpoena.</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/21/the-united-states-is-going-after-chinas-banks/">The United States is Going After China's Banks</a> [Foreign Policy]</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Two things are worth thinking about:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1. What would be the global financial implications when China's largest banks are cut off from dollar-denominated transactions? Can we even imagine all the secondary consequences falling out from such a measure?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2. What additional "tools" would the US government add? One big item I'm expecting to see is immigration laws--that is, restricting entry or exit of key Chinese nationals. China has been imposing an "exit ban" on several US citizens, and it is entirely possible for US to retaliate in kind.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Neither is a pleasant thing to think about, but such is the world we live in.</div>
Nathan Parkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10316603768160472567noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1587837482613587298.post-10628480302027328612019-07-17T14:10:00.002-04:002019-07-17T14:10:54.452-04:00Media Appearance: Two Essays on South Korea-Japan<div style="text-align: justify;">
My summer has never been busier! Instead of a break, it has been a relentless series of casework, depositions and writing media articles. So busy that I couldn't even post them on this blog.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I ended up writing three articles about the relations between South Korea and Japan in less than three weeks. For the latest two articles, I collaborated with William Sposato in Tokyo who provided an invaluable perspective from Japan.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In the first piece, William and I argued that the two countries should keep the history-related issues on its track, and focus on nurturing the robust bilateral relationship:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
None of the historical issues changes the obvious fact that Japan and South Korea are very important to each other. Both are prosperous democracies that are facing off two of the greatest international security challenges of the 21st century—a rising hegemon in China and a nuclear North Korea. As two of the world’s leading industrial powers (Japan is fourth in the world in industrial output, South Korea seventh), the countries have formed a close economic relationship in which each takes a different but complementary position in the global supply chain. For example, South Korea is a global leader in semiconductor production, but South Korean companies buy from Japanese companies the high-tech machinery and processed chemicals with which to build the semiconductors. It will now have to be seen if the latest action by Tokyo puts any meaningful dent in those ties.
</div>
</blockquote>
<a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/02/japan-and-south-korea-dont-have-to-love-each-other-to-be-allies/">Japan and South Korea Don’t Have to Love Each Other to Be Allies</a> [Foreign Policy]<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Unfortunately, that is exactly what Abe Shinzo administration decided to do. It is a deeply regrettable decision, for which I had no kind words to spare:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The post hoc nature of Japan’s baseless claim about South Korea’s diverting strategic materials to North Korea indicates that Tokyo’s measures were not a deeply considered plan but a reckless fit of pique against the Korean Supreme Court’s decision on wartime slave labor. That means a democratic Japan is directing trade restrictions at South Korea, a liberal democracy and ally, in order to defend imperial Japan’s use of slave labor during World War II. In doing so, Japan is decoupling its economy from South Korea, pushing Korean companies to partner up with China and Russia. This harms not only the bilateral relationship between Japan and South Korea but also the trilateral alliance among the United States, Japan, and South Korea—the cornerstone of the United States’ Pacific order. In a critical region facing security challenges posed by China and North Korea, weakening the trilateral alliance is the last thing the world needs.</div>
</blockquote>
<a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/16/japans-trade-war-is-as-futile-as-trumps/">Japan’s Trade War Is as Futile as Trump’s</a> [Foreign Policy]Nathan Parkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10316603768160472567noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1587837482613587298.post-61338665664583401422019-07-01T21:50:00.000-04:002019-07-01T21:50:36.503-04:00Media Appearance: "Trump's DMZ meeting with Kim kicked diplomacy back into gear" on CNNI gave my reaction to the third Trump-Kim meeting:<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote>
Nor is it the case that the Panmunjom meet did nothing for denuclearizing North Korea. The complaint that no working level talks preceded the third Trump-Kim summit is backward: the meeting was necessary to get the working level talks back on track. The second Trump-Kim summit in Hanoi, Vietnam, in February failed, in part because North Korea's negotiators were not authorized to discuss denuclearization before the summit. ...
