Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
In three recent decisions, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed dismissals by district court judges based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens and has affirmed and re-energized several long standing principles of law in this area. These decisions raise questions about the scope of the district court’s discretion in addressing forum non conveniens issues. Moreover, a review of 10 years of 2nd Circuit decisions in the area shows that the site of the alleged wrongdoing is a frequently determinative fact, especially if the plaintiff is a U. S. citizen. Each of the three appellate decisions dealt with a motion to dismiss an action filed in the Southern District of New York arguing that the action should be prosecuted before a court in a foreign country. This discussion deals solely with the common law issues raised in such cases and not with motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) to transfer an action to another district or division where it might have been brought. [FOOTNOTE 1] In the course of just several months, the 2nd Circuit in Guidi v. Inter-Continental Hotels Corp., [FOOTNOTE 2] Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., [FOOTNOTE 3]and Dirienzo v. Philips Services Corp., [FOOTNOTE 4]reversed orders of dismissal on the ground that the District Court failed to give sufficient and substantial deference to the choice of a forum in the United States by a U. S. citizen. STANDARDS FOR FORUM NON CONVENIENS The equitable doctrine of forum non conveniens permits a federal court in rare instances to decline jurisdiction although venue is appropriate and the court has jurisdiction over the parties and the claim. [FOOTNOTE 5]The threshold determination in a forum non conveniens analysis is whether an adequate alternative forum exists where a plaintiff can pursue a satisfactory remedy. [FOOTNOTE 6]If such a forum exists, it has been held that a court has broad discretion to consider the private and public interest factors which may affect the convenience of the parties, [FOOTNOTE 7]and in weighing these factors, courts are to employ a “strong presumption in favor of the plaintiff’s chosen forum.” [FOOTNOTE 8]In deciding whether to dismiss, the ultimate inquiry is whether, weighing the factors in their entirety, trial in an alternative forum will best serve the “ends of justice.” [FOOTNOTE 9] 1) Adequacy of Forum. Whether a court in a foreign country can be considered an adequate alternative forum depends on whether (1) the defendants are subject to service of process in the alternative jurisdiction; (2) the alternative forum provides adequate procedural safeguards; and (3) the remedy available in the alternate forum is so deficient as to be the equivalent to no remedy at all. [FOOTNOTE 10]“That the law of the foreign forum differs from American law should ordinarily not be given conclusive or even substantial weight in assessing the adequacy of the forum.” [FOOTNOTE 11]Dismissal in favor of a foreign forum is permissible even though the law applicable in that forum is less favorable to the plaintiff than the law of the chosen forum. [FOOTNOTE 12]That the foreign forum permits litigation of the subject matter of the plaintiff’s complaint may be sufficient to establish an adequate forum. [FOOTNOTE 13] 2) Balancing Analysis. If it is determined that there is an adequate alternative forum, the court must then consider and balance several private and public interest factors which are set forth in the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert. [FOOTNOTE 14]The private interest factors include: (1) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (2) the availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling witnesses; (3) the cost of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses; (4) the possibility of view of premises, if view would be useful to the finder of fact; and (5) all other factors that might make trial of a case easier, more expeditious, and less expensive. [FOOTNOTE 15]To evaluate these factors, the court must consider the site of the alleged culpable conduct and the connection of that conduct to the plaintiff’s chosen forum. [FOOTNOTE 16] The public interest factors include: (1) administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; (2) the local interest in having localized controversies decided at home; (3) the interest of having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is familiar with the law that must govern the action; (4) the avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflict of laws, or in the application of foreign law; and (5) the unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty. [FOOTNOTE 17] In weighing the factors, the court must be mindful of the strong presumption in favor of the plaintiff’s chosen forum. [FOOTNOTE 18]The DirienzoCourt particularly noted that dismissal in favor of a foreign forum often has effects on the applicable rules of law. [FOOTNOTE 19]The presumption in favor of the plaintiff’s forum choice “is designed in part to help courts avoid conducting complex exercises in comparative law.” [FOOTNOTE 20]Furthermore, while any plaintiff’s selection of a forum is entitled to deference, a domestic plaintiff’s choice of forum is entitled to more deference than that of a foreign plaintiff. [FOOTNOTE 21]Moreover, as