US Citizens renouncing citizenship in record numbers

516px US passport high resolution
Here in the US, folks tend to assume that the United States is the proverbial “city upon a hill,” a place to which everyone does (or at least should) aspire. Many of my colleagues overseas have had some serious doubts about that premise for some time, but increasingly, even US citizens are having their doubts. According to a report in Newsweek, an increasing number are putting their money where their mouth is, with over 5,000 US citizens giving up their citizenship in the first half of 2020, more than twice the number for all of 2019.

A significant number of those giving up their citizenship are likely individuals who were born in the United States or to United States parents, but who no longer reside here and who have few or no ties to the United States. Many of those folks (like former London mayor and now Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Boris Johnson) have become increasingly disenchanted with the long arm of American tax law. Wealthy citizens should be aware, however, that giving up citizenship can be very expensive given the United State’s expatriation tax.

In any event, neither the process nor the cost has changed, so pundits speculate that the increase is due an increasingly divided electorate (and society) as well as economic and societal turmoil resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Some may have just realized that the dwindling reach of a US passport isn’t worth the headache, especially now.

By United States Department of State – Scan made by Ovinus Real, Public Domain, Link

Business visas to the US about to get more expensive

USCIS Filing Fee Table

As if coronavirus hasn’t already made business travel complicated enough, the cost of many of the most common non-immigrant business visas to the US is about to increase significantly. The USCIS recently announced an increase in the filing fees for certain immigrant and non-immigrant visas which allow foreign citizens to live and work in the United States. A chart of the fee changes for some of the most important visas for businesses is above, but overall it appears that the agency has chosen to spare immigrant visa applications the bulk of the costs, since those forms actually decreased as much as 21%. Those reductions were made at the expense of non-immigrant visa petitioners. The I-129 L increased a whopping 75% to $805 per petition.

The fee increases become effective October 2, 2020, and are intended to cover the costs of the agency’s activities, since the USCIS is supposed to be self-funding.

Overall, this seems consistent with the current administration’s general trend towards discouraging temporary business assignments to the US in favor of longer-term stays (or simply not coming to the US at all). Whether this is good for foreign direct investment remains to be seen.

Where in the World is our Case to be Litigated

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

A little while back I wrote about choosing the law which applies to your transaction in an international setting. While often the party which initiates the transaction (and provides the first draft of the contract) will dictate the law and venue, that’s not always the best option. Indeed, in some cases it’s wildly impractical, particularly where far-flung parties want to compromise on a central location for litigation but want to keep their own law. It’s going to be hard to find a New York arbitrator who can effectively apply Estonian law to a contract between an Estonian and a Thai company. Even larger countries like Germany or France can’t always count on reliable interpretation of their laws in faraway locations.

One alternative is to choose a “neutral” forum, often one physically located between the parties, to reduce the burden of travel and allow the application of one set of laws which are readily understandable by both parties. There are many different options for neutral venues, but a few examples include:

  • United Kingdom. The UK, particularly London, has long marketed itself as a reliable and convenient venue for the resolution of legal disputes, and has the advantage of the English language and ready access from much of the world. UK law also reduces the burden of discovery which would otherwise be available in the US, and remains the most popular “neutral” law for international transactions.
  • New York. As a global center of international business, readily accessible from much of the world, New York has long been seen as a good neutral forum for international disputes, particularly for finance transactions. And yes, in the US you have to choose the law of a particular state.
  • Delaware. Long the choice of corporations in the US, Delaware is also a viable choice for resolution of international disputes which otherwise have no connection to the state, as long as there is some reasonable link to the state or if the value of the contract is above $100,000. Delaware’s dedicated business court (the Court of Chancery) is also seen as a plus, streamlining litigation in comparison to other US jurisdictions.
  • Switzerland. Switzerland has historically been considered a viable neutral venue for international disputes, in large part because of a general sense of reliability and neutrality, although the complexity of some Swiss laws and the need to litigate in a language other than English may well be an obstacle for some.
  • Singapore. Singapore is an increasingly popular venue for international dispute resolution, particularly in Asia, gaining in popularity over neighboring Hong Kong. Again, efficiency and ready use of the English language are pluses, as well as ready access from international markets.

Whatever venue or law you choose, arbitration can limit some of the risk of choosing a venue which is not otherwise related to the transaction at hand, and the adoption of international definitions (like INCOTERMS) and international legal frameworks (like CISG) can help ensure consistent resolution of disputes which may arise.

