The Informative E-Newsletter for the International Practice Section of the Washington State Bar Association Winter 2007-2008 Volume 3, Number 1

In this issue: Our Blog Is One Year Old! Our Blog Is One Year Old! …………………………………………PAGE 1 Class Actions Roll Across Europe, Part II of II ~ Robert Gaudet, Jr. …………………………………………PAGE 2

~ Jacqueline F. Pruner~

As we begin the new year and celebrate our first anniversary of the launch of our blog (launched in February of 2007)— www.globalgavelnews.org—we are pleased to highlight the following achievements: •

What to Expect When Crossing the Canada-U.S. Border ~ Jacqueline F. Pruner …………………………………………PAGE 6 The U-Visa: Is It Right for You? ~ Tracy Wood ………………………………………..…PAGE 7

•

Upcoming Events ………………………………………..…PAGE 8

•

Employment Opportunities, Gavel Contacts, and Disclaimer ……………………………………..…PAGE 10

•

Visits from no less than twenty-six countries (those countries are, in order of frequency: US, Canada, UK, Japan, France, South Korea, Germany, Italy, South Africa, Ivory Coast, China, Argentina, Brazil, Slovenia, Guatemala, Netherlands, Taiwan, Mexico, Dominican Republic, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Spain, Luxembourg, Ghana, Egypt, and Vietnam.) Approximately 75% of visitors to our blog are new visitors. Our blog visitors for the year are in the hundreds and we are aggressively working on increasing those numbers. We are pleased to add our third sponsor: US Bank.

Our Winter 2007-2008 edition of the Gavel brings to you broad perspectives on classaction trends in Europe, the changes you need to know about when traveling to

1

Canada, and information on the U-Visa. I hope that you enjoy this latest edition of The Global Gavel. Be sure to bookmark the location of our blog at www.globalgavelnews.org and to visit it regularly. Please also remember that we always welcome new articles, Section or event sponsors, letters to The Global Gavel, employment opportunity postings, and upcoming events. Please email me, executive committee member and editor-inchief of The Global Gavel, at the following email address: [email protected]. I look forward to hearing from you. Yours Sincerely, Jacqueline F. Pruner

Class Actions Roll Across Europe, Part II of II ~ Robert Gaudet, Jr. ~

This second article in a two-part series gives a nutshell overview of recent trends in class actions in Denmark and the European Union. The new Danish procedural law with an opt-out mechanism is very similar to American class actions used against Microsoft and Boeing for gender and race discrimination in recent years. The first part of this two-part series described Sweden’s 5year old law permitting opt-in class actions as well as Norway’s new law permitting class actions for the first time in January 2008. DENMARK Inspired by its Scandinavian neighbor, Denmark recently passed a law that will permit class actions to be filed in its national courts. A professor of corporate law at Aalborg University, Erik Werlauff, co-wrote the proposed legislation with his Danish colleagues, Judge Peter Deleuran and Judge Bjarne Christensen. The bill was just recently passed by the Danish Parliament, known as the Folketinget. The law has not been described in detail in any English-language publication, but a copy of the original bill is available in a Danishlanguage memorandum titled “Reform af

den civile retspleje IV – gruppesøgsmål mv.” The memo states that class actions would be useful in Denmark for a wide range of cases, including consumer protection and securities fraud. Danish class actions will have an opt-out mechanism that includes all class members unless they affirmatively choose to opt-out, making the Danish class action very similar to class-action litigation in the United States.1 This would distinguish Danish class actions from the Swedish opt-in class actions and from the Norwegian opt-in default rule. The opt-out mechanism is a critical part of class actions filed in the United States for monetary damages although, of course, American courts have discretion to certify non-opt-out classes where plaintiffs primarily seek injunctive relief or where plaintiffs sue over a limited fund that cannot satisfy all of their claims. Even prior to adopting its new class-action law, Denmark has permitted lawyers to accept conditional fees,2 meaning that Danish plaintiffs’ lawyers may agree to be paid only in the event of success. Any such fees may not be calculated as a percentage of the recovery. Currently, Denmark forbids such percentage-based contingency fees.3 But there are still plenty of incentives for the Danish plaintiffs’ bar. When Danish plaintiffs’ lawyers agree to receive a conditional fee in exchange for successful litigation services, they receive an “uplift,” or increase, that may double, triple, or otherwise multiply their ordinary billing rate. There is no limit to the amount of the

