Comments on: Breaking News: Second Circuit Denies Chevron’s Motion For Relief

By: Ted Folkman

Ted Folkman — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:42:30 +0000

In reply to Max Kennerly. Thank you, Max, for the comment. I think that some of the judges who have heard argument on various aspects of the case have had the same reaction as you to the apparent equities of the case. You might be interested in this post, which addresses some of this.

By: Max Kennerly

Max Kennerly — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:16:36 +0000

IMHO, the comity issue is killing them, and they’re asking for way too much. By what right does a US court prevent a foreign plaintiff from enforcing a foreign judgment in a foreign country? What’s even the remedy if the plaintiff violates the injunction? Add in the fact that Chevron is operating through subsidies in each of those countries, and thus the “effects” in the US are muted, and Chevron is stuck arguing that SDNY is has jurisdiction over the whole world.

I also imagine there’s more than a little bit of equity at work here. The plaintiffs tried to sue in SDNY and Chevron successfully raised a fuss about jurisdiction and FNC. Having lost in their preferred jurisdiction, they’re back in SDNY claiming SDNY is now the right venue. “If you liked it then you should have put a ring on it.”

By: Second Circuits Denies Motion to Reconsider September Decision — Conflict of Laws .net

Fri, 20 Jan 2012 10:45:33 +0000

[…] short order is available here (but without reasons). See also this short post over at Letters Blogatory. (Possibly) […]