noted in Guidi, the home forum of a U.S. citizen for forum non conveniens purposes is any U.S. District Court. [FOOTNOTE 22]It is only where the balancing described above demonstrates that the trial in the United States would be “so oppressive and vexatious to defendants as to be out of all proportion to plaintiff’s convenience” that plaintiff’s choice of forum should be denied and the case dismissed.” [FOOTNOTE 23] RECENT 2nd CIRCUIT CASES In three recent decisions, the 2nd Circuit applied forum non conveniens principles and reversed district court dismissals for failure to afford sufficient deference to the plaintiff’s choice of a U.S. forum. The first of those decisions was Guidi v. Inter-Continental Hotels Corp., where American citizens brought personal injury and wrongful death actions against Inter-Continental Hotels, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York, alleging that inadequate hotel security allowed a religious terrorist to kill and injure victims in an Egyptian hotel managed by the defendant. [FOOTNOTE 24]The defendant moved for dismissal on the ground of forum non conveniens. The District Court found that Egypt was an adequate alternative forum, [FOOTNOTE 25]and cited other litigation arising from the same incident that had been commenced in Egypt. The District Court held that the balance of interests strongly favored that the case be tried abroad and dismissed the action. [FOOTNOTE 26]On appeal, the 2nd Circuit reversed, stating that the District Court did not give sufficient weight to the plaintiffs’ choice of forum, by virtue of their being “ordinary American citizens,” and relied too heavily on the existence of the Egyptian litigation. [FOOTNOTE 27]The aspects of the plaintiffs’ choice of forum particularly compelling to the 2nd Circuit was the emotional burden that would be put on the plaintiffs if they were forced to return to a country where their loved ones were killed in an act of religious terrorism. [FOOTNOTE 28] Similarly, in Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., the 2nd Circuit reversed the District Court’s dismissal, on grounds of forum non conveniens, of claims arising under the Alien Tort Claims Act. [FOOTNOTE 29]The plaintiffs, Nigerian emigrees, brought suit alleging they suffered grave human rights abuses at the hands of Nigerian authorities, and that two entities incorporated in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, respectively, had directly or indirectly participated in these abuses. The District Court determined that England was an adequate alternative forum [FOOTNOTE 30]and that a balancing of public and private interest factors made that forum preferable. [FOOTNOTE 31]Although the 2nd Circuit agreed that British courts provided an adequate alternative forum, the Court of Appeals found that the District Court erred in not according sufficient weight to the choice of forum by the plaintiffs. [FOOTNOTE 32]The 2nd Circuit also gave weight to the policy interests of the United States in providing a forum for the adjudication of claims of violations of international human rights [FOOTNOTE 33]and found the plaintiffs’ lack of resources to deal with litigation in a foreign country particularly compelling. [FOOTNOTE 34] THE ‘DIRIENZO’ CASE Most recently, in Dirienzo v. Philip Services Corp., the 2nd Circuit reversed the District Court’s dismissal on the grounds of forum non convenience for failing to accord proper deference to the U.S. plaintiffs’ choice of forum. [FOOTNOTE 35]The majority of plaintiffs, representatives of an uncertified class of investors, were U.S. citizens who brought suit against the directors and officers of a Canadian metal processing company alleging fraud in connection with the sale of the company’s securities. The Court of Appeals found that the Canadian corporation had actively sought United States investments for eight years, purchased 15 American companies, maintained facilities in 12 states, and generated 70 percent of its corporate revenue from its U.S. efforts. [FOOTNOTE 36]Furthermore, 60 percent of the company’s 70 million shares were held by U.S. investors and 80 percent of its shares traded on U.S. exchanges. [FOOTNOTE 37]The 2nd Circuit concluded that the District Court erred by giving insufficient deference to the plaintiffs’ choice of a U.S. forum. Noting that the more connections a plaintiff has to his chosen forum, the more likely it is that inconvenience will result from changing to a foreign forum, the 2nd Circuit found that the United States had a greater interest in deciding matters which arose from the sales of the Canadian corporation’s securities in the United States. [FOOTNOTE 38] The dissent in Dirienzonoted “the majority opinion places unnecessary and novel restrictions on what until now has been a district court’s broad discretion to grant forum non conveniens dismissal in any action in which some of the plaintiffs reside in the United States.” [FOOTNOTE 39] MAJORITY ERRORS Judge Cabranes cited the following reasons for why the majority, in his view, erred: (1) paying mere lip service to the proper standard of review — for clear abuse of discretion — while unabashedly substituting its own views for those of the District Court; (2) improperly criticizing the District Court for characterizing the relevant transactions as international; (3) concluding that the United States’ interest in enforcing