The Lessons of Airfreight Cartel: Mechanisms of Coordination of Parallel Collective Lawsuits in Several Jurisdictions?

See the Summary of Commission Decision of 17 March 2017 – Relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 – Airfreight) (notified under document C(2017) 1742) (Text with EEA relevance, OJ EU C 188, 14. 6. 2017, p. 14); Commission’s decisions are available at http://​ec.​europa.​eu/​competition/​elojade/​isef/​case_​details.​cfm?​proc_​code=​1_​39258; see also the General Court press release No 147/15.

The aim of these contacts was to ensure that these surcharges were introduced by all of the carriers involved and that increases (or decreases) of the surcharge levels were applied in full without exception. By refusing to pay a commission, the airlines ensured that surcharges did not become subject to competition through the granting of discounts to customers. Such practices are in breach of the EU competition rules, European Commission Press Report IP/10/1487, Brussels, 9 November 2010, http://​europa.​eu/​rapid/​press-release_​IP-10-1487_​en.​htm.

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters OJ EU L 351, 20. 12. 2012, p. 1 and Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ EC L 12, 16. 1. 2001, p. 1.

In Austria, collective redress vehicles were developed autonomously (class action Austrian-style) by assignment of claims for collection by a special purpose vehicle that happens at the same time to also be a qualified entity under implementing measures of Directive 2009/22/EC. Collection of claims assigned to an agent has a long tradition in Austria, where the first cases of such litigation by private agents as a special purpose vehicle for collection of assigned claims were reported in 1926 (Klauser 2005, p. 744 with reference to the Austrian Supreme Court [Oberster Gerichtshof] case 3 Ob 479/26, ECLI:AT:OGH0002:1926:RS0037628). The assignment of claims for their enforcement in Austrian law is not conditioned by the fact that the assignee must be the entity qualified to bring a representative action for injunction. As a consequence, one can speak of a semi-private (in cases of assignment to a qualified entity) and of an entirely private and autonomous (in cases of Rechtsverfolgungsgesellschaft) collective redress. The quality to initiate such an action for collection of assigned claims does not lie in § 29(1) KschG, i.e. the national provision on qualified entities implementing Art. 3 of Directive 2009/22/EC. It lies rather in autonomous transactions made vis the special purpose vehicle. The same model as in Austria seems to be applied also in the Netherlands and Slovenia (Tzankova and Kortmann 2010, p. 119). Dutch law was modified in 2019 by a new law on collective redress.

Dutch Supreme Court [Hoge Raad], case ECLI:NL:HR:2018:345, decision No 18/00298 of 16 March 2018, available at https://​www.​rechtspraak.​nl/​.

Bao Xiang International Garment Centre & Ors v. British Airways Plc [2015] EWC 3071 (Ch) (27 October 2015).

A global class (also transnational class) is a class in US class action composed of absent class members who are US residents and non-residents. A global class “encompasses a sizeable proportion of non-citizens” of the US (Clopton 2015, p. 1388, Oquendo 2017, p. 72). It could be contended that due to comity reasons global class actions are to be dismissed in common law jurisdictions on forum non conveniens grounds. In civil law jurisdictions such classes should operate under the opt-in system. Such class actions can “be filed in courts of more than one country” (see e.g. a recent Canadian decision Leon v Volkswagen AG, 2018 ONSC 4265 (CanLII), http://​canlii.​ca/​t/​htjgm. Accessed 16 Oct 2018).

Airia Brands Inc. v. Air Canada, 2017 ONCA 792, § 17, available at https://​www.​canlii.​org/​en/​; see also the American case In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 06-1775, 2008 WL 5958061 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2008).

http://​www.​aircargosettleme​nt2.​com/​courtCa.

Airia Brands Inc. v. Air Canada, 2017 ONCA 79, § 17.

Airia Brands Inc. v. Air Canada, 2017 ONCA 792, § 69.

Walter v. Western Hockey League, 2018 ABCA 188 (CanLII), http://​canlii.​ca/​t/​hs196, § 8.

Airia Brands Inc. v. Air Canada, 2017 ONCA 792, § 69.

Airia Brands Inc. v. Air Canada, 2017 ONCA 792, § 103.

See for Canada e.g. Piché and Saumier (2019), p. 255, and for Belgium and Slovenia, Sladič (2017b), pp. 145 and 146 with reference to Art. XVII.38(1, 2) of Belgian Code of Economic Law and Art. 30(3) of Slovenian Law on Collective Actions.

In such a case the class action is not a superior device to individual actions.

BOE-A-2015-8564, https://​www.​boe.​es/​eli/​es/​l/​2015/​07/​30/​29.

Admittedly, in 1966 when Rule 23 was drafted no one could foresee “international” classes in US class actions. US fora are nevertheless quite often confronted with class actions comprising class members from several other states or jurisdictions. The Texas Supreme Court had to deal in Citizens Ins. Co. of America v. Daccach with a class action “brought by residents of 35 foreign countries who bought securities from defendant, a corporation that had its principal place of business in Texas” (Symeonides 2008, p. 38).

In other words, the commonality is both the connecting factor in allocating the jurisdiction to adjudicate and the criterion for certification.