A lot goes into the choice of law, much more than can be covered in a single blog post. Whatever choice you make, be sure that the chosen venue will be amenable to hearing your case if and when the time comes.

Image courtesy of Diliff / CC BY-SA (

Dealing with the Risks of Remote Service

Lufthansa Boeing 747 430

The German business newspaper Handelsblatt ran an article (in German) last week discussing the issues facing German companies with US subsidiaries during the coronavirus. While a lot of business can be done remotely, much of Germany’s export economy is based on industrial goods, and those goods often require in-person service or installation. Given that most Germans cannot travel to the United States right now, in-person service is impossible. Since travel in the other direction is largely forbidden, US workers can’t be trained in Germany to do the work themselves either. That makes the inability to travel a massive thorn in the side of German business.

This thorn has a legal aspect as well – many sales and service contracts require in-person service, and mid-sized German manufacturers may not have enough (or any) technicians located in the US to provide the necessary services. They are used to sending technicians over as needed, but that’s obviously not possible now. Similar problems may arise where warranty service is needed on site, but cannot be provided due to the travel restrictions. In either case, companies are looking at both a customer service issue and a legal issue, and the resolution of one may in fact complicate the other.

Of course, contracts usually try to address these eventualities. For example, in some instances, force majeure clauses may allow for delays in service or termination of the contract in the event of certain disasters, but it’s not always clear if and when this particular disaster is covering, since the language in those clauses varies widely. On the customer service side, delaying service or terminating the agreement doesn’t help the end customer who may be sitting in the US with non-functioning equipment. It also doesn’t necessarily help the German vendor, since a customer which has experience this type of business interruption might favor a local (or larger) supplier in the future.

As a result, many mid-sized companies are getting creative with remote services. Unfortunately, sometimes those efforts also backfire. What happens if the instructions given over Zoom or Google Meet are unintelligible, or if the customer’s employee makes an error which damages or destroys the product which is being serviced? Some unwitting customers may find that they’ve voided their own warranty by accepting an offer to do the work themselves, even with the vendor’s assistance, and others just enter a gray area where the risk and liability issues are muddied, with no clear resolution when things go wrong.

Especially in high risk industries, manufacturers who agree to this type of service (and their customers) may want to consider a brief agreement or amendment to their sales and service contract which allocates those risks during the pandemic. That ensures that both parties can move ahead secure in the knowledge that the business relationship on which both parties rely survives the pandemic as well. If the risks are too great to reach agreement, maybe that’s a sign that you need to consider your options for termination after all, even if it does sour the business relationship.

Unfortunately, the travel limitations seem likely to stay for a while, given German skepticism of the United States’ handling of the coronavirus, so it looks like we might be dealing with these kinds of risks for a while as well. We might as well deal with them.

Photo courtesy of Kiefer. from Frankfurt, Germany / CC BY-SA (

Setting the Ground Rules

640px Card Game 05

I’m working on a few transactions right now between companies in different countries (heck, on different continents), and there seems to be one issue none of my clients or their counterparts really want to deal with, and that’s choice of law. The problem is that choice of law is really important, and drafting a contract without knowing which law applies is kind of like playing cards but not knowing whether it’s poker or pinochle. It’s all cards in the end, but the rules matter.

The biggest differences are probably between civil law countries, like France and Germany, and common law countries, like the United States and the United Kingdom. As a rule, civil law countries are more likely to dictate the terms of a contract as a matter of law, rather than allowing the parties to work the rules out amongst themselves. This has the advantage of protecting the weaker partner, of course, but also the disadvantage of preventing two parties who both know and understand the terms of an agreement from getting the agreement they really want.

A good example is online terms and conditions, which are typically dictated by one party to the other without any meaningful opportunity to negotiate (essentially, a take-it-or-leave-it contract). In the US, those online terms are usually enforced largely as written (as long as they are properly entered into, which should be the subject of an entirely separate blog post). That means most if not all of those disclaimers, liability caps, and waiver stand a pretty good chance of being enforced. That’s not to say there’s no risk for the service provider in those situations, but ultimately most of the words in that contract stand a good chance of being enforced against the less powerful party.

Things are different in Germany, where you can pretty much toss out a significant chunk of some of those agreements, or at least contest them with a decent chance of prevailing. Your typical US online terms, with its lengthy, all-caps paragraphs, stands a pretty good chance of modification by the court if it comes to that. That’s not the only example of contract clauses which won’t survive under German law, and those issues can also come up in heavily negotiated contracts between sophisticated parties as well.

