It very much counting chickens before the eggs are hatched–even more like counting chickens before there are chickens to lay eggs. But I am operating under the notion that if Japan would not enforce that hypothetical judgment, the US federal court system would allow me to stand as judgment creditor whenever IBM Japan were a creditor in the States. (Similarly, if IBM has receivables or property in the US.)

With any big multinational, there must be times when the affiliate abroad is in a creditor position with respect to the parent.

This afternoon, the district court judge ordered a reconsideration on one point that I lost in the opinion, so I obviously have to focus my energies on that, and on the second amended complaint for the issues where I prevailed. Thank you for your interest in the topic of course.

Mr. Gundlach, since your case is ongoing feel free not to answer, but I’m curious about your views as to the enforceability of an eventual judgment against IBM Japan Ltd. in Japan. Do you have reason to believe that the judgment would be recognized and enforced in Japan? I am always on the lookout for reports from the field, as it were. Thanks!

Thanks for the comment! I’m sorry—I didn’t catch the reference to your status as a lawyer.

Mr. Folkman, I am a lawyer who is inactive in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey. (Judge Seibel acknowledges this on the top of page 7, which was not exactly beneficial to me, since I lost certain pro se protections.) Comments by me on my website, of course, are not meant to be, and should not be taken as legal advice.

The entry you refer to discusses the situation where the local court clerk’s own rules mean that his/her office will not accept papers for service to the defendant abroad. As is so typical of things with Japan, very simple matters are made convoluted when Japan wants to write in exceptions to its end of the bargain.