PrintThe Fifth and Ninth Circuits have adopted a liberal standard in granting anti-suit injunctions. See Kaepa, Inc. v. Achilles Corp., 76 F.3d 625, 626-27 (5th Cir. 1996); Seattle Totems Hockey Club, Inc. v. Nat’l Hockey League, 652 F.2d 852 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1105 (1982). The liberal standard explains that an anti-suit injunction is appropriate when a non-U.S. proceeding would frustrate a policy of the forum issuing the injunction, be vexatious or oppressive, threaten the issuing court’s jurisdiction (typically in rem or quasi in rem), or prejudice other equitable considerations. In re Unterweser Reederei Gmbh, 428 F.2d 888 (5th Cir. 1970), aff’d on hearing en banc, 446 F.2d 907 (5th Cir. 1971), rev’d on other grounds sub nom Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (1972);
- The Seventh Circuit has not expressly adopted the liberal standard but appears to incline towards this view. In Allendale Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bull Data Sys., Inc., 10 F.3d 425 (7th Cir. 1993). the court considered whether a federal district judge could issue an anti-suit injunction to a party before the court where an American subsidiary of a French corporation countersued an American insurer and broker, bringing suit in both American and French courts. The court explained that the “lax” standard towards which it leans demands evidence that comity is likely to be, rather than could be, impaired. The court further explained that a preliminary injunction was appropriate in this case because the French courts would require the American insurer to prove its claims beyond a preponderance of the evidence whereas American courts would only require the insurer to prove its claims by a preponderance of the evidence.
- The Eighth Circuit adopted the conservative standard in granting anti-suit injunctions and held that a foreign anti-suit injunction should only be issued upon a showing that (1) an action in a foreign jurisdiction would prevent United States Jurisdiction or threaten a vital United States policy, and (2) the domestice interests outweigh concerns fo international comity. See Goss Int'l Corp. v. Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd., 491 F.3d 355 (8th Cir. 2007).