So, if you’re negotiating a contract with another party, work out the ground rules first, and decide which law and which courts will apply. Otherwise you may still be figuring out your meld while your opponent is putting down their royal flush.

Image courtesy of Benebiankie / CC BY-SA (

Secret Service starts new Cyber Crime Task Force

Robert Warwick in Secret Service

Last week the United States Secret Service announced the creation of the “Cyber Fraud Task Force,” to focus on the investigation of cyber financial crimes. The new task force is the result of a merger of two prior groups focusing on cyber crime and financial crime respectively, and is an acknowledgement that many if not most financial crimes have a significant online component these days. After all, why bother crawling the streets with dirty, gun-toting conspirators when you can suck millions of dollars out of the world economy from the air-conditioned comfort of your parent’s basement?

In theory the new task force will allow the Service to utilize the expertise of both groups in a more coherent and uniform fashion. The Secret Service has long been involved in the investigation of financial crimes, and was originally part of the Treasury Department. Now part of the Department of Homeland Security, there are discussions in Washington about moving the Secret Service back to Treasury, however, as part of an increased focus on financial crimes.

Although this decision has been years in the making, the timing during the coronavirus pandemic is not necessarily a coincidence, given a significant uptick in financial crimes expected in the wake of efforts to keep the world economy afloat, including PPP and record numbers of unemployment claims.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons, public domain.

Privacy Shield Struck Down

Marco Dente Venus Wounded by a Rose s Thorn 1930 581 Cleveland Museum of Art tif

Max Schrems has become quite the thorn in the side of United States business, and it’s just gotten worse.

The European Court of Justice today struck down the EU-US Privacy shield, one of the two primary methods by which European companies can transfer personal information of EU citizens to the United States. Otherwise, under Europe’s strict privacy laws, personal information cannot be transferred to the United States due to US laws requiring disclosure of data for civil litigation, law enforcement, and national security purposes. Those US laws conflict with the rights granted to EU citizens under the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The alternative, standard or “model” contractual clauses, are both unwieldy and not terribly well suited to many kinds of data transfer. They also impose risks and obligations which are unpalatable to many US companies, particularly those involving large amounts of data. More importantly, those are also under fire, given that certain of the provisions in those contracts conflict with US law and are not enforceable as written.

This is the second victory for Mr. Schrems, an Austrian privacy advocate whose first lawsuit challenging the sufficiency of the Safe Harbor arrangement between the United States and the EU, was struck down in 2015.

Venus Wounded by a Rose’s Thorn by Marco Dente, Courtesy of the Cleveland Museum of Art, Public Domain

Stopping a horse is harder than you think …

Horse Running Without Jockey

There’s been a lot of news about the attempt by Robert Trump, brother of President Donald Trump, to block the publication of niece Mary Trump’s book on the family’s internal dirty laundry. Just this evening, a judge denied Robert Trump’s request for a preliminary injunction against publication, meaning the book should start shipping tomorrow absent some last-minute intervention.

A preliminary injunction is a temporary order which attempts to preserve the status quo until a dispute can be decided on the merits. In order to obtain an injunction, not only does the plaintiff have to show that he or she will likely prevail on the merits of the case, but also that the plaintiff will suffer “irreparable harm” if the injunction is not granted. That’s where many if not most attempts to seek an injunction fail – for the most part, courts assume that most commercial disputes can be resolved by the payment of damages afterwards, and will only grant an injunction where that’s clearly not the case. This court, at least, was not persuaded otherwise.

In this instance, the issuance of a preliminary injunction was further complicated by the First Amendment. Generally speaking, the United States Constitution does not permit what is called a “prior restraint” on speech, since a government actor (the court) cannot normally take steps to prevent speech before it takes place. They can, however, make the speaker liable for any damages caused by the speech after the fact, so Mary Trump may join John Bolton in the list of Trump tattlers who face legal action long after, as two judge have now put it, “the horse is not just out of the barn, it is out of the country.”

Image: Horse Running Without Jockey by Paolo Camera (Wikimedia Commons)

Arbitration clauses under fire in Canada

Amsterdam NL Begijnhof

Oh, Canada.