1

Nordback Conversation (noting that Danish proposal would allow for an opt-out for the smallest cases, similar to the U.S. system). 2 Id. at 94. 3 Waelbroeck, Denis; Slater, Donald; EvenShoshan; Gil, STUDY ON THE CONDITIONS OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES IN CASE OF INFRINGEMENT OF EC COMPETITION RULES, at 103 (Aug. 31,

2004) (report prepared by Ashurst for European Commission), available at http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/o thers/actions_for_damages/executive_summaries /sweden_en.pdf (last viewed on Feb. 25, 2007).

2

uplift.4 Therefore, Danish plaintiffs’ lawyers can earn far more than their usual amount of fees in a conditional-fee class action, giving them some incentive to bring class actions.5 This aspect of Danish litigation seems to be little understood in America. With Finland now considering the adoption of class actions, class actions could make a clean sweep throughout the lands of the Vikings.6 Indeed, class actions could soon become the procedural law of the entire European Union, if the European Court of Justice so decides or if the E.U. Council takes appropriate action on the recommendation of the European Commission. EUROPE The changes in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and other parts of Europe might spark a revolution in the civil procedure laws of the European Union, one nation at a time. A retired law professor who is the “father” of class actions in Sweden, Per Henrik Lindblom, remarked that national reforms occurring in one country at a time might lead to “a harmonized system of group actions in the EU.”7 If current trends are any indication, then class actions may soon roll across the entire European landscape; this would enable lawyers to file class actions in the national courts of any EU member state, just as litigants in the United States may file Fed. R.

4

Email correspondence from E. Werlauff, Prof., Aalborg Univ., to R. Gaudet (March 9-10, 2007) (noting that old rule capping “uplift” at 33.33 percent no longer exists and, now, conditional fee with uplift has no clear upper limit but must be “fair” under Retsplejeloven § 126, ¶ 2). 5 Id. at 103. 6 Letter from Kenneth Nordback, Lecturer at University of Uppsala and Associate judge of Svea Court of Appeal in Stockholm, at 2 (Sept. 22, 2006) (on file with author) (“Finland has discussed class actions for almost as long as Sweden. They are back on the legislative agenda, again, in Finland, and another committee recently looked at the subject”). 7 Lindblom Paris, at 17.

Civ. P. 23 class actions in the federal courts of any state.8 Not long ago, the European Court of Justice decided that private individuals are permitted to bring lawsuits for violations of EU antitrust laws. On September 20, 2001, the Court ruled in Courage Ltd. v. Brehan, 2001 E.C.R. C-453/99, that private individuals–and not just the state–have the right to bring lawsuits in national courts of member states when defendants violate EU antitrust laws. Despite this encouraging decision, the European Commission found, four years later, that “very few damages claims” had been brought before European courts by private individuals.9 The European Commission began to search for new ways to encourage private citizens to file lawsuits and otherwise create a stronger “culture of competition.”10 The European Union authorized the preparation of a study of obstacles to private litigation. The result was a Green Paper, which found that the lack of “collective actions,” including class actions, was one such “obstacle.”

