Category Archives: Recognition and Enforcement

Case of the Day: Resorts World v. Chan

The case of the day is Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd. v. Chan (D. Hawaii 2016). Resorts World sued Chan in the Singapore High Court on a debt. The Singaporean court entered judgment for Resorts World for $882,644. Resorts World brought an action for recognition and enforcement in Hawaii. Chan moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process. She also asserted that the Singapore judgment was void because she had not properly been served with process in that proceeding, and that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Resorts World v. Chan

Paper of the Day: Oluwaseun Ajayi on Recognition of Foreign Country Money Judgments Connected to Criminal Proceedings

Readers, you may be interested in a new paper by practitioner Oluwaseun Ajayi on the recognition of foreign money judgments that are connected with criminal proceedings. It was published in the February 2016 edition of the Banking Law Journal. Unfortunately, the publisher, LexisNexis A.S. Pratt, refused the author’s request for reprint permission, so I cannot provide a link to a copy of the paper here. Tsk, tsk, LexisNexis A.S. Pratt.
Continue reading Paper of the Day: Oluwaseun Ajayi on Recognition of Foreign Country Money Judgments Connected to Criminal Proceedings

Case of the Day: Albaniabeg Ambient v. Enel

The case of the day is Albaniabeg Ambient Sh.p.k. v. Enel S.p.A. (S.D.N.Y. 2016). BEG S.p.A., an Italian company, contracted with the government of Albania to build and operate a hydroelectric plant. BEG also had a contract with Enel S.p.A., another Italian firm, to study the feasibility of the project. Later, BEG had a similar contract with Enelpower S.p.A., an Enel subsidiary. The Enelpower contract had an agreement to arbitrate.

A dispute arose. BEG commenced an arbitration against Enelpower for breach of contract. The tribunal, seated in Rome, found that Enelpower was not liable to BEG. The Italian courts refused to vacate the award despite a claim that one of the arbitrators had a conflict of interest.

Later, Albaniabeg, a subsidiary of BEG, brought an action against Enel and Enelpower in the Albanian court. The claims were tort claims arising out of the hydroelectric project. The Albanian court entered a judgment for more than € 25 million against Enel and Enelpower, which was affirmed on appeal. The European Court of Human Rights rejected Enel and Enelpower’s challenge to the judgment.

Albaniabeg brought an action in the New York Supreme Court for recognition of the Albanian judgment. Continue reading Case of the Day: Albaniabeg Ambient v. Enel