A Primer on Forum Non Conveniens
Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a judge may dismiss a case on the understanding that the case would be better heard in another sovereign’s court. It is a judge-made discretionary doctrine that can be invoked even if the court otherwise has proper jurisdiction over the case. This primer describes the current federal doctrine…
Continue ReadingTransnational Litigation Anticipation: Previewing the Court’s Next Term
TLB recently recapped the Supreme Court’s transnational litigation cases from last Term. This post looks ahead to the upcoming Term, for which the Court has already granted certiorari in a personal jurisdiction case that may have implications for transnational litigation. TLB is also tracking several interesting petitions for certiorari in disputes involving the Foreign Sovereign…
Continue ReadingColorado Court Holds That Forum Non Conveniens Dismissal Is Not Preclusive
When a court in the United States grants a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, finding that a plaintiff’s claims should be litigated abroad, may the plaintiff instead choose to refile its claims in another U.S. jurisdiction? The answer will often be yes because the forum non conveniens dismissal does not have issue preclusive…
Continue ReadingThrowback Thursday: The Legacy of Paxton Blair
Paxton Blair, a New York attorney practicing in the 1920s, has influenced American law to an extent most law professors can only dream of. His 1929 Columbia Law Review article, The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens in Anglo-American Law, introduced the term “forum non conveniens” to the United States. (As he noted, only a few…
Continue ReadingA Primer on State Law in Transnational Litigation
[Editors: This post is one in a series of Primers on topics in transnational litigation. Primers on each of the topics listed in the Topics menu are planned, and some already appear on the relevant topic pages.] The procedural and substantive rules that U.S. courts apply in transnational litigation come from many sources, including the…
Continue ReadingHow Do Federal Courts Treat Foreign Parallel Litigation?
The Supreme Court has not explained how federal judges should evaluate parallel litigation in foreign courts. If the same parties are litigating the same issues before a foreign tribunal, should the federal court stay its hand? Or should it proceed until one or the other of the cases results in a judgment? The traditional European…
Continue ReadingKashef v. BNP Paribas SA Overcomes the Forum Non Conveniens Hurdle
In Kashef v. BNP Paribas SA, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein in the Southern District of New York recently denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. The order allows plaintiffs to continue to pursue their claims against BNP Paribas S.A. and its U.S.-based subsidiary and New York branch (“BNPP”) for their role in…
Continue ReadingThe Role of the FCPA in Transnational Litigation
Professor Maggie Gardner’s thought-provoking post on the role of the UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) in forum non conveniens analysis in IMSS v. Stryker and IMSS v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings led me to consider how the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) factors into these cases. Interestingly, both defendant corporations, Stryker Corporation and Zimmer Biomet Holdings,…
Continue ReadingU.S. Courts Gut Key Provision of U.N. Convention Against Corruption
In March, both the Sixth and the Seventh Circuits affirmed forum non conveniens dismissals of suits brought by Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS), Mexico’s main social service agency, against U.S. corporations for their alleged bribery of Mexican government officials. IMSS had argued that the U.N. Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) guarantees it the option of…
Continue ReadingState Doctrines of Forum Non Conveniens: Beyond Gulf Oil
State courts have their own doctrines for addressing transnational litigation, including their own doctrines of forum non conveniens (FNC). While a majority of states today apply a version of FNC like that of the federal courts, we found that 17 states—fully one third—depart from the Gulf Oil framework in one or more ways.
Continue Reading