8 9

See generally Nordh Symposium, at 1. European Commission, COMPETITION:

COMMISSION LAUNCHES CONSULTATIONS ON FACILITATING DAMAGES CLAIMS FOR BREACHES OF EU COMPETITION LAW, IP/05/1634, at 1 (Dec. 20, 2005), available at http://europa.en (last viewed Feb. 10, 2007) (“there have so far been very few damages claims before courts of the Member States for breach of the competition rules. A study carried out for the Commission in 2004 revealed the main reasons for the low number of damages actions, reasons which are now addressed in the “Green Paper””). 10 European Commission, EUROPEAN COMMISSION “GREEN PAPER” ON DAMAGES ACTIONS FOR BREACH OF EC TREATY ANTITRUST RULES – FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS, MEMO/05/489, at 3 (Dec. 20, 2005) (“Private actions will further develop a culture of competition amongst market participants, including consumers, and raise awareness of the competition rules. This will assist in making Europe more competitive, one of the key objectives of the Lisbon strategy”), available at http://europa.eu (last viewed on March 4, 2007); STAFF WORKING PAPER, at 12 “GREEN PAPER”, at 3, 8.

3

The Green Paper explained that “collective actions can serve to consolidate a large number of smaller claims into one action, thereby saving time and money.”11 The same policy rationale – i.e., judicial efficiency – undergirds American class actions.

individuals. 16 The proposed collective action would exclude labor and employment cases. In addition, the French proposal would require individuals to file their own claims to execute the collective action judgment and recover their own awards.

In addition to Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, other European nations have strongly considered class actions. Finland is particularly promising for plaintiffs’ lawyers because Finland – unlike its Scandinavian neighbors – does allow for contingency fee agreements.12 In other words, Finnish lawyers can take a percentage of their plaintiff’s recovery, just as in the United States. It seems to be little known in the U.S.A. that some European lawyers are entitled to take a contingency fee.

The sharp interest of Finland, Denmark, and the European Union supports the notion that class actions might take off across Europe, overcoming one of the procedural obstacles listed in the European Commission’s Green Paper. Class actions could sweep Europe either as the result of changes made to each EU member state’s procedural rules, one at a time,17 or as the result of comprehensive changes spearheaded by the European Commission or the European Court of Justice in Brussels.

As an alternative to the contingency fee, Finnish lawyers may take a conditional fee in which they receive payment only in the event of success.13 If they take a conditional fee, they may accept a “bonus,” i.e., a percentage of recovery above their hourly rate or an “uplift” with fees above their normal hourly rates.14 If class actions are adopted, these compensatory measures will provide Finnish lawyers with incentives that are on par with those available to American plaintiffs’ lawyers.

Ingeborg Simonsson, a law lecturer at Stockholm University, thinks it is likely that “[i]f EU-wide legislation is not forthcoming, then we may expect rulings from the European Court of Justice telling us that we need to have uniform procedural rules that permit class actions.”18 As these possibilities indicate, the European Union as a whole is in a stage of deep dialogue that might ultimately lead to E.U.-wide class actions.

France recently considered but failed to pass a law that would permit class actions.15 But the issue is now back on France’s legislative agenda in the form of a collective action. The current French proposal appears to be limited to consumer cases for less than 2,000 Euros that are brought by registered consumer associations rather than 11

“GREEN PAPER”, at 8. Waelbroeck, Denis; Slater, Donald; Even-Shoshan, Gil, STUDY ON THE CONDITIONS 12

OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES IN CASE OF INFRINGEMENT OF EC COMPETITION RULES,

at 103-104 (Aug. 31, 2004) (comparative report prepared by Ashurst for European Commission), available at http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/antitrust/o thers/actions_for_damages/comparative_report_c lean_en.pdf (last viewed on Feb. 25, 2007). 13 Finland Overview. 14 Finland Overview. 15 Nordback Correspondence, at 4.

