Case of the Day: Graphic Styles v. Men’s Wear Creations

The case of the day is Graphic Styles/Styles International, LLC v. Men’s Wear Creations (E.D. Pa. 2015). Graphic Styles brought a copyright infringement action against Men’s Wear Creations, a Hong Kong company. It sought to serve Men’s Wear several times by “international certified mail” (in reality, registered mail, not certified mail) at the Hong Kong address given on the company’s website, but in each case the return receipt “was not signed, but was stamped with a stamp bearing both Defendants’ names and the business address.” Graphic Styles therefore sought leave under FRCP 4(f)(3) to serve process by email and Facebook. It asserted that those means of service were permissible under Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention.
(more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: Graphic Styles v. Men’s Wear Creations

Case of the Day: In re Petition of Macquarie Bank

The case of the day is In re Petition for Judicial Assistance of Macquarie Bank, Ltd. (D. Nev. 2015). Macquarie, an Australian bank, had lent $11 million to Juno Holdings, B.V., a Netherlands Antilles company, in anticipation of an IPO by Juno’s indirect subsidiary, Liberty Financial Pty Ltd. Juno did not repay the loan, and Macquaries sued in a Netherlands Antilles court and obtained a judgment. Macquarie sought to collect by seeking to attach Juno’s shares in one of its other subsidiaries, Jupiter Holdings, B.V., a Dutch company. The idea was that Juno owned shares in Minerva Financila Group Pty Ltd., which in turn was the ultimate own er of Liberty Financial. For the purpose of collection, Macquarie brought an action in the Netherlands. In aid of discovery in that case, Macquarie sought discovery in the U.S. from Sherman Ching Ma, who it alleged was director of Juno, Jupiter, Liberty, and Minerva.
(more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: In re Petition of Macquarie Bank

Thank you, readers!

ABA 2015 Blawg 100

Readers, thanks to those of you who were kind enough to nominate me for the 2015 ABA Journal Blawg 100, the ABA’s listing of the 100 best legal blogs of the year. I’m happy to say that the ABA has put me on the list for the third time in the last four years. There are a lot of good blogs on the list, and I’m grateful to be included in their company.
(more…)

Continue ReadingThank you, readers!

Case of the Day: Ezeiruaku v. Bull

The case of the day is Ezeiruaku v. Bull (3d Cir. 2015). Vincent Ezeiruaku, an American citizen, was detained by two officers of the Metropolitan Police, Dan Bull and David March, while traveling through Heathrow Airport. The officers seized $80,000 he had in his possession, and the UK government held the currency for fourteen months before eventually returning it without interest. Ezeiruaku sued Bull, March, and the London police in New Jersey, alleging “violations of his constitutional right to due process, and his property rights, in connection with the seizure of his funds.”
(more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: Ezeiruaku v. Bull

A Comparative Look At The New Hague Principles on Choice of Law & the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws: Last Post

This is the third and last in a series of posts comparing the new Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts and the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws. Before digging in, I want to give you the analysis of the two texts by my co-author, Jonathan Levin. His lengthy and detailed table was the genesis of the whole project, so I recommend it to you.
(more…)

Continue ReadingA Comparative Look At The New Hague Principles on Choice of Law & the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws: Last Post

Case of the Day: SEC v. Kumar

The case of the day is Securities and Exchange Commission v. Kumar (N.D. Cal. 2015). The complaint alleged that Vinay Kumar Nevatia, who lived in Palo Alto between 2004 and 2013, solicited investments in shares of CSS Corp. Technologies (Mauritius) Ltd., even though he was not registered with the SEC. Kumar formed a company called VRSBS Investment, LLC, to hold the shares of CSS that he and his investors purchased. Each investor received a stock certificate, presumably registered to VRSBS Investment, if I understand the situation correctly, for his or her portion of the total investment. However, according to the SEC, Kumar later made an agreement to sell half VRSBS’s CSS shares to a venture capital firm. The proceeds of the sale were deposited in his personal bank account rather than in VRSBS’s account. When the venture capitalists requested stock certificates, according to the SEC, Kumar “falsely claimed that new certificates needed to be issued because all his CSS shares were held on a single certificate, which covered a greater number of shares then the [VCs] had purchased.” Kumar tried to get certificates, but CSS’s transfer agent told him he needed to return the original certificates for cancelation. Kumar, again according to the SEC, “falsely told the transfer agent … that all of the original stock certificates issued to VRSBS had been lost,” when in fact the investors were holding the certificates. After Kumar agreed to indemnify the transfer agent, the transfer agent issued the new certificates. Kumar, according to the SEC, never told his original investors about the sale or the proceeds of the sale. Yikes!
(more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: SEC v. Kumar

Case of the Day: In re Vivaro Corp.

The case of the day is In re Vivaro Corp. (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2015). Vivaro Corp. filed a Chapter 11 petition in the bankruptcy court in 2012. Breezecom FZC and several other parties filed claims in the bankruptcy case, and Vivaro objected to the claims.

There is a split in authority on how objections to claims are to be served on the claimants. Some courts apply FRBP 3007, under which the objection is to be served on the claimant by mail at least 30 days before the hearing on the objection. Other courts apply FRBP 7004, which incorporates FRCP 4. The Vivaro court, for reasons that I won’t get into, decided in today’s case that FRBP 3007 applies in such instances. The interesting point is that the court seemed to think that because FRBP 3007 applied, service by mail was always permissible, while if FRBP 7004 and thus FRCP had applied, then it might be necessary to comply with the Hague Service Convention in case of a foreign claimant.
(more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: In re Vivaro Corp.

Case of the Day: DeJoria v. Maghreb Petroleum Exploration

The case of the day is DeJoria v. Maghreb Petroleum Exploration, S.A. (5th Cir. 2015). This is the appeal of the case of the day from September 4, 2014. I won’t repeat the facts from the prior post: the question in the case was whether a Moroccan judgment should be recognized, and in particular whether Morocco provides impartial tribunals and procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law.
(more…)

Continue ReadingCase of the Day: DeJoria v. Maghreb Petroleum Exploration