Originally Posted by
atsak
IANAL, but you'd be surprised how binding decisions in courts in various countries are on other countries. Generally if you do any business at ALL in a country, court decisions are binding (frequently for example Canadian companies seize assets of US ones who think court decisions aren't binding on them and vice versa). If you get a judgement and a company doesn't comply you're just asking for someone to get a seizure writ (that's what they are here in Canada) and enforcing it on property located in CAnada, for example, but the US is fairly similar. You can for example seize a plane, and sell it, to get back your money, though a judge would probably want you to be a bit more reasonable. . .
When it comes to US court proceedings/decisions applicable to assets and (most) liabilities — and for this purpose I could include contracts as potential assets — over which the court has jurisdiction, the court doesn’t ordinarily have the ability to grant a waiver in foreign countries around foreign countries’ labor laws and regulations (nor even some debts) in other countries. There may be derivative exceptions of sort that come in play due to treaties, but a bankruptcy proceeding in the US is not a general “get out of jail”/immunization card in foreign jurisdictions with regard to labor laws/regulations.
You probably also have a sense of how soft the fines are in Scandinavian countries when compared to the US, but where is the money going to come from to pay the fines after the shell game has been played masterfully to insulate the assets where desired by the company and shed the liabilities as desired by the company? It’s peanuts in the bigger scheme.