The Green Paper itself was the product of discussions “with academics, experts from EU Member States’ governments and a number of other interested third parties.”19

16

Correspondence from Sabine Sultan, Lawyer, Paris, France, to R. Gaudet (Oct. 31, 2007) (on file with author). 17 Regarding Sweden’s class actions and Denmark’s proposed law, “[o]ther European countries are observing these developments with considerable interest.” See Correspondence from Rachael Mulheron, Queen Mary University of London, to R. Gaudet (Sept. 14, 2006) (on file with author). 18 Correspondence from Ingeborg Simonsson, L.L.M. candidate and instructor, Stockholm University Dep’t of Law, at 1 (Sept. 25, 2006) (on file with author) (“Simonsson Correspondence”). 19 European Commission, COMPETITION: COMMISSION LAUNCHES CONSULTATIONS ON FACILITATING DAMAGES CLAIMS FOR BREACHES OF EU COMPETITION LAW, IP/05/1634, at 1 (Dec.

4

The European Commission has “invite[d] all interested parties to comment on the issues” in order to “help the Commission to decide whether initiatives need to be taken at Community level.”20 The attorneys general of 14 American states, including Rob McKenna of the State of Washington; Washington, D.C.; and the Northern Mariana Islands contributed their experiences to the dialogue in a 11-page letter dated April 21, 2006.21 This broad “debate” might lay the seed for EU-wide class actions. Most surprising of all, the European Union has put the loser-pays rule on the chopping block for possible elimination. The 20, 2005), available at http://europa.eu (last viewed on Feb. 10, 2007)). 20 European Commission, COMPETITION: COMMISSION LAUNCHES CONSULTATIONS ON FACILITATING DAMAGES CLAIMS FOR BREACHES OF EU COMPETITION LAW, IP/05/1634, at 2 (Dec.

20, 2005), available at http://europa.eu (last viewed on Feb. 10, 2007)); see also Presentation by Neelie Kroes to European Parliament Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee, Brussels (Oct. 25, 2006) (noting continuation of dialogue in Fall, 2006) (“Finally, the time is coming up when we will need to make concrete decision [sic] on the follow-up to the “Green Paper” on antitrust damages actions. Our basic objective is precisely what good competition policy is all about: ensuring the wellbeing of consumers and creating incentives for market players to play by the rules. The public consultation strongly supported the need to make it easier for victims of anti-trust abuses to exercise their right to compensation. Of course the devil is in the detail! What is clear to me is that a better competition culture and more deterrence – making companies who break the rules pay compensation for the real costs of the damage caused to competition – is good news for all those businesses who play fair”) (emphasis in original). 21 Letter from Bill Lockyer, Terry Goddard, Richard Blumenthal, Robert J. Spagnoletti, Lisa Madigan, Charles C. Foti Jr., Tom Reilly, Jim Hood, Patricia Madrid, Matt Gregory, Jim Petro, Hardy Myers, Patrick Lynch, Mark Shurtleff, Rob McKenna, and Darryl V. McGraw, Jr. to European Commission Directorate-General for Competition (Apr. 21, 2006) (on file with author).

European Commission’s Green Paper rhetorically asks and answers: Question 1: Should special rules be introduced to reduce the cost risk for the claimant? If so, what kind of rules? Option 27: Establish a rule that unsuccessful claimants will have to pay costs only if they acted in a manifestly unreasonable manner by bringing the case. Consideration could also be given to giving the court the discretionary power to order at the beginning of a trial that the claimant not be exposed to any cost recovery even if the action were to be unsuccessful.22 Getting rid of the loser-pays rule would turn the American view of European litigation on its head. With the possible abolishment of the loser-pays rule and Europe’s serious interest in class actions, there may be a sea-change culminating in a European system of litigation that is much closer to the U.S. model for class actions. U.S.A. AS A MODEL FOR EUROPEAN CLASS ACTIONS In today’s global environment, consumers and small businesses are harmed in the same ways in the United States and the European Union. The U.S. model of class actions provides roughly 40 years worth of experience in enforcing a wide variety of legal claims. European countries have not only noticed but, in a few instances, they have changed their own procedural rules to permit class actions based on the U.S. model. An EU-wide dialogue framed by the European Commission and encapsulated in the Green Paper lays the foundation for further reform. Whether they allow a contingency fee or a conditional fee, European nations recognize that plaintiffs’ lawyers must be allotted some extra reward for taking a risk on a case 22

“GREEN PAPER” at 9 (emphasis in original).

