Proskauer Rose International Practice Guide Proskauer Rose LLP |
      Proskauer on International Litigation and Arbitration:
       Managing, Resolving, and Avoiding Cross-Border Business or Regulatory Disputes
Text Size:  A  A  A
Print Print

Three other doctrines can affect a party’s choice of the court that will hear an international dispute: (1) Forum non conveniens; (2) Motions to stay or dismiss U.S. proceedings in favor of parallel foreign proceedings; and (3) Anti-suit injunctions.

  1. Forum Non Conveniens
    1. A choice to make

      “In all cases in which the doctrine of forum non conveniens comes into play, it presupposes at least two forums in which the defendant is amenable to process; the doctrine furnishes criteria for choice between them.” Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 506-07 (1947) (italics omitted.)

    2. Three-part test

      Courts typically examine three factors when considering whether to dismiss an action on forum non conveniens grounds:

      1. Degree of deference to accord plaintiff’s choice of forum;
      2. Availability of adequate alternative forum to adjudicate the dispute; and
      3. If such alternative exists, whether the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice would be served by having the suit proceed in the alternative forum.

      See, e.g., Usha (India), Ltd. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc. No. 03 Civ. 0494, 2004 WL 540441 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17, 2004), modified, 421 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2005); Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Access Indus., 416 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2005).

      1. Plaintiff’s choice of forum
        1. Presumption in favor of plaintiff’s choice of forum: Generally there is a strong presumption in favor of the plaintiff’s choice of forum that should “rarely be disturbed.” Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 508. The degree of deference shown to a plaintiff’s choice of forum depends in large part on certain characteristics of the plaintiff.
        2. Citizenship and/or residence of plaintiff: Although being a U.S. citizen is not dispositive (Alcoa S.S. Co. v. M/V Nordic Regent, 654 F.2d 147 (2d Cir. 1980) (en banc)), a U.S. plaintiff’s choice of forum is entitled to greater deference than a non-U.S. plaintiff’s choice. See Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 256 (1981) (“Because the central purpose of any forum non conveniens inquiry is to ensure that the trial is convenient, a foreign plaintiff’s choice deserves less deference.”); Koster v. (Am.) Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518 (1947) (plaintiff’s choice of forum is entitled to greater deference when the plaintiff has sued in plaintiff’s home forum). However, “some weight” must be given to foreign plaintiff’s forum choice, and “this reduced weight is not an invitation to accord a foreign plaintiff’s selection of an American forum no deference since dismissal for forum non conveniens is the exception rather than the rule.” Cromer Fin. Ltd. v. Berger, 158 F. Supp. 2d 347, 354 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (citation omitted); see also Lueck v. Sundstrand Corp., 236 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2001).
        3. Examining motives: “[T]he degree of deference to be given to a plaintiff’s choice of forum moves on a sliding scale depending on several relevant considerations” and it is “not a correct understanding of the rule to accord deference only when the suit is brought in the plaintiff’s home district.” Iragorri v. United Techs. Corp., 274 F.3d 65, 71, 73 (footnote omitted) (2d Cir. 2001) (en banc). “The more it appears that a domestic or foreign plaintiff’s choice of forum has been dictated by reasons that the law [will] recognize[] as valid, the greater the deference that will be given to the plaintiff’s forum choice …. On the other hand, the more it appears that the plaintiff’s choice of a U.S. forum was motivated by forum-shopping reasons … the less deference the plaintiff’s choice commands.” Id. at 71-72. Moreover, courts “should be mindful that, just as plaintiffs sometimes choose a forum for forum-shopping reasons, defendants also may move for dismissal under the doctrine of forum non conveniens not because of genuine concern with convenience but because of similar forum-shopping reasons.” Id. at 75.