Airia Brands v. Air Canada, 2015 ONSC 5332 and Airia Brands Inc. v. Air Canada, 2017 ONCA 79; see the summary at https://​gavclaw.​com/​2018/​01/​09/​airia-brands-inc-v-air-canada-jurisdiction-and-certification-of-global-classes/​.

CJEU, Sales Sinués and Drame Ba, C-381/14 and C-385/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:252.

Kaynes v. BP P.L.C, 2016 ONCA 601 and Paniccia v. MDC Partners Inc., 2017 ONSC 7298 (CanLII), https://​www.​canlii.​org/​en/​.

Federal Court of Australia, Jones v. Treasury Wine Estates Limited [2016] FCAFC 59, https://​www.​austlii.​edu.​au.

See In re IMAX Sec. Litig., 283 F.R.D. 178 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), In re IMAX Sec. Litig., 272 F.R.D. 138, 142 - 44 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), In re IMAX Sec. Litig., 587 F. Supp. 2D 471, 474 - 78 (S.D.N.Y. 2008), Silver v. IMAX Corp., 2013 ONSC 1667 (Can.); Silver v. IMAX Corp., (2012) 110 O.R. 3d 425 (Can. Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); Silver v. IMAX Corp., (2011) 105 O.R. 3d 212 (Can. Ont. Sup. Ct. J.); Silver v. IMAX Corp., 2009 O.J. No. 5585 (Can. Ont. Sup. Ct. J.) (QL).

The shares of the defendant IMAX had traded on both the Toronto Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ.

https://​www.​internationallaw​office.​com/​Newsletters/​Litigation/​Canada/​Dentons/​Silver-v-IMAX-avoiding-war-on-two-fronts.

https://​www.​internationallaw​office.​com/​Newsletters/​Litigation/​Canada/​Dentons/​Silver-v-IMAX-avoiding-war-on-two-fronts.

https://​www.​internationallaw​office.​com/​Newsletters/​Litigation/​Canada/​Dentons/​Silver-v-IMAX-avoiding-war-on-two-fronts.

Frohlinger v. Nortel Networks Corporation, 2007 CanLII 696 at §30 (Ont. S.C.J.), see also “Cross-border class actions raise due process and litigation preclusion issues of significance to United States counsel seeking to either implement multi-jurisdictional settlements or to select the most favourable venue for trial.” http://​blg.​com/​en/​News-And-Publications/​Documents/​publication_​1932.​pdf, p.1.

Report on Protocol on Court-to-Court Communications in Canada-U.S. Cross-Border Class Actions and a Notice Protocol: Coordinating Notice(s) to the Class(es) in Multijurisdictional Class Proceedings, p. 1.

Resolution 18-03-A - Annex 1, Canadian Judicial Protocol for the Management of Multi Jurisdictional Class Actions and the Provision of Class Action Notice.

Report on Protocol on Court-to-Court Communications in Canada-U.S. Cross-Border Class Actions and a Notice Protocol: Coordinating Notice(s) to the Class(es) in Multijurisdictional Class Proceedings, p. 1.

Grace Canada Inc. (Re) (2005), 17 C.B.R. (5 th) 275 (Ont. Sup. Ct.).

28 U.S. Code § 1407 – Multidistrict litigation.

http://​www.​jpml.​uscourts.​gov/​overview-panel-0.

See e.g. on failure of setting up a Canadian body coordinating multi-jurisdictional class procedure in Chabrny (2019), p. 137 and 138.

On the introduction of that doctrine in English case law, see Beaumont (2018), p. 449, see on introduction of that doctrine in English case-law in Beaumont (2018), p. 449, see on two exceptions in civil law jurisdictions Goldstein (2016), pp. 51–83.

The Dutch text is available at https://​www.​rechtbanken-tribunaux.​be/​sites/​default/​files/​public/​content/​lh_​-_​geanonimiseerd.​pdf.

L&H went bankrupt on 25 October 2001 due to a securities fraud scheme. A Belgian criminal investigation was opened and concomitantly several class actions proceedings in the United States were lodged before US courts either by US or by Belgian prejudiced investors. The US forum in Massachusetts and the Belgian Court of Appeal of Ghent refer to 16 class actions. On 8 August 2000, The Wall Street Journal published a critical article about L&H. Based on that article a first US class action was lodged already on 9 August 2000. The first L&H class action in the USA was lodged only one day after the report of financial fraud in The Wall Street Journal. The Belgian criminal case with the civil private tort litigation annexed as an accessory to a criminal case appears to have started at a later time in 2001. The L&H class action ended with a negotiated settlement approved by the US forum. The defendants used the US-approved settlement in Belgium as a defence against the judgment to pay compensation to civil parties in Belgian criminal proceedings. As a consequence of the objection by the civil parties, the Belgian forum had to deal with the plea that the US class judgment approving the settlement was not binding on the civil parties in Belgian proceedings. The Court of Appeal of Ghent acknowledged the modernized legal landscape in Belgium (collective redress in Book XVII of the CdE/WER) and concluded that US judicial decisions and the settlement approved by the US forum in the L&H class action are foreign enforceable judicial decisions within the meaning of the Belgian lex fori (Art. 22 of the Belgian Code of Private International Law). The plea according to which a class action settlement is solely a contract with inter partes effect was rejected as a judicial decision in a US class action confirms the settlement between the plaintiffs and the defendant(s). As a consequence, such a decision can be opposed to all the absent class members who did not duly opt-out (Court of Appeal of Ghent [Hof van Beroep Gent], judgment of 23 March 2017, § 66). Investors who effectively participated in the settlement are bound by it; the investors who timely opted out are not bound by the settlement. A class action judgment and settlement will be recognized de plano if they are not contrary to Belgian international ordre public. In comparing the Belgian collective redress under Book VII CdE/WER and the US class action, the Belgian forum concluded that US law guarantees more rights to absent class members than the Belgian legislation. The opt-out system is justified by reason of sound administration of justice. The fact that not all individual absent class members were personally informed does not vitiate the class action settlement (ibid. § 93.). The rights of the defence of the non-resident absent class members in the US class action were not violated. The salient point of the recognition refers to a certain lack of finality.