5

where they get paid only in the event of success. Previously a pillar of the European legal system, the loser-pays rule no longer exists in some parts of Europe, contrary to antiquated American perceptions of litigation in Europe. Sweden, for example, has eliminated the loser-pays rule for class actions. And Norway will not necessarily enforce the loser-pays rule when plaintiffs bring litigation with good faith that they have a valid claim. Lawyers representing clients with business or other interests in Europe should track these developments and establish cooperative relationships with European cocounsel regarding the possibility of future class actions in the old continent. With transatlantic cooperation, lawyers on both continents might find that the Old World and the New World have re-fashioned themselves into a fairer image of justice for individual citizens seeking legal remedies. Robert Gaudet, Jr. is studying class actions in Sweden, Denmark, and Norway with the support of a Fulbright grant to the European Union, T: +46 761355955, [email protected]. This article was originally published in Section Connection-International Practice, a publication of the American Association for Justice. Reprinted with permission.

What to Expect When Crossing the Canada-U.S. Border

• •

Also, those Canadians 18 years of age and under merely require a birth certificate at this time. The following requirements must be met by U.S. citizens traveling to Canada: •

•

•

~ Jacqueline F. Pruner ~

Travel document requirements are changing. The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) is a U.S. law that requires all travelers—including U.S. and Canadian citizens—to present a valid passport or other approved secure document when travelling to (or through) the U.S. from within the western hemisphere. Implementation of the WHTI is taking place in stages, depending on the mode of transportation. As a result of this law, there are new requirements for Canadians traveling to the U.S. As of January 31, 2008, the following requirements must be met by Canadians:

If traveling by airplane, to or through the U.S., a valid Canadian passport is required. If traveling by car or boat, either: o a valid passport or o a government-issued photo identification (such as a driver’s license) and a birth certificate or citizenship card o Note that the final document requirements for those seeking to enter the U.S. at land or sea ports of entry have yet to be finalized and implemented at this time.

•

Travel to the U.S. from Canada by air (including return trips to the U.S. by air from short trips to Canada) requires a valid passport. By the summer of 2008, the passport requirement will be extended to both sea travel—except closed loop cruises but including ferry service—and land travel. Prior to the summer of 2008, travelers entering the U.S. from Canada by sea and land must have government-issued photo identification and a document showing their U.S. citizenship (e.g., a birth certificate or certificate of nationalization). Note that beginning February 1, 2008, U.S. citizens may begin applying in advance for a passport card: a new, limited-use, wallet-size passport card. It is expected that cards will be available and mailed to applicants in the spring of 2008. When available, this card will only be valid for land and sea travel between the U.S. and Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean region, and Bermuda.

6

For more information on the WHTI, please visit the following websites: - Government of Canada: http://cbsaasfc.gc.ca/whti-ivho/menu-eng.html, - U.S. Department of State: http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis /cis_1082.html, http://travel.state.gov/travel/cbpmc/cbpmc _2223.html, and - U.S. Customs and Border Protection: http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/travel/. Jacqueline F. Pruner is an alumna from the University of Washington School of Law and is editor-in-chief of the Gavel. She is an attorney who works on international business, trade, and natural resources legal issues and domestic civil litigation.

The U-Visa: Is It Right for You?” ~ Tracy Wood ~

Probably not, if you are a practicing lawyer in the United States, but it may be appropriate for someone you know. The U-Visa is available to victims of certain enumerated crimes who help with the investigation and/or prosecution of the crime committed against them. U-Visa applicants are either undocumented immigrants or immigrants with temporary status, such as those with student and visitor visas, who are victims of domestic violence or other crimes. The perpetrator can be anyone, ranging from (1) the applicant’s United States Citizen or Lawful Permanent Resident partner, (2) the applicant’s undocumented spouse or partner, (3) other acquaintances with or without legal immigration status, or (4) a stranger with or without legal immigration status. Undocumented immigrants are often reluctant to contact or cooperate with law

