The case of the day is NEP Canada ULC v. MEC OP Transaction I ULC (Ohio Comm. Pl. 2022). With a name like this, you know a lot of money…
Baumgartner and Whytock have published an interesting new paper questioning the need for systemic inadequacy as a basis for judgment nonrecognition.
Does the UEFJA allow parallel recognition and enforcement proceedings?
A recent Chinese case on reciprocity in judgment recognition looks at de jure recirprocity, not de facto reciprocity.
Credit: GabboT (CC BY-SA) The case of the day is Depp v. Heard (Va. Cir. Ct. 2021). Yes, that Depp and that Heard. After the Sun published a column calling…
The case of the day is Lathigee v. British Columbia Securities Commission (Nev. 2020). The British Columbia securities regulator brought an administrative proceeding in British Columbia for securities fraud against Michael Lathigee. The proceeding resulted in a judgment that he had raised millions of dollars from investors without making necessary disclosures. The regulator ordered disgorgement of “the ill-gotten $21.7 million” to the Commission, which had rules allowing the defrauded investors to make claims and then recover from the disgorged funds. The decision also imposed a $15 million penalty. The Commission registered the decision with the BC Supreme Court, which had the effect, under BC law, of making the decision an enforceable judgment. Lethigee then moved to Nevada, and the Commission brought an action for recognition and enforcement of the disgorgement portion of the judgment (not the penalty portion). Lathigee resisted recognition on the grounds that even the disgorgement portion was a penalty. (more…)
The case of the day is Strategic Technologies Pte Ltd. v. Procurement Bureau of the Republic of China Ministry of National Defense,  EWCA Civ. 1604. Strategic Technologies had a contract to supply goods to the Taiwanese government. The contract had an arbitration clause requiring arbitration in Taipei and was governed by Taiwan law. A dispute arose, and Strategic Technologies brought a lawsuit in Singapore. The government sought a stay pending arbitration, which the court granted, but then the government failed to arbitrate. As a result, the stay was lifted and the case went to a default judgment in 2002 (the lower court had held that by participating even to the limited extent of seeking a stay, the Taiwanese government had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Singaporean court). (more…)
The case of the day is Clay v. Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc. (W.D. Wash. 2020). Clay was in Phuket, Thailand, for a business conference. When he was strode on the stage during his presentation, he tripped and fell, suffering a serious injury. He sued the company that owned the hotel and the company that managed it for negligence in a Thai court. The case went to trial, but Clay didn’t attend, because his doctors had not yet cleared him for international travel. The Thai court refused to continue the trial as Clay had asked. Clay presented his evidence in writing only. The defendants did present witnesses, but Clay’s lawyers did not cross-examine them or present any witnesses of their own. The court held that Clay had failed to put on evidence to prove negligence and therefore entered a judgment in favor of the defendants. Clay then brought an action against Hilton in Washington. Hilton moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Thai judgment was entitled to claim-preclusive and issue-preclusive effect. (more…)
The case of the day is Vischer AG v. Apollo Enterprise Solutions, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App. 2019). Vischler, a Swiss firm, had obtained a judgment for $160,000 for breach of contract against Apollo in the Commercial Court in Zurich. Vischer sought recognition in California and asserted that the Swiss judgment entitled it to damages in the judgment amount, interest, attorney’s fees, and costs. The parties settled the case for $90,000. The settlement agreement stated that nothing in the settlement precluded either party from filing a motion for attorney’s fees. Visccher did bring a motion for fees, and Apollo opposed the motion and argued that it should receive an award of fees. The Superior Court denied both motions, and Vischer appealed. Apollo cross-appealed, too, arguing that the lower court’s decision was correct but that if either party should be entitled to fees as the prevailing party, it was Apollo, not Vischer. (more…)
The case of the day is DeJoria v. Maghreb Petroleum Exploration S.A. (5th Cir. 2019). I covered a prior Fifth Circuit decision back in 2015, and an even earlier district court decision in 2014. John Paul DeJoria,the billionaire behind the Paul Mitchell hair care line, went into the oil exploration business, hoping to discover reserves in Morocco. The Moroccan government supported the project. But when his venture failed to find the hoped-for reserves, he had to flee the company. Eventually he was sued by the new management of the venture, Maghreb Petroleum Exploration, sued DeJoria in Morocco and obtained a judgment for more than $100 million. Maghreb came to Texas to seek recognition and enforcement. (more…)