Court of Appeal of Amsterdam [Gerechtshof Amsterdam], 12 November 2010, NJ 2010/683, LJN: BO3908 ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2010:BO3908.

Kaynes v. BP P.L.C, 2016 ONCA 601 and Paniccia v. MDC Partners Inc., 2017 ONSC 7298 (CanLII).

For the reason of such development (so-called Latvian divorces), see Coester-Waltjen (2017), pp. 1073 and 1074.

CJEU, Turner, C-159/02, ECLI:EU:C:2004:228, Allianz, C-185/07, ECLI:EU:C:2009:69, Gazprom, C-536/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:316.

Federal Court of Australia, Jones v. Treasury Wine Estates Limited [2016] FCAFC 59, https://​www.​austlii.​edu.​au.

CJEU, Sales Sinués and Drame Ba, C-381/14 and C-385/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:252, §43.

CJEU, Sales Sinués and Drame Ba, C-381/14 and C-385/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:252, §§35 and 36.

CJEU, Sales Sinués and Drame Ba, C-381/14 and C-385/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:252.

Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests (Codified version), OJ EU L 110, 1.5.2009, p. 30. This Directive was repealed by the Directive (EU) 2020/1828 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2020 on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers and repealing Directive 2009/22/EC,OJ EU L 409, 4.12.2020, p. 1. 

See https://​www.​hcch.​net/​en/​instruments/​conventions/​full-text/​?​cid=​137.

Rechtbank Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2013:7936, § 4.5.

CJEU, Tatry, C-406/92, ECLI:EU:C:1994:400, § 38.

See for the doctrine of collective party e.g. Cappelletti 1975, pp. 591–593. In class actions, the class is “the litigant and the client” (Shapiro 1998, p. 919; Piché 2016, p. 299; Romy 1999, p. 796). The merit of such an approach is a very simple compatibility with the subjective res iudicata effect (res iudicata ius facit inter partes). In other words, in the USA a class action by a lead plaintiff representing a class is the result of the legislature’s preference for class members as a collective party (Piché 2016, p. 299). As a consequence, there is a distinction between the traditional party in binary proceedings, on the one hand, and the ideological or collective party, on the other (Cappelletti 1975, pp. 587–593).

CJEU, Tatry, C-406/92, ECLI:EU:C:1994:400, § 30.

CJEU, Drouot assurances, C-351/96, ECLI:EU:C:1998:242, § 16.

CJEU, Axa Belgium, C-494/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:692, § 21.

On the application of a party, a Québec authority may stay its ruling on an action brought before it if another action, between the same parties, based on the same facts and having the same object is pending before a foreign authority, provided that the latter action can result in a decision which may be recognized in Québec, or if such a decision has already been rendered by a foreign authority.

No official English translation seems to be available on CanLII.

English translation of the French original taken from https://​www.​dwpv.​com/​en/​Insights#/​article/​Publications/​2012/​Quebec-Court-of-Appeal-Nuances-First-to-File-Rule-in-Class-Actions.

Chabrny (2019), p. 203.

CJEU, Océano Grupo Editorial, C-240/98 to C-244/98, ECLI:EU:C:2000:346.

CJEU, Océano Grupo Editorial, C-240/98 to C-244/98, ECLI:EU:C:2000:346, § 26.

CJEU, Océano Grupo Editorial, C-240/98 to C-244/98, ECLI:EU:C:2000:346, § 28.

See on that agreement on prorogation in the European context, Stürner & Wendelstein (2018), pp. 1084 and 1085.

http://​www.​sherby.​co.​il/​blog/​2016/​06/​29/​israeli-court-requires-facebook-to-litigate-claims-in-israel-despite-forum-selection-and-choice-of-law-clauses/​#comment-164. See also Israeli Supreme Court case PCA 5860/16 Facebook Inc. v. Ohad Ben Hamo. The Israeli forum stressed that Facebook exempts some Facebook users from a jurisdiction clause and found that Facebook allows residents of Germany to litigate against Facebook in Germany under German law.

Ibid.

Ibid.