enforcement, even when they are crime victims. Congress created the U-Visa to strengthen the ability of law enforcement agencies to detect, investigate, and prosecute cases of domestic violence, sexual assault, and other crimes while offering protection to such victims in keeping with the humanitarian interests of the United States. The recipient of a U-Visa will be eligible to work legally in the United States and may obtain permission to travel, as well as becoming eligible to receive public benefits. They will also be protected from deportation and can eventually apply for Lawful Permanent Resident status. In order to be eligible for a U-Visa, the applicant (1) must have suffered “substantial physical or mental abuse” as a victim of a crime described in the statute; (2) must possess information about the criminal activity; and (3) must help with the investigation and/or prosecution of the crime. Additionally, the crime must have violated United States law and must usually have occurred in the United States. Because the regulations do not define “substantial physical or mental abuse,” the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services will do a case-by-case analysis of the applicant’s claim. They will consider (1) the severity of the perpetrator’s conduct; (2) the severity of the harm suffered; (3) the duration of the infliction of the harm, and (4) the extent to which there is permanent or serious harm to the appearance, health, or physical or mental soundness of the victim in order to make their determination. Both direct victims and indirect victims can qualify for U-Visa status. Direct victims are defined as those who have suffered direct harm as a result of a crime, and if the crime victim is under the age of 16, the legal guardian, parent, sibling, or another family member can qualify as the direct victim (the assumption is that the victim is not available or sufficiently able to help in an investigation or prosecution of the criminal activity due to their minor status). Indirect victims are defined as those affected by or who witness by obstruction of justice, perjury, and witness tampering, and if the

7

crime is murder or manslaughter, the deceased’s immediate relatives. If the principal applicant is under 21 years old, s/he can request derivative U-Visa status for his/her parents, spouse, children, and unmarried siblings under 18. If the principal applicant is over 21 years old, s/he can request derivative status for his/her spouse and unmarried children under 21. The following crimes, or any similar activity, qualify: domestic violence, rape, sexual assault, abusive sexual contact, incest, kidnapping, abduction, unlawful criminal restraint, false imprisonment, felonious assault, human trafficking, prostitution (presumably forced), sexual exploitation, female genital mutilation, being held hostage, peonage, involuntary servitude, slave trade, blackmail, extortion, manslaughter, murder, witness tampering, obstruction of justice, and perjury. Note that (1) the listed crimes specifically include “attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit any” listed crime; (2) not all listed crimes are necessarily violent crimes (for example, in Washington state, violation of a protection order constitutes DV, but may not necessarily involve violence); and (3) the crime may be in violation of federal, state, or local criminal law. There is not a requirement that the victim possess a particular type or amount of information, however, the applicant must possess information of the criminal activity of which s/he was a victim. The victim must offer past, present, or future help to federal, state, or local law enforcement, as well as prosecutors, judges, Immigration Customs Enforcement agents, or other investigative authority, including Child Protective Services. Law enforcement must certify in writing that the victim offered assistance in investigating and/or prosecuting the crime committed against them. At a minimum, the victim should report the criminal activity and not refuse to cooperate with requests for further investigation and/or prosecution. Unfortunately, victims who are unable to report the crime and/or help with the investigation do not qualify for the U-Visa. No prosecution is necessary, but if the victim is unwilling to provide reasonably requested assistance to the

prosecutor, s/he is not U-Visa eligible. Any request for ongoing help must be reasonable. Once an applicant is granted a U-Visa, failure to provide ongoing help when the request is reasonable will preclude an applicant from becoming a permanent resident and may lead to revocation of the U-Visa. Tracy Wood, our student liaison correspondent, is also a legal intern at the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project. She is in her third year at the Seattle University Law School. Contact her at [email protected].