        4. Treaties: When a foreign plaintiff is a national of a country that is party to a treaty that accord nationals equivalent access and the consideration that U.S. citizens receive in U.S. courts, that plaintiff’s choice of forum is accorded the same presumption as a U.S. citizen’s. See, e.g., Irish Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Aer Lingus Teoranta, 739 F.2d 90 (2d Cir. 1984); Alcoa S.S. Co. v. M/V Nordic Regent, 654 F.2d 147 (2d Cir. 1980) (en banc), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 890 (1980); Blanco v. Banco Indus. de Venez. S.A., 997 F.2d 974 (2d Cir. 1993) (treaty between U.S. and Venezuela); but see Morales v. Ford Motor Co., 313 F. Supp. 2d 672, 687 (S.D. Tex. 2004) (Venezuela’s treaty “applies [only] to Venezuelans present in the United States and citizens of the United States present in Venezuela. Nothing within this provision suggests that Venezuelan plaintiffs not located in the territory of the United States may bring suit within the latter’s courts for events that took place abroad on equal footing with citizens of the United States or vice versa.”); Pollux Holding, Ltd. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 329 F.3d 64, 73 (2d Cir. 2003) (distinguishing treaty between U.S. and Liberia from treaties providing “equal access” to foreign nationals; holding that plaintiffs’ choice of forum should be accorded “the lesser degree of deference typically afforded foreign plaintiffs”).
        5. Plaintiff’s overseas activities: A U.S. corporation with substantial overseas business may find that the presumption in favor of its choice of a U.S. court is discounted. Reid-Walen v. Hansen, 933 F.2d 1390, 1395 (8th Cir. 1991) (“corporate plaintiff’s citizenship or residence may not correlate with its real convenience because of the nature of the corporate entity”). An individual plaintiff likely will not face such obstacles. Guidi v. Inter-Cont’l Hotels Corp., 224 F.3d 142, 147 (2d Cir. 2000) (“Plaintiffs … are ordinary American citizens for whom litigating in Egypt presents an obvious and significant inconvenience, …. This is not a case where the plaintiff is a corporation doing business abroad and can expect to litigate in foreign courts.”); Carey v. Bayerische Hypo-Und Vereinsbank AG, 370 F.3d 234, 238 (2d Cir. 2004) (“For an individual of modest means, the obligation to litigate in a foreign country is likely to represent a considerably greater obstacle than for a large business organization -- especially one maintaining a business presence in foreign countries. For this reason, such an individual’s choice of the home forum may receive greater deference than the similar choice made by a large organization which can easily handle the difficulties of engaging in litigation abroad.”).
        6. Class actions: Courts grant less deference to a choice of forum brought by a plaintiff on behalf of a class. See, e.g., DiRienzo v. Philip Servs. Corp., 294 F.3d 21 (2d Cir. 2002).
      2. Availability of alternative forum: To be available, an alternative forum must permit the litigation “of the subject matter of the dispute.” Piper, 454 U.S. at 235. It is “available” where a foreign court has jurisdiction over all the defendants, not just the “primary” defendants. Madanes v. Madanes, 981 F. Supp. 241, 266 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (dismissal of suit improper “absent a proffer by all of the Defendants that they would be willing to consent to the jurisdiction of the Argentine court”); see also Murray v. British Broad. Corp., 81 F.3d 287 (2d Cir. 1996) (non-essential defendant not amenable to jurisdiction in foreign forum does not preclude dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds); Odyssey Re (London) Ltd. v. Stirling Cooke Brown Holdings Ltd., 85 F. Supp. 2d 282 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). A forum is not available if a statute of limitations bars bringing the suit in the forum (BCCI v. State Bank of Pakistan, 273 F.3d 241 (2d Cir. 2001)); where such a concern exists, a conditional dismissal might be entered.
        1. Latin American Practice Tip: Latin American plaintiffs on occasion argue that once they file suit in a court in the U.S., statutes enacted by their home countries make their home forum “unavailable.” See, e.g., Decreto Numero 34-97 (1997) (Guatemala); Ley de Defensa de Derechos Procesalas de Nacionales y Residentes (Law in Defense of the Procedural Rights of Nationals and Residents) (Honduras); Ley 55 (Ecuador); Article 40 of the Statute of Private International Law (Venezuela). These arguments typically have not been accepted by U.S. courts.
