Corporate Counsel
  • Home
  • News
  • Surveys
  • Resources
  • Lawjobs
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Bookstore
  • Contact

Topics » IP Insider | Labor & Employment | From the Experts | On the Job | Moves | DC Watch | International

Home > The Now Even-Longer Reach of U.S. Law Over Foreign Corporations

Font Size: increase font decrease font

Previous

  • 1
  • 2

The Now Even-Longer Reach of U.S. Law Over Foreign Corporations

December 19, 2012

  •    
  •    
  •    
  •      
 

The court’s recitation of such “nationwide contacts” is remarkable, because factors such as these, indicating a general openness to U.S. customers without reference to any particular state forum, arguably have no place in state-specific jurisdictional analysis. As the Supreme Court recently stressed in Nicastro, “personal jurisdiction requires a forum-by-forum, or sovereign-by-sovereign, analysis.” A foreign litigant may have the “requisite relationship with the United States Government but not with the government of any individual State.” Accordingly, a foreign company’s general contacts with the U.S. are not sufficient to establish jurisdiction on the state level. Nevertheless, the court appears to have regarded Taishan Gypsum’s nationwide contacts as at least probative of the jurisdictional question.

The Eastern District of Louisiana concluded that all of Taishan Gypsum’s activities, taken together, were cumulatively sufficient to support the assertion of jurisdiction over Taishan Gypsum, despite Taishan Gypsum’s lack of “physical contacts with the forum.” In the words of the court, Taishan Gypsum had “purposefully directed its activities” at Virginia with the understanding that its drywall “would end up in and be used in Virginia.” For the court, this was sufficient to justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction, suggesting that a foreign company with no presence in the U.S. may nevertheless find itself subject to the judgment of a U.S. court simply by consenting to do business—and contemplating future business—with a U.S. company.

The implications of the court’s jurisdictional findings did not go unnoticed, least of all by counsel for Taishan Gypsum, who have appealed to the Fifth Circuit. Whether the Fifth Circuit will take this opportunity to curb the lower court’s expansive exercise of jurisdiction remains to be seen. However, the ruling is certainly not invulnerable. As the Eastern District of Louisiana itself has acknowledged, a “substantial ground exists for difference of opinion concerning the propriety” of the “exercise of personal jurisdiction over Taishan,” suggesting a recognition by the court that its assertion of jurisdiction approached, if it did not in fact overstep, the outer boundaries of the permissible.

Practical Application to Companies in the U.S. and Abroad

If the District Court’s decision stands, it could potentially affect companies (and, of course, their counsel) in a number of ways. First, consider the example of a manufacturer located in Japan, Taiwan, South America, or Europe, which has been very careful not to have a presence in the U.S. They don’t advertise there, or solicit U.S. customers. A U.S. citizen walks into their offices, unsolicited, and buys a few thousand bedspreads to be shipped back to the U.S. There’s a problem: The bedspreads haven’t been treated with flame retardant and catch fire. In the past, the customer would have great difficulty trying to sue this non-U.S. company in a U.S. court. But now? The situation is much blurrier.

Consider too, the U.S. manufacturer that incorporates foreign parts or products into its own products, but gets those products from a source that does not have a U.S. presence by going directly to the foreign source as an unsolicited customer. If that U.S. buyer is sued because of something that’s gone wrong with the foreign-sourced component part, the buyer wants to know that it can look to its foreign supplier for indemnity. This ruling potentially makes it easier to do that, by enlarging the types of contacts in the legal analysis.

Conclusion

The Eastern District of Louisiana’s assertion of jurisdiction over Taishan Gypsum is a compelling example of how the U.S. courts have stretched their territorial reach in tandem with the expansion of the global economy. For foreign-based businesses, the ultimate disposition of Taishan Gypsum’s appeal on the jurisdictional question will bear close watching. Taishan Gypsum does not appear to have actively sought out business in Virginia, but when a Virginia customer arrived at its doorstep, Taishan Gypsum did not turn that customer away. Instead, Taishan Gypsum negotiated with the customer in the customer’s language, tailored its product to meet the customer’s specifications, and assisted the customer with export logistics.