Upcoming Events: To post an upcoming event with the Gavel, please contact the editor-inchief at: [email protected]. FEBRUARY First Conference of the Americas Mexico City, Mexico February 27-March 1, 3008 For more information, go to: http://www.ibanet.org/conferences/Conferences _home.cfm. “International Environmental Law Implications of Pakootas v Teck Cominco: Isolated Case or Radical New World?” Offices of Garvey Schubert Barer Seattle, Washington February 28, 2008, 5:00-6:30 pm Reception to follow To download the flyer, go to: http://www.globalgavelnews.org. AOTS/JFBA/IBA Corporate Governance Event Tokyo, Japan February 28, 2008 For more information, go to: http://www.ibanet.org/conferences/Conferences _home.cfm.

8

MARCH 13th International Wealth Transfer Practice Conference: Latest planning techniques for international private clients – trust, tax, insurance, succession and other issues London, England March 3-4, 2008 For more information, go to: http://www.ibanet.org/conferences/Conferences _home.cfm. Pathways to Employment in International Law Seattle, March 5, 4:00 pm-6:00 pm, Room 133 Hosted at the University of Washington Law School, this is a panel event sponsored by the ABA. For more information, go to: http://www.law.washington.edu/Calendar/calCa lendarText.asp?CalID=4&ViewDate=3/5/2008& Type=SINGLE. 9th Annual Private Investment Funds Conference London, England March 9-11, 2008 For more information, go to: http://www.ibanet.org/conferences/Conferences _home.cfm.

APRIL 8th Tax Planning Strategies Conference – US and Europe Madrid, Spain April 3-4, 2008 For more information, go to: http://www.ibanet.org/conferences/Conferences _home.cfm. Capital Markets Forum New York, USA April 7, 2008 For more information, go to: http://www.ibanet.org/conferences/Conferences _home.cfm.

Labor, Employment and Discrimination Law Conference London , England April 10-11, 2008 For more information, go to: http://www.ibanet.org/conferences/Conferences _home.cfm. Corporate Social Responsibility and the Business Lawyer Barcelona, Spain April 10-11, 2008 For more information, go to: http://www.ibanet.org/conferences/Conferences _home.cfm. International Competition Conference Tokyo, Japan April 17, 2008 For more information, go to: http://www.ibanet.org/conferences/Conferences _home.cfm. Arbitration and the Judiciary Conference Caracas, Venezuela April 17-18, 2008 For more information, go to: http://www.ibanet.org/conferences/Conferences _home.cfm. Biennial Conference of the Section on Energy, Environment, Natural Resources and Infrastructure Law Copenhagen, Denmark April 28-30, 2008 For more information, go to: http://www.ibanet.org/conferences/Conferences _home.cfm. 6th Annual Anti-Corruption Conference – the awakening giant of anti-corruption enforcement Paris, France April 23-25, 2008 For more information, go to: http://www.ibanet.org/conferences/Conferences _home.cfm.

The Global Impact of Private Equity Sydney, Australia April 7-8, 2008 For more information, go to: http://www.ibanet.org/conferences/Conferences _home.cfm.

9

Notices and Employment Opportunities: To post a notice, employment opportunity, or an editorial piece with the Gavel, please contact the editorin-chief at: [email protected]. UW LawConnect The Center for Career Planning and Public Service at UW School of Law seeks to connect Class of 2007 members interested in associate positions and contract law work with firms that may have openings. If you or someone you know would like to interview UW law students for open positions, please contact Naomi Sanchez, Assistant Dean, at (206) 616-1366.

GLOBAL GAVEL CONTACTS: Editor-in-Chief, Jacqueline F. Pruner [email protected] Editor, Nadja Vietz [email protected] Student Liaison Correspondent, Tracy Wood [email protected]

DISCLAIMER: This is a publication of a section of the Washington State Bar Association. All opinions and comments in this publication represent the views of the authors and do not necessarily have the endorsement of the Association, its officers, its agents, nor the contacts of the Gavel itself.

10