Last month, the Canadian Supreme Court issued an opinion in Heller v Uber, a case brought by an Uber driver in Canada seeking classification as an employee rather than an independent contractor. There are a lot of those cases around the world and, while interesting, Uber’s somewhat controversial business model isn’t normally a relevant subject for this blog. What is interesting for the rest of us, however, is the court’s treatment of the arbitration clause, and the no-so-faint signs of life of the “unconscionability” clause in Canada.

You see, the arbitration clause for this California-based company contained a requirement that disputes with drivers be subject to arbitration in the Netherlands. Does that seem reasonable to you? No? Well, apparently the court didn’t think much of it either, so rather than exercise the deference courts often have for these types of agreements, they decided to delve a little deeper. You can read about the details here or in the court’s opinion, but the real takeaway for companies doing cross-border business with Canada is the court’s analysis of the applicability of arbitration clauses in international transactions and the doctrine of unconscionability. The court reached two important conclusions:

  • First, the court decided that it had jurisdiction to review bona fide challenges to the arbitration clause if the question was otherwise unlikely to be resolved. In reaching this decision, the court noted that upfront costs of $14,500 US and the burden of arbitrating a relatively small claim thousands of miles away meant that the plaintiff’s challenge to the arbitration clause would probably never be heard.
  • Second, the court reviewed whether the transaction was “unconscionable,” in other words, whether there was a significant difference in bargaining power and whether that difference was likely to significantly disadvantage the weaker party. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the court did in fact decide that a single Uber driver was the weaker party, and was disadvantaged in his deal with the multinational Uber Technologies Inc., given that the fees alone equalled his annual income from his contract with Uber.

We have to be careful in applying this case to normal e-commerce transactions, since it is on some level employment-related, and both courts and laws are tend to be very protective of a person’s livelihood. That being said, it’s a reminder that arbitration clauses are already viewed with some skepticism by courts and lawmakers, so it’s important to make sure the arbitration clause offers a realistic avenue to resolve disputes.

I can’t help but think that the nail in Uber’s coffin here was choosing the Netherlands as a place of arbitration rather than the neighboring United States, since that smacks of a decision to make the already unpalatable prospect of arbitration in a faraway place completely unrealistic. Unfortunately for the rest of us, in choosing the Netherlands, Uber might have opened the door to other challenges to cross-border arbitration clauses. Indeed, the dissenting justice makes this exact point, noting that this exception to the general rule that decisions on arbitration be left to the arbitrator will undoubtedly lead to more attempts to undermine that general rule. To the extent those challenges succeed, they will also limit the usefulness of arbitration clauses in Canada, particularly in cross-border transactions.

Hat tip to Ryan Flewelling of DS Avocats in Ottawa, Canada for pointing me in the direction of this decision. Or maybe, since it’s Canada, hat trick? Go Flyers!

Image courtesy of Dietmar Rabich, Amsterdam (NL), Begijnhof — 2015 — 7215-8, CC BY-SA 4.0 (Wikimedia Commons)

New opportunities for owners of generic domain names

Screen Shot excerpt from homepage

Much to the chagrin of companies which have built a brand based on a name plus the top level domain .com, like or, the US Patent and Trademark Office has long denied applications for trademark based on those domain names. The Supreme Court changed that last week with a ruling which states that the term is eligible for trademark protection even though the term “booking” on its own is clearly generic.

What this means is that a host of other “” domains (like or will become eligible for trademark protection as well. Unfortunately, what it also means is that those generic words will become more difficult to use in everyone else’s domain names, since trademark holders will try to prevent any similar use of those words (like cars or wine) in a domain name at all. The majority seems pretty unimpressed by that concern, but given that the mere threat of a trademark infringement case can be very risky for a small business it’s definitely a practical concern for them.

It remains to be seen exactly what circumstances will be seen to render a generic domain name protectable, since the Supreme Court didn’t articulate a hard-line rule. If we look at the domain name, however, the following factors certainly weighed in the company’s favor:

  • The company has consistently referred to itself as, including the domain extension, rather than booking or any other name.
  • The company’s logo also includes the .com, seemingly without exception.
  • Consumers also clearly know the company as, and do not think of that as merely a domain name to get to the company’s site.

It’s important to note that this decision doesn’t change the fact that a domain name itself is not considered “use” under trademark law, so companies who hope to trademark their .com domain name will want to make sure that use can be demonstrated separate from the purely functional use of accessing the website using a browser.

If you’re the proud owner of a generic domain, it’s time to make sure your branding reflects the entire domain name, since that could be the difference between a registrable trademark or just a domain name.