          • Guatemala: “Plaintiff argues that Guatemalan law forbids disturbing a plaintiff’s forum choice. Consequently, Guatemalan courts will not recognize jurisdiction that has been “manipulated” by a forum non conveniens transfer. However, a quick and decisive solution to this potential problem was reached in Delgado v. Shell Oil, 890 F. Supp. 1324 (S.D. Tex. 1995). After finding Guatemala and other fora to be adequate to merit forum non conveniens dismissal, the court directed that ‘in the event that the highest court of any foreign country finally affirms the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction’ of any plaintiff’s case, that plaintiff may return, and the court will resume jurisdiction.” Polanco v. H.B. Fuller Co., 941 F. Supp. 1512, 1525 (D. Minn. 1996).
          • Ecuador: Finding it unlikely that Ecuadorian courts would decide that Law 55 was a sufficient basis for concluding that the Ecuadorian forum was unavailable, court stated that it would “qualify the dismissals here to provide that in the event that a court of last review in Ecuador finally affirms the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Law 55 of any action raising the claims here at issue pursued in good faith in Ecuador by any of the plaintiffs here, this Court, upon motion made within 60 days, will resume jurisdiction over that action.” Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc., 142 F. Supp. 2d 534, 547 (S.D.N.Y. 2001), aff’d as modified, 303 F.3d 470 (2d Cir. 2002) (noting that since district court decision Ecuadorian Constitutional Court had declared Law 55 to be unconstitutional).
          • Venezuela: Similar argument rejected based on Venezuela law. Morales v. Ford Motor Co., 313 F. Supp. 2d 672.
      3. Adequacy of alternative forum
        1. Burden of proof: The party seeking to have a case dismissed has the burden of demonstrating that there is an adequate alternative forum. See, e.g., BCCI v. State Bank of Pakistan, 273 F.3d 241 (2d Cir. 2001).
        2. Adequacy and substantive law: One reason for claiming that an alterative forum is inadequate is based on the substantive law of the alternative forum. However, “[t]he availability of an adequate alternate forum does not depend on the existence of the identical cause of action in the other forum.” PT United Can Co. v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., 138 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 1998). Moreover, the fact that a foreign forum’s substantive law is different from the substantive law of the U.S. forum “should ordinarily not be given conclusive or even substantial weight.” Piper 454 U.S. at 247; see, also, Indus. Inv. Dev. Corp. v. Mitsui & Co., 671 F.2d 876 (5th Cir. 1982) (antitrust claims not subject to forum non conveniens dismissal), vacated on other grounds by, 460 U.S. 1007 (1983); but cf. Capital Currency Exch., N.V. v. Nat’l Westminster Bank PLC, 155 F.3d 603, 609 (2d Cir. 1998) (“[A]ntitrust suits are subject to dismissal under the forum non conveniens doctrine.”); Creative Tech., Ltd. v. Aztech Sys. PTE, Ltd., 61 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 1995) (copyright claims dismissed); but see Jose Armando Bermudez & Co. v. Bermudez Int’l, Inc., No. 99 Civ. 9346, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12354 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2000) (declining to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds where plaintiff asserted trademark and copyright infringement claims); Transunion Corp. v. PepsiCo, Inc., 811 F.2d 127, 130 (2d Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (“review of the legislative history of RICO . . . discloses no mandate that the doctrine of forum non conveniens should not apply”); Howe v. Goldcorp Inv., Ltd., 946 F.2d 944 (1st Cir. 1991) (securities law claims subject to forum non conveniens dismissal); but see Derensis v. Coopers & Lybrand Chtd. Acctants., 930 F. Supp. 1003, 1011 (D.N.J. 1996) (Canada not adequate alternative forum for securities class action suit based on U.S. securities laws where U.S. “has a strong public policy of protecting the integrity of its securities markets”).
