The case of the day is Continental Transfert Technique Ltd. v. Federal Government of Nigeria (D.C. Cir. 2015). I last wrote about the case in August 2011. In 1999, Continental, a Nigerian corporation, made a contract withNigeria’s Ministry of the Interior to create a computerized residence permit and alien card sstem. After disputes about the contract arose, Continental initiated an arbitration in London, pursuant to the contract. The arbitrators entered an award in favor of Continental in 2008 for ₦ 29.6 billion. Continental sought recognition and enforcement of the award in Washington. Here was my earlier summary of what happened next.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Continental Transfert Technique v. Nigeria
The case of the day is Hyundai Securities Co. v. Lee (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). Lee was the CEO of Hyundai Securities from 1996 to 2000. Several Hyundai shareholders brought a shareholder derivative action against Lee in the Seoul Southern District Court, claiming that Lee was guilty of securities fraud. Lee appeared and defended. The Korean court entered judgment in favor of Hyundai for approximately $24 million plus interest at 20%. A portion of the damages were for a criminal fine Hyundai paid in Korea on account of Lee’s acts. Lee appealed to the Seoul Court of Appeals and then to the Korean Supreme Court. Both appellate courts dismissed the appeals. The dismissals were based on the merits. Hyundai then sought recognition of the judgment in the Los Angeles Superior Court. The court entered judgment in favor of Hyundai in a summary proceeding, but the Court of Appeal reversed on the grounds that Hyundai could not proceed by way of a petition but had to seek summary judgment. I covered this aspect of the case in April 2013. On remand, Hyundai moved for summary judgment. Lee argued that the court could not recognize the portion of the judgment attributable to the criminal fine, or the 20% interest rate. The court entered judgment in favor of Hyundai, and Lee appealed.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Hyundai Securities v. Lee
The case of the day is Assoun v. Assoun (S.D.N.Y. 2015). The parties, Yan Assoun and Anais Assoun, were former spouses who lived in England after their divorce. Anais petitioned the High Court in London to increase the amount of child support and spousal support Yan was required to pay. The court granted the petition and ordered Yan to pay $380,000 per year in spousal support, $25,000 per child per year in child support, retroactive child and spousal support, and £ 234,622 in attorney’s fees. Yan believed that Anais had misstated her own finances, either fraudulently or negligently, in the English court. After Anais registered the English judgment with the New York Family Court, Yan asked the Family Court to vacate the registration. He also brought an action for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation in the New York Supreme Court. Anais removed the action to the federal court and moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Assoun v. Assoun