Batchelder v. Kawamoto Appellees' Brief - Greines, Martin, Stein ...

Again, we first explain the contours of Japanese law, and then demonstrate why
it, rather than California law, applies.
These, too, are purely legal questions that the Court reviews de novo.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1 ; Salve Regina CoNege v. Russell, 499 U.S. at 231-233.
A. Japanese Law Does Not Permit Plaintiff To Sue The Defendants
He Has Sued Here.
1. Japanese Law Does Not Permit Double Derivative
Actions.
The expert testimony below was unequivocal: "The Japanese Corporate
Law does not allow double derivative actions, nor has any court ever
interpreted the law otherwise." (I ER 54:124 (Kitazawa Decl.); see also I ER
0 %:I19 (Koma Decl.) ("[nlo Japanese court has allowed a shareholder of a
parent corporation to pursue alleged liabilities of the directors of a subsidiary");
I ER 52: 131 (Henderson Decl.).) Indeed, not only is there no basis in code,
commentary or case law for double derivative suits in Japan, there is no
scholarly support for permitting them. (I ER 54:124 (Kitazawa Decl.); I ER
55: 720 (Koma Decl.) .)