<br />
<br />
The narrow conception of denuclearization, only counting off how many nuclear facilities and warheads were disabled, misses the fundamental truth about North Korea's nuclear program. The Kim regime developed its nuclear weapons because it feared the US would attack North Korea. The key for denuclearizing North Korea, then, is not for the US to merely demand North Korea dismantle its nuclear program. Rather, the United States must seek to transform its relationship with North Korea from a hostile one to one based on peaceful interaction and trust — and achieve denuclearization as a part of this transformative process. ... Seen from this perspective, the third Trump-Kim summit is groundbreaking. It showed the leaders of the two countries could meet on a short notice to overcome a diplomatic impasse, without months of posturing leading up to the meeting.</blockquote>
</div>
<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/01/opinions/donald-trump-kim-jong-un-relationship-reset-park/index.html">Trump's DMZ meeting with Kim kicked diplomacy back into gear</a> [CNN]<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This sure made for an exciting weekend! I understand the concerns surrounding it, but from my perspective, it was a welcome relief after months of stalled progress and heightened tension since the failed Hanoi summit back in February. Process matters, and it is worth having a quick summit to kick it back into gear.</div>
Nathan Parkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10316603768160472567noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1587837482613587298.post-84485269675745678662019-06-26T16:11:00.000-04:002019-06-26T16:11:10.634-04:00Case of the Day: Kisor v. Willikie, 588 U.S. ___ (2019)<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Summary:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Plaintiff Vietnam War veteran applied for disability benefits based on PTSD, which the Department of Veterans Affairs rejected. Plaintiff then appealed through the Board of Veterans' Appeals, Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the Federal Circuit, all of which affirmed the board's decision. The Federal Circuit affirmed the board's decision based on deference to the board's interpretation of the DVA rule. The plaintiff then applied to the Supreme Court.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The split court reversed the decision. Four justices (Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Steven Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor) found that even if deference to agency interpretation is warranted when the regulation at issue is vague, "not all reasonable agency constructions of those truly ambiguous rules are entitled to deference." The plurality then found the circuit court did not conduct a rigorous analysis as to whether the regulation was truly ambiguous, nor did it analyze whether deference was truly warranted. Concurrence by Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito, agreed with the judgment, but called for the court to overrule entirely the precedents regarding administrative deference.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Takeaway:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A major development in administrative law, and it involves an "Asian" claim! Given the fractured nature of this case, it is not yet clear where we stand on administrative deference. Justice John Roberts filed a separate concurrence, acting as the thin reed that connects the two camps.</div>
Nathan Parkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10316603768160472567noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1587837482613587298.post-68739769181085069652019-06-07T09:36:00.000-04:002019-06-07T09:36:41.698-04:00Case of the Day: United States v. $148,500 of Blocked Funds in the Name of Trans Multi Mechs. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55388 (D.D.C. Mar. 29, 2019)<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Summary:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The US government brought forfeiture action against impounded funds that was previously controlled by a Taiwanese national, who was sanctioned for dealing with North Korean entities through his corporations domiciled in Hong Kong. The claimant Taiwanese national appeared <i>pro se</i>, but could not raise a meaningful defense against the government's charges. The court granted the forfeiture action.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Takeaway:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Sanction cases are coming in hot and heavy! We are moving toward the world in which national security cases will become the bulk of white collar defense work, as US moves more toward a mercantilist trade policies. It is an area that is worth watching closely.</div>
Nathan Parkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10316603768160472567noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1587837482613587298.post-26094834791856999712019-06-04T15:53:00.001-04:002019-06-04T15:53:35.422-04:00Case of the Day: Castro v. Tri Marine Fish Co. LLC, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10961 (9th Cir. Apr. 15, 2019)<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Summary:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Plaintiff is a sailor from the Philippines who worked as a deck hand for a fishing boat owned by the defendant. While working, the plaintiff fell and severely injured his knee. The plaintiff and the defendant entered into a settlement agreement, which contained an arbitration agreement. Immediately after entering into the settlement, the plaintiff was taken to a building next door where an impromptu arbitration was held. Later, the plaintiff discovered he needed additional treatment for the knee and sued the defendant, who moved to confirm the arbitral award. The district court confirmed the order and dismissed the case.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Ninth Circuit reversed. The court first found there was no dispute to arbitrate, as the plaintiff and the defendant initially settled the matter. The court also found the arbitration did not occur pursuant to the agreed-upon manner, including Philippine arbitral procedure, and accordingly there was no "consent award" to be enforced. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Takeaway:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Amazing--a court in the United States actually declined to enforce an arbitral award based on the lack of proper procedure! I was always wondered what kind of kangaroo proceedings it would take for a US court to decide this way. This sham of an award was the winner, although it took an appeal to the Ninth Circuit to get this win.</div>
Nathan Parkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10316603768160472567noreply@blogger.com1