Ted Folkman is a shareholder with Murphy & King, a Boston law firm, where he has a complex business litigation practice. He is the author of International Judicial Assistance (MCLE 2d ed. 2016), a nuts-and-bolts guide to international judicial assistance issues, and of the chapter on service of process in the ABA's forthcoming treatise on International Aspects of US Litigation, and he is the publisher of Letters Blogatory, the Web's first blog devoted to international judicial assistance, which the ABA recognized as one of the best 100 legal blogs in 2012 and 2014 - 2016.
View all posts by Ted Folkman →
The case of the day is Hajdinyak v. O’Connell (Mass. App. Div. 2106). Lisa-Marie O’Connell and her family went on a vacation in Aruba. On the beach, she saw a dog, Coco, who was “dehydrated and in distress.” She cared for the dog and took it to the veterinarian, who told her that the dog was not microchipped and could not be identified. She took Coco home with her. Later, Cornelia Hajdinyak and Howard Tromp, who lived in Aruba, claimed that the dog, named Whitey, belonged to them. But O’Connell refused to return the dog, so Hajdinyak and Tromp brought a replevin action. Continue reading Case of the Day: Hajdinyak v. O’Connell→
The case of the day is Hardy Exploration & Production (India), Inc. v. Government of India (D.D.C. 2016). Hardy was a participant, initially with other private firms and later on its own, then in the end with an Indian state-owned company, GAIL (India) Ltd., in a contract with the government of India for the development and production of hydrocarbons in an area off India’s southeastern coast. After Hardy and GAIL found hydrocarbons in 2006, a dispute arose as to whether the find was natural gas (as the government thought) or oil (as Hardy and GAIL thought). If the find was oil, then Hardy, for reasons unimportant here, would have forfeited its interest under the contract. Hardy demanded arbitration in Kuala Lumpur, as per the parties’ arbitration agreement. The tribunal found that Hardy’s position was correct, ordered a restoration of the status quo ante, and awarded damages of 5 billion rupees (about $74 million). India sought to vacate the award in the Indian courts (not the Malaysian courts), but its petition was dismissed. Hardy filed a petition to enforce the award in India, and then sought confirmation in Washington. India’s defense was that service of process (by FedEx) was defective under the FSIA. Hardy countered that the contract contained a special arrangement for service of process, and that service was therefore proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(1). Continue reading Case of the Day: Hardy Exploration v. Government of India→
Readers, thank you for giving me your views on whether political posts should be kept separate from the main fare here at Letters Blogatory. The majority of readers said they liked the political coverage and had no problem with mixing it with more straightforward legal posts, but a few readers said they would prefer for the two to be separated. In order to try to satisfy everyone, I’ve launched a separate website, Blogatory | Politics, for my political posts. I’ve copied all of my posts on President-elect Trump to the new site (though comments, unfortunately, can’t be copied), and in the future, new posts will appear only on the new site. I will shortly have a way at the new site to subscribe by email, but for now, please check back frequently for new articles, either at the new site itself or at the bottom of this page, where the titles of the three most recent posts will be displayed.