The case of the day is GMI, LLC v. Asociación del Fútbol Argentino (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016). GMI had an agreement with the AFA, the sport’s governing body in Argentina, for the exclusive right to market and sell AFA’s football marketing rights for a twenty-year term. The agreement provided that AFA would not make any payments to GMI, but rather, that AFA would reach an agreement with the prospective buyer for GMI’s compensation. GMI arranged for the Republic of Argentina to purchase the rights. But according to GMI, Argentina and AFA then muscled GMI out of the deal, completing the purchase and sale but not paying GMI anything. GMI sued AFA in the Florida court for breach of contract. AFA moved to dismiss on the grounds that the Republic of Argentina was an indispensable party that could not be joined. The court granted the motion, and GMI appealed.
Continue reading Case of the Day: GMI v. Asociación del Fútbol Argentino
Tag Archives: Argentina
Case of the Day: Rote v. Zel Custom Manufacturing
The case of the day is Rote v. Zel Custom Manufacturing LLC (6th Cir. 2016). Troy Rote was a guest at the home of Gary and Judith Buyer, in Ohio. One of the other guests, Edward Grimm, brought a rifle and some ammunition with him. Grimm invited others to fire the rifle. When Rote loaded the rifle, but before the bolt was closed, the round exploded, injuring his hand. He brought a product liability action against Fabrica Militar Fray Luis Beltran, which is also known as Dirección General Fabricaciones Militares, or DGFM. He claimed that DGFM had manufactured the ammunition.
DGFM moved to dismiss on the grounds that it was an instrumentality of the Republic of Argentina and was immune from suit under the FSIA. The district court denied the motion to dismiss on the grounds that the commercial activity exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2), applied. DGFM appealed.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Rote v. Zel Custom Manufacturing
Case of the Day: Malleiro v. Mori
The case of the day is Malleiro v. Mori (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015). Eleno Isleno was an Argentine national who died in Florida at the age of 79. She held property in both Argentina and the United States at the time of her death. About five years before her death, she made a will in New York that everyone agreed satisfied the necessary formalities for a will under Florida law. The devisees under the New York will were her nieces, other relatives, and friends. A few months later, she made a will in Argentina. As you would expect, the formalities of making a will are quite different in a common law jurisdiction than they are in a civil law jurisdiction. In New York, she signed the will in the presence of attesting witnesses. In Argentina, Iselno orally expressed her testamentary wishes to a notary, in the presence of witnesses, who wrote them in a document and read them to her. She then orally approved the document in the presence of witnesses, and the notary signed and stamped the document. Iselno, however, did not sign. The Argentine will, which was admitted to probate in Argentina, purported to revoke all prior wills. The beneficiaries were Iselno’s nephew and other relatives and friends. None of the devisees under the Argentine will were devisees under the New York will, and vice versa.
The devisees under the New York will and the devisees under the Argentine will filed competing petitions in the Florida probate court. The court admitted the Argentine will to probate, and the New York devisees appealed.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Malleiro v. Mori