        3. Adequacy and procedure: Different procedures in a foreign forum generally will not lead courts to decide that the forum is inadequate. Courts have rejected claims of inadequacy based on the availability of jury trial (see, e.g., In re Union Carbide Corp. Gas Plant Disaster at Bhopal, 809 F.2d 195 (2d Cir. 1987)); absence of broad pre-trial discovery (see, e.g., Doe v. Hyland Therapeutics Div., 807 F. Supp. 1117 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)); absence of availability of contingent fee arrangements (see, e.g., Murray v. British Broad. Corp., 81 F.3d 287 (2d Cir. 1996)); delay (see, e.g., Eastman Kodak Co. v. Kavlin, 978 F. Supp. 1078 (S.D. Fla. 1997) (five year delay for civil actions); but see Sablic v. Armada Shipping Aps, 973 F. Supp. 745 (S.D. Tex. 1997) (backlog of cases in Croatia possibly resulting in a lengthy delay cited as one reason for finding it to be an inadequate forum); Bhatnagar v. Surrendra Overseas Ltd., 52 F.3d 1220 (3d Cir. 1995) (India inadequate where delay likely of up to 25 years before litigation could be resolved); cf. Usha (India), Ltd. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 421 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2005) (citing improvement in India’s court system and affirming dismissal)); absence of punitive damages (De Melo v. Lederle Labs., 801 F.2d 1058 (8th Cir. 1986); Exter Shipping Ltd. v. Kilakos, 310 F. Supp. 2d 1301 (N.D. Ga. 2004)); and absence of class actions procedures (Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc., 142 F. Supp. 2d 534 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)).
        4. Practice Tip: Adequacy and political issues/instability/availability: U.S. courts typically do not want to assess the integrity or quality of foreign courts, and find “substantial temerity to the claim that the forum where a party has chosen to transact business, . . . is inadequate.” General concerns about impartiality are insufficient, though corruption claims that are “compelling” or extreme safety concerns can render a forum inadequate. (Eastman Kodak, 978 F. Supp. 1078; Rasoulzadeh v. Assoc. Press, 574 F. Supp. 854 (S.D.N.Y. 1983), aff’d mem., 767 F.2d 908 (2d Cir. 1985) (denying forum non conveniens motion where plaintiffs would probably be executed if they returned to Iran); but see Shields v. Mi Ryung Constr. Co., 508 F. Supp. 891, 896 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) (plaintiff’s assertions about his safety in Saudi Arabia were “unsubstantiated speculation”).
          • Political unrest: Courts seem more likely to find an alterative forum to be inadequate based on claims of political unrest. See, e.g., Hatzlachh Supply, Inc. v. Tradewind Airways, Ltd., 659 F. Supp. 112 (S.D.N.Y. 1987) (Nigeria); Sablic, 973 F. Supp. at 748 (Croatia); Canadian Overseas Ores Ltd. v. Compania de Acero del Pacifico S.A., 528 F. Supp. 1337 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) (Chile).
      4. Balancing of interests: Courts have to weigh the deference due a plaintiff’s choice of forum against certain public and private interests to determine whether to grant a defendant’s forum non conveniens motion.
        1. Court congestion: Judges in the Southern District of New York recognize their court as “one of the busiest districts in the country” and cite “[t]he need to guard our docket from disputes with little connection to this forum.” Hyland, 807 F. Supp. at 1128 (citations omitted). But see Cromer, 158 F. Supp. 2d at 355 (“While the docket of the Southern District [of New York] is an active one, courts in this district have shown themselves more than able to address the issues that arise in complex actions in an expeditious and comprehensive manner.”
        2. Local interests: Courts recognize “the public interest in having foreign courts with stronger claims to jurisdiction over the matter adjudicate such claims. The interest in international judicial comity is a critical component of forum non conveniens determinations.” Exter Shipping Ltd. v. Kilakos, 310 F. Supp. 2d 1301 (N.D. Ga. 2004) (citations omitted).
        3. Avoiding conflict of laws concerns: “[T]his Court would be forced to engage in the significant interpretation and application of foreign law, further suggesting that dismissal of the action pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens is proper.” Exter Shipping, 310 F. Supp. 2d at 1327).
        4. Unfairly burdening the other forum’s citizens with jury duty. But see Moscovits v. Magyar Cukor Rt., No. 00 Civ. 0031, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9252, at *21 (S.D.N.Y. June 29, 2001) (jury duty is not a concern because subject matter jurisdiction was based on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, for which there are not jury trials).
