kaal:claim:2029983-024

The Converium fee holding is a weak predictor of Dutch practice because lead counsel's work in that case was performed largely within the American legal system and by U.S. law firms, so it remains to be seen whether a case litigated in Dutch courts without U.S. exposure would yield a comparable fee structure.

Source quote, verbatim

remains to be seen whether a case that is litigated in Dutch courts without exposure to the U.S. legal system will yield a comparable fee structure.

From

Wulf A. Kaal, Richard W. Painter, Forum Competition and Choice of Law Competition in Securities Law after Morrison v. National Austral (2012), II.B.2.b. Converium, p. 49
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2029983 · source PDF

Cite as

Wulf A. Kaal, Richard W. Painter, Forum Competition and Choice of Law Competition in Securities Law after Morrison v. National Austral (2012). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2029983

Holds when

cases litigated in Dutch courts without exposure to the U.S. legal system

Classification

failuresupport: arguedfailure: fee-precedent-not-generalizablefamily: research-design-limitationinstitutional-design

Verify

The quote above is an exact substring of the source PDF, whose sha256 is fde2ff611420eb283cbb49a6b681a2ae8efa2b4603ae71480e2d91483f0295f2. Extraction method: pdf-text-layer.
Attestation record: colloquium/attestations/ef731cdd43a13784...json
Verify the binding yourself: curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2029983-024.md | sha256sum