https://lettersblogatory.com/2022/11/07/case-of-the-day-palladian-partners-v-province-of-buenos-aires/ The Blog of International Judicial Assistance Sun, 10 Nov 2024 16:26:29 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4 https://lettersblogatory.com/2022/11/07/case-of-the-day-palladian-partners-v-province-of-buenos-aires/#comment-3673 Tue, 08 Nov 2022 00:16:34 +0000 https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=31320#comment-3673 Thanks Bill! I agree that “subject of the action” refers to the subject of the recognition action, not the subject of the underlying action. But why would we think that the property you hope to seize is the subject of a judgment recognition action? You might just as well say that in any damages case, the damages the plaintiff hopes to get are the subject of the action. I think that as a matter of good policy that you should be able to seek recognition of an award or judgment wherever the losing party has reachable assets, but I am not sure that the venue statute as written lets us accommodate that.

]]> https://lettersblogatory.com/2022/11/07/case-of-the-day-palladian-partners-v-province-of-buenos-aires/#comment-3672 Mon, 07 Nov 2022 21:03:37 +0000 https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=31320#comment-3672 Ted, this is a fascinating case. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. I agree with the interpretation of contractual venue provision. I disagree with the interpretation of 1391(f). It seems to me that “subject of the action” refers to the action to enforce the award, not the original action. That is particularly true in light of Mobil Cerro Negro’s holding that the FSIA requires a separate plenary action to enforce an investor-state award. I have discussed this question and others relating to the enforcement of investor-state awards in a contribution to a festschrift for George Bermann available here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3855640.

]]>