        5. Travel costs: “[T]he entire doctrine of forum non conveniens should be reexamined in light of the transportation revolution.” Overseas Nat’l Airways, Inc. v. Cargolux Airlines Int’l, S.A., 712 F.2d 11, 14 (2d Cir. 1983) (Oakes, J., concurring). “To the extent documents exist in England, advances in transportation and communication accord this issue less weight.” Itoba Ltd. v. LEP Group PLC, 930 F. Supp. 36, 44 (D. Conn. 1996).
        6. Availability of compulsory process: Courts have relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1782, which permits a party to a foreign litigation to obtain evidence located in the U.S., as a basis to reject contentions that U.S. documents or witnesses were beyond the reach of the foreign court. PT United Can Co., 138 F.3d at 75; Potomac Capital Inv. Corp. v. Koninklijke Luchtvaapt Maatschapplj N.V., No. 97 Civ. 8141, 1998 WL 92416, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 1998); Pyrenee, Ltd. v. Wocom Commodities, Ltd., 984 F. Supp. 1148 (N.D. Ill. 1997);.but cf. Slight v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 979 F. Supp. 433 (S.D. W.Va. 1997) (Section 1782 would provide access to needed documents but was costly).
        7. Need to translate documents: Having documents and testimony in a foreign language “militates strongly in favor of [the foreign forum].” Blanco, 997 F.2d at 982. But see Ingram Micro, Inc. v. Airoute Cargo Express, Inc., No. 99 Civ. 12480, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2912, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2001) (finding that the need for translation of documents alone is not a hardship of sufficient magnitude to justify dismissal).
        8. Pretrial Discovery: At least one appellate court has held that the fact that pretrial discovery had been completed in the U.S. did not “tip[] the balance towards an American forum” rather than France. Alfadda v. Fenn, 159 F.3d 41, 48 (2d Cir. 1998).
      5. Conditional dismissals: “[F]orum non conveniens dismissals are often appropriately conditioned to protect the party opposing dismissal.” Blanco, 997 F.2d at 984. However, “[c]onditions cannot transform an inadequate forum into an adequate one.” BCCI, 273 F.3d at 248.
        1. Conditions imposed:
          • Waiver of statute of limitations defense. See, e.g., Transunion, 811 F.2d at 128; In re Union Carbide Corp. Gas Plant Disaster in Bhopal, India, 809 F.2d 195 (2d Cir. 1987); Blanco, 997 F.2d at 984 (collecting cases); see Ilusorio v. Ilusorio-Bildner, 103 F. Supp. 2d 672, 675 n.4 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
          • Party’s consent to jurisdiction. See, e.g., R. Maganlal & Co. v. M.G. Chem. Co., 942 F.2d 164 (2d Cir. 1991); Mercier v. Sheraton Int’l, Inc., 981 F.2d 1345, 1349 (1st Cir. 1992); see also Ilusorio v. Ilusorio-Bildner, 103 F. Supp. 2d 672 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
          • Party’s agreement to provide witnesses or documents. Piper, 454 U.S. at 257 n.25 (condones possibility of conditioning a forum non conveniens dismissal on proponent’s agreement to provide records); Union Carbide, 809 F.2d at 205 (collecting cases); but see Hyland, 807 F. Supp. at 1132 (concerned about routinely granting this condition).
          • Delay: A U.S. court may condition dismissal on the foreign court’s actions to avoid significant delay. In one case, a U.S. appellate court declared, “[a]ccordingly, the district court, if it decides to dismiss, should condition dismissal on the Banking Court’s accepting jurisdiction over this case. In specifying this condition, we do not mean to impose any requirement on the Banking Court, a step that would be beyond our authority. We are simply requiring the district court to permit BCCI Overseas to restore this case to the district court’s docket in the event that the Banking Court determines it lacks jurisdiction.” BCCI, 273 F.3d at 247.
        2. Conditions rejected:
          • Waiver of cost bond. Mercier, 981 F.2d at 1353.
          • Monitor for due process violations. Union Carbide, 809 F.2d at 204-05.
          • Conditional fees and fee-shifting rules. See Gross v. BBC, 386 F.3d 224, 235 (2d Cir. 2004).
