Tag Archives: Recognition and Enforcement

Case of the Day: Symons International Group v. Continental Casualty

The case of the day is Symons International Group, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co. (S.D. Ind. 2015). Continental Casualty, the third party plaintiff, won a $34.2 million judgment against the third party defendant, Robert Symons, the successor in interest (maybe the heir, or executor—the decision doesn’t make it clear) of G. Gordon Symons. Symons resided in Canada, and it appears that G. Gordon Symons lived in Canada at the time of his death. Symons appealed, but he did not seek a stay or provide a supersedas bond, which means, in federal practice, that Continental was free to try to execute on the judgment pending the appeal. Continental sought discovery in aid of execution from Symons, but Symons did not respond. Meanwhile, Continental brought an action in Ontario, seeking recognition and enforcement of the US judgment, and it sought an order in Canada requiring the probate of G. Gordon Symons’s will. A Canadian court agreed, though Symons objected on the grounds that probate was premature. Symons moved for a protective order in Indiana on the grounds that “it is improper for [Continental] to simultaneously attempt to enforce its judgment in both the United States and Canada.”
Continue reading Case of the Day: Symons International Group v. Continental Casualty

Case of the Day: Core VCT plc v. Hensley

The case of the day is Core VCT plc v. Hensley (D.D.C. 2015). Core VCT and Core VCT IV plc, both of which were English public limited companies with their principal places of business in London, sued James Hensley in the High Court. They obtained a default judgment there, and they brought an action for recognition of the judgment in the District of Columbia. Hensley moved to dismiss for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal, and Core VCT objected.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Core VCT plc v. Hensley

Case of the Day: Folex Golf v. O-TA Precision Industries

The case of the day is Folex Golf Industries, Inc. v. O-TA Precision Industries Co. (9th Cir. 2015). Folex broght an action against O-TA in the Cenral District of California. O-TA argued that a Chinese default judgment against Folex, in an action against Folex brought by the Luoyang Ship Material Research Institute, would have collateral estoppel effect in California and would bar Folex’s California action. The district court agreed, recognized the Chinese judgment, and granted O-TA summary judgment. Folex appealed.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Folex Golf v. O-TA Precision Industries