Tag Archives: Hague Service Convention

Water Splash v. Menon: The Question Presented Calls For Caution

In Water Splash v. Menon, the Supreme Court will resolve the longstanding circuit split about whether Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention allows service of process by mail. As I noted in my post on Multisports USA v. TheHut.com, there’s a difficulty in the way the question on cert. has been presented. The question, as it appears in the petition, is: “Does the Hague Service Convention authorize service of process by mail?” The key word, the problematic word, is “authorize.” The question presented in the case is whether Article 10(a) has anything at all to do with service of process by mail or whether it only applies to service of documents other than the summons or other process. But the word “authorized” raises an entirely different question, on which there is also a (possible) circuit split but which is not part of the case before the court.
Continue reading Water Splash v. Menon: The Question Presented Calls For Caution

Case of the Day: Multisports USA v. TheHut.com

Scrooge's Third Visitor
Letters Blogatory wishes its readers a merry Christmas! Credit: Soerfm

The case of the day is Multisports USA v. The Hut.com Ltd. (S.D. Fla. 2016). Multisports sued TheHut.com Ltd., a UK company, for tortious interference in business relationships. The claim was that The Hut.com had tortiously interfered in Multisports’ relationship with Compressport, for which it acted as exclusive US distributor of sports merchandise. Multisports attempted to serve process on TheHut.com by mail, apparently sent by Multisports or its lawyers rather than by the clerk. TheHut.com moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process.
Continue reading Case of the Day: Multisports USA v. TheHut.com

Case of the Day: SEC v. Dubovoy

The case of the day is Securities & Exchange Commission v. Dubovoy (D.N.J. 2016). The SEC sued Nikolai Slepenkov and Maxim Zakharchenko, both Russian nationals, alleging violations of § 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and §§ 10(b), 20(b), and 20(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The claim was that Ukrainian hackers hacked into wire service computers and stole not-yet-public press releases, which they passed to traders such as Slepenkov and Zakharchenko, who then traded illegally on the information. The traders, including Slepenkov and Zakharchenko, allegedly made $100 million in profit over the life of the scheme. The SEC sought leave to serve process on the two by email.
Continue reading Case of the Day: SEC v. Dubovoy