  2. Staying Or Dismissing U.S. Proceedings In Favor Of Parallel Foreign Proceedings
    1. International abstention: Federal courts have the power, as indicated in Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., to dismiss or remand cases based on abstention principles “only where the relief being sought is equitable or otherwise discretionary.” 517 U.S. 706, 731 (1996). Although there is some uncertainty as to whether Quackenbush applies in cases involving parallel foreign litigation (see Posner v. Essex Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 1209 (11th Cir. 1999) (Quackenbush inapplicable in cases involving concurrent international litigation)), some post-Quackenbush courts have held that they have the inherent power to dismiss an action based on the pendency of a related proceeding in a foreign jurisdiction without specifically seeking to distinguish Quackenbush. See, e.g., Evergreen Marine Corp. v. Welgrow Int’l, 954 F. Supp. 101 (S.D.N.Y. 1997); but see Abdullah Sayid Rajab Al-Rifai & Sons W.L.L. v. McDonnell Douglas For. Sales Corp., 988 F. Supp. 1285 (E.D. Mo. 1997) (holding that Quackenbush precludes an outright dismissal, but not a stay, in favor of parallel foreign litigation).
    2. Factors courts analyze to determine whether to dismiss or grant a stay on international abstention grounds:
      1. Similarity of parties and issues: “[T]he parties and claims need not be identical in order for one action to be stayed or dismissed in deference to an earlier action.” Goldhammer v. Dunkin’ Donuts, Inc., 59 F. Supp. 2d 248, 253 (D. Mass. 1999); see also Caspian Inv., Ltd. v. Vicom Holdings, Ltd., 770 F. Supp. 880 (S.D.N.Y. 1991); Dragon Capital Partners L.P. v. Merrill Lynch Capital Servs., Inc., 949 F. Supp. 1123 (S.D.N.Y. 1997); Continental Time Corp. v. Swiss Credit Bank, 543 F. Supp. 408 (S.D.N.Y. 1982);
      2. Judicial efficiency;
      3. Adequacy of available relief;
      4. Fairness to and convenience of witnesses;
      5. Prejudice to parties; and
      6. Temporal sequence. Evergreen, 954 F. Supp. at 103; Abdullah, 988 F. Supp. at 1289; Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Kozeny, 115 F. Supp. 2d 1243, 1249 (D. Colo. 2000).
    3. Conditional Stays: Courts may have conditions for granting abstention motions. See, e.g., Evergreen, 954 F. Supp. at 105.
    4. Contrast to forum non conveniens: International abstention can be invoked only where there is a parallel foreign proceeding while forum non conveniens does not require a parallel foreign proceeding.
      1. Practical difference: Courts generally analyze the two doctrines together with the exception of the sequence of the filing of the actions. See, e.g., Am. Cyanamid Co. v. Picaso-Anstalt, 741 F. Supp. 1150 (D.N.J. 1990).
      2. Filing sequence: One factor relevant to a motion for a stay on international abstention grounds has no explicit role in the forum non conveniens analysis: the sequence of the filing of the actions, though some courts have not attached much significance to the argument that the U.S. action should be stayed because the foreign action was filed earlier. See, e.g., American Cyanamid, 741 F. Supp. at 1159.
  3. Anti-Suit Injunctions
    1. Basic principles: An anti-suit injunction enjoins a person subject to the court’s jurisdiction from prosecuting a foreign suit. See, e.g., Kaepa, Inc. v. Achilles Corp., 76 F.3d 624 (5th Cir. 1996). Failure to comply can subject the defendant to contempt of court.
    2. Requirements: No anti-suit injunction will be issued unless the court has jurisdiction, the parties are the same, and resolving the case before the court asked to issue the injunction will be dispositive of the action to be enjoined. See Hyundai Mipo Dockyard Co. v. AEP/Borden Indus. (In re Rationis Enters., Inc. of Panama), 261 F.3d 264 (2d Cir. 2001); China Trade & Dev. Corp. v. M.V. Choong Yong, 837 F.2d 33 (2d Cir. 1987).
    3. See Chapter 10. Anti-Suit Injunctions: Enjoining Non-U.S. Court Proceedings in U.S. Courts, and  Chapter 11, Anti-Suit Injunctions: Enjoining U.S. Court Proceedings in Non-U.S. Courts, for more information.

< Previous Section