its securities laws is entitled to a ‘great deal more weight’ than was afforded by the District Court, despite the fact that we have stated that this interest is merely ‘one consideration’; (4) dismissing the District Court’s consideration of the location of the bulk of the relevant documentary evidence in the alternative forum, even though we have made it clear that this is a legitimate factor for a trial court to weigh in any forum non conveniens analysis; (5) ignoring those cases in which we have expressed a clear preference for live witness testimony, especially in fraud actions; and (6) incorrectly affording a strong presumption to the forum choice of plaintiffs who are not alleged to reside in the purported ‘home forum’ and who seek to represent a class of investors stretching across the United States and Canada. [FOOTNOTE 40] Finally, Judge Cabranes argued that because each of the class members had an equal right to litigate in his home forum, yet submitted to a forum selected for them by a representative plaintiff, the amount of weight accorded to plaintiffs’ choice of forum should be less, not more. [FOOTNOTE 41]The dissent criticized the majority’s reliance on Guidi and Wiwa, two cases that did not involve representative plaintiffs proceeding on behalf of larger classes, and cases which should have been limited to their highly extraordinary facts. [FOOTNOTE 42] FOCUS ON SITE OF ALLEGED WRONGDOING Over the last 10 years, prior to the three recent decisions summarized above, the 2nd Circuit reviewed forum non conveniens decisions of District Courts in 14 cases. [FOOTNOTE 43]In 12, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court decisions: 11 granting the motion to dismiss; one denying. [FOOTNOTE 44]In 10 of the 11 dismissals that were affirmed, plaintiffs were not U.S. citizens. In all 11 dismissals, the alleged wrongdoing took place in a foreign country. The 2nd Circuit frequently stated that the appellant needed to show an abuse of discretion by the District Court to obtain a reversal. The three recent decisions by the 2nd Circuit might be said to constitute a re-emphasis of the long standing principles that forum non conveniens should rarely be used to dismiss a federal action and that substantial deference should be given to the plaintiff’s choice of forum, especially where the plaintiff is a U.S. citizen or resident. In reviewing the 10-year history of 2nd Circuit decisions preceding Guidi, Wiwa, and Dirienzo, it appears that the site of the alleged unlawful conduct has been a decisive factor. The court of the country where the alleged unlawful conduct occurred was deemed to be the appropriate forum in 13 of the 14 cases. The Boosey & Hawkes Music Publrs., Ltd. v. Walt Disney Codecision is the exception. In this case, the District Court dismissed claims for copyright infringement deriving from Disney’s sales of videocassettes of “Fantasia” in at least 18 foreign countries. [FOOTNOTE 45]The District Court concluded that these claims should be tried “in each of the 18 nations whose copyright laws are invoked.” [FOOTNOTE 46]In reversing, the 2nd Circuit noted that a trial in one U.S. court was preferable to trial in 18 courts in foreign countries where each of the 18 alleged illegal acts occurred. [FOOTNOTE 47] In another case, R. Maganlal v. M.G. Chemical Co., the plaintiff, an Indian export trading company, brought a breach of contract action against a New York corporation alleging that the defendant sold goods to the plaintiff which were of inferior quality and did not conform to contractual specifications. [FOOTNOTE 48]The 2nd Circuit found that the District Court abused its discretion in dismissing the action because it did not focus on the fact that the goods complained of were manufactured by a Delaware corporation, the contract was negotiated and signed in New York, and the party charged with breach was a New York corporation. [FOOTNOTE 49]Having found that the wrong, in effect, occurred in the United States, the 2nd Circuit reversed the lower court’s dismissal. In all of the 11 dismissed cases that were affirmed by the 2nd Circuit over the last 10 years, the wrongful conduct occurred in a foreign jurisdiction. As a natural result, the majority of the witnesses and the bulk of the evidence were located in the foreign forum. For instance, in McLaughlin v. Bankers Trust Co., the plaintiff was a citizen and resident of England who worked entirely in a London subsidiary of a New York corporation. [FOOTNOTE 50]The employment contract had been executed, performed and allegedly breached in England and the evidence and witnesses were located in England. Similarly, in Trigano v. Bain & Co., Inc.., the plaintiff was a French citizen and the principal acts complained of in connection with a breach of contract occurred in France. [FOOTNOTE 51] COURT OF APPEALS The Court of Appeals noted that “no wrongful conduct occurred in New York.” [FOOTNOTE 52]Furthermore, the majority of witnesses and documentary evidence were located in France. In Alfadda v. Fenn, the plaintiffs were Saudi Arabian shareholders involved in a dispute with a Netherlands corporation over the conduct of a French bank. [FOOTNOTE 53]Thus, France was deemed to have a far greater interest in the litigation. [FOOTNOTE 54]Also, all the defendants and nearly all the documentary evidence were located in France. In Mobil Sales & Supply Corp. v. JSC Lