A recent Chinese case on reciprocity in judgment recognition looks at de jure recirprocity, not de facto reciprocity.
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 Sharp Corp. v. Hisense USA Corp. (D.D.C. 2017). Sharp, a Japanese electronics company, entered into a trademark license agreement with Hisense, a Chinese manufacturer. The agreement had an agreement to arbitrate disputes in Singapore under the SIAC rules. Sharp terminated the agreement, arguing that Hisense had failed to perform. Hisense demanded arbitration, and it sought emergency relief. The tribunal entered an interim award enjoining Sharp from terminating the agreement and requiring it to continue to perform pending the outcome of the arbitration. The interim award also enjoined Sharp to:
refrain from, directly or indirectly through its affiliates, disparaging [Hisense] and/or disrupting its business, including by making public statements or press releases about this arbitration and/or the dispute between [Hisense] and [Sharp], or approaching [Hisense’s] business associates and/or other third parties (including, but not limited to, [Hisense’s] customers, suppliers, content and service providers, and/or regulatory authorities, except as required by law), in respect of any matters that are to be addressed in arbitration under the [License Agreement].
Yikes! Sharp brought an action in Washington, seeking a declaration that the interim award is unenforceable in the United States because it is contrary to public policy, namely the policies embodied in the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Sharp also sought a preliminary injunction. Hisense moved to dismiss for want of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.
The case of the day is In re Accent Delight International (2d Cir. 2017). Accent Delight and Xitrans Finance Ltd. were BVI companies owned by Dmitry Rybolovlev’s family trusts. Rybolovlev was a Russian national who resided in Monaco. Yves Bouvier was a Swiss national who dealt in fine art through MEI Invest Ltd., a Hong Kong company he controlled. Bouvier brokered Rybolovlev’s purchase of $2 billion in artworks, including paintings by Picasso and van Gogh. In 2014, the New York Times reported that Sotheby’s had sold Leonardo da Vinci’s Christ as Salvator Mundi for $75 or $80 million in 2013, which was allegedly a surprise to Rybolovlev, who claimed he had purchased the painting through Bouvier the same month for $127.5 million!
The case of the day is Resorts World at Sentosa v. Chan (D. Hawai’i 2016). Michelle Mai Chan incurred a gambling debt at Resorts World Sentosa, a Singapore resort and casino. Resorts World sued her in the Singapore High Court and obtained a default judgment in the principal amount of S$1.16 million. Resorts World then sought recognition and enforcement in Hawai’i, and it moved for summary judgment.
The case of the day is Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd. v. Chan (D. Hawaii 2016). Resorts World sued Chan in the Singapore High Court on a debt. The Singaporean court entered judgment for Resorts World for $882,644. Resorts World brought an action for recognition and enforcement in Hawaii. Chan moved to dismiss for insufficient service of process. She also asserted that the Singapore judgment was void because she had not properly been served with process in that proceeding, and that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
The case of the day is Passport Special Opportunities Master Fund, L.P. v. Ary Communications, Ltd. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015). The action was for recognition and enforcement of a judgment of the Singapore High Court. Passport served process by registered mail. It sought an order deeming service effected, or in the alternative, an order permitting service by alternate means.
The case of the day is CE International Resources Holdings, LLC v. S.A. Minerals LP (S.D.N.Y. 2013). CEIR commenced an arbitration against S.A. Minerals and Tantalum Technology in 2012, alleging…
The case of the day is Klein v. United States (W.D.N.Y. 2011). David E. Klein sued the government to recover taxes he claimed had been wrongly assessed. The government counterclaimed…
The case of the day is Goel v. Ramachandran (S.D.N.Y. 2011). Vikas Goel, a resident of Dubai, was the founder of eSys Technologies Pte Ltd., a computer equipment distributor organized…