In short, Taishan Gypsum engaged in standard customer relations with a Virginia company and extended the most basic business courtesies. These unremarkable interactions, coupled with Taishan Gypsum’s expectation that its product would find its way to Virginia, may have been sufficient to place the Chinese company within the ambit of a U.S. court, half a world away.

Jay Mayesh is a partner in Kaye Scholer’s litigation group. He received his J.D. from Columbia University, where he is now an adjunct lecturer on forensic psychiatry. Mayesh has defended a broad range of clients at trial and has particular experience in evaluating contingent product liabilities arising out of corporate acquisitions and reorganizations. He also serves as national counsel to Knauf in the Chinese drywall litigation. M. Tomas Murphy is an associate in Kaye Scholer’s product liability and complex commercial litigation groups.

Previous

  • 1
  • 2


Subscribe to Corporate Counsel

You must be signed in to comment on an article

Find similar content

Firms mentioned

    
  • Kaye Scholer

Companies, agencies mentioned

    
  • company?Venture Supply
  • U.S. The District Court
  • Life Ins
  • companies?Taishan Gypsum Co.
  • Fifth Circuit
  • Federal Court Ruling That Shows
  • Taian Taishan Plasterboard Co.
  • United States Government
  • Venture Supply
  • Supreme Court
  • Columbia University

Key categories

    
  • Antitrust & Trade Regulation
  • Commercial Law
  • Corporate & Business Law
  • International Law
  • US Supreme Court

Most viewed stories

    
  1. Safeguarding Brand Reputation In Social Media
    •      
  2. What to Look for in a Board's Risk Director
    •      
  3. Patent Board's SAP Ruling is First Under New AIA Rules
    •      
  4. Are GCs More Than Just Legally Trained Executives?
    •      
  5. Another SEC Whistleblower, More On the Way
    •      
lawjobs.com

TOP JOBS

MORE JOBS

POST A JOB

From the Law.com Network

In-House Counsel Go to Privacy Boot Camp

In-House Changes at News Corp Ahead of Corporate Split

Proskauer, Former CFO Settle Bias Suit

Global Firms Cope With Istanbul Unrest

D.C. Circuit Nominations a Defining Moment

D.C. Circuit Nominees Widely Respected Within the Bar

Nine Tips to Avoid Starring in a Spreadsheet Horror Story

Snapshot: Tom Gelbmann

The Recorder 25: California Golden Again for Many Firms
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Capital Accounts: Judicial Branch's Brothers Don't See Eye to Eye
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Miami Photographer Sues Pop Star Justin Bieber
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Jeremy Alters Settles With Argentinian Firm For $1 Million
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Alcotest Should Be Discontinued Right Away, DWI Lawyers Say

Lawyer's Fudging of HUD Forms Draws Supreme Court Censure
  •      
    • Subscription Required

The Affordable State-Specific Practice Solution
Available in NY, NJ, PA and CT editions - research, draft and prepare even the most complex cases with ease.

Restaurant in Union Square Park Ruled Permissible
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Magistrate Judge Finds Few Benefits to Class in Settlement
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Third Circuit Could See Rise in Pay-for-Delay Litigation

Cozen Debt Forgiveness Is Campaign Contribution, Court Says
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Sorry, Charlie, Your Wife Won't Support You

Top Reasons to Take Your Husband's Name

Interim Dean Named at Texas Wesleyan University School of Law
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Water Works: H2O Kept Lawyer-Lobbyists Busy
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Fighting Over The Fifth
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Atlanta School Defendants Rely On New Jersey Officers' Case
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Chimp Attack Victim Is Denied $150M State Lawsuit

Auto Body Case May Lead To CUTPA Reassessment

  • About Corporate Counsel   |
  • Contact Corporate Counsel   |
  • Advertise with Us   |
  • Sitemap
  • About |
  • ALM Properties |
  • ALM Reprints |
  • Customer Support |
  • Privacy Policy (updated 6/14/13) |
  • Terms & Conditions |
  • ALM User License Agreement
ALM Media