Archives

Case of the Day: United States ex rel. UXB International v. 77 Insaat & Taahut A.S.

The case of the day is United States ex rel. UXB International, Inc. v. 77 Insaat & Taahut A.S. (W.D. Va. 2015). UXB brought a qui tam action on behalf of the United States against 77 Construction Co., an Afghan corporation, and 77 Group Co., an Iraqi corporation. UXB sought leave to serve process on both defendants by email via the Afghan company’s US lawyer.
Continue reading Case of the Day: United States ex rel. UXB International v. 77 Insaat & Taahut A.S.

Case of the Day: Flame S.A. v. Industrial Carriers, Inc.

The case of the day is Flame S.A. v. Industrial Carriers, Inc. (E.D. Va. 2014). This is the same case I wrote about on August 8, 2014. In the prior post, the issue was recognition of an English judgment Flame, a Swiss shipping and trading company, had obtained against Industrial Carriers for breach of a forward freight contract. In today’s post, the issue was whether another of the plaintiffs, Glory Wealth Shipping PTE Ltd., was entitled to maintain a maritime attachment of the M/V Cape Viewer on account of a default judgment from the Southern District of New York recognizing an English arbitral award Glory Wealth had obtained against Industrial Carriers. But the challenge to the attachment was not brought by Industrial Carriers, but by Freight Bulk PTE Ltd., which was not a party to the New York case and, it appears, not even a party to the underlying arbitration.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Flame S.A. v. Industrial Carriers, Inc.

Case of the Day: WhosHere, Inc. v. Örün

The case of the day is WhosHere, Inc. v. Örün (E.D. Va. 2014), involves service by email and by Facebook and LinkedIn in Turkey.
Continue reading Case of the Day: WhosHere, Inc. v. Örün