A proceeding is parallel if it involves similar parties and similar issues. The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet addressed how federal courts should assess parallel proceedings in foreign courts (sometimes referred to as lis alibi pendens). The default approach has been to allow both cases to proceed until a judgment has been rendered in one case that may be given preclusive effect in the other. Most federal courts treat this question as one of abstention, though occasionally courts address it through forum non conveniens.
Alternatively, a U.S. court may issue an antisuit injunction ordering the parties to discontinue the suit in the other jurisdiction. There is a split among the circuits on the standard for issuing antisuit injunctions, with some courts adopting a conservative approach of granting such an injunction only if the foreign proceeding threatens the jurisdiction of the U.S. court or an important U.S. public policy and other courts adopting a liberal approach of granting such an injunction if the foreign proceeding is duplicative and vexatious.
A Primer on Transnational Parallel Proceedings
It is not uncommon for parties involved in cross-border disputes to file competing or overlapping lawsuits in different forums. When should a U.S. court stay its hand in favor of a lawsuit filed in another country? Conversely, when should a U.S. court take proactive measures to defend its jurisdiction from interference by proceedings in a…
Continue ReadingSDNY Grants Anti-Suit Injunction Against TV Azteca
For the past several years, parallel litigation has been ongoing in Mexico and the United States between the Mexican media conglomerate TV Azteca, S.A.B. de C.V. and The Bank of New York Mellon (BNY), the Indenture Trustee for a series of TV Azteca’s unsecured notes. Two weeks ago, Judge Paul G. Gardephe (SDNY) granted BNY’s…
Continue ReadingMini-SPEECH Acts
In the United States, it is common for states to enact statutes that mirror those already in operation at the federal level. These state statutes are sometimes described as “mini” versions of a particular federal enactment. A quick internet search turned up references to mini-FTC Acts, mini-WARN Acts, mini-Brooks Acts, and mini-Randolph-Sheppard Acts, among others….
Continue ReadingRussia’s Lugovoy Law and the Battle for Jurisdiction
Sanctions have not only complicated the enforcement of contracts—they have also begun to affect the forums in which transnational disputes may be resolved. Russia’s so-called “Lugovoy Law” allows sanctioned parties to sue in Russian courts even when they have agreed to have their disputes decided elsewhere, and it is backed by threats of steep penalties….
Continue ReadingRestatement (Fourth) of Foreign Relations Law § 425 (antisuit injunctions)
Report of the Working Group on Jurisdiction on Matters Related to Jurisdiction in Transnational Civil or Commercial Litigation, Including Rules for Concurrent Proceedings (Hague)
Quaak v. Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler, 361 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2004) (antisuit injunctions)
Paul Herrup and Ronald A. Brand, A Hague Parallel Proceedings Convention: Architecture and Features, Chicago Journal of International Law Online (forthcoming 2022) (Pitt)
Paul Herrup and Ronald A. Brand, A Hague Convention on Parallel Proceedings, 63
Harvard International Law Journal Online 1 (2022) (HJIL)
Maggie Gardner, Deferring to Foreign Courts, 169 U. Pa. L. Rev. 2291 (2021) (SSRN)
I. Strong, Anti-Suit Injunctions in Judicial and Arbitral Procedures in the United States, 66 Am. J. Comp. L. 153 (2018) (Missouri)
Campbell McLachlan, Lis Pendens in International Litigation (2009)
Jansen Calamita, Rethinking Comity: Towards a Coherent Treatment of International Parallel Proceedings, 27 U. Pa. J. Int’tl L. 601 (2006) (Penn)
Stephen B. Burbank, Jurisdictional Equilibration, the Proposed Hague Convention and Progress in National Law, 49 Am. J. Comp. L. 203 (2001)
George A. Bermann, The Use of Anti-Suit Injunctions in International Litigation, 28 Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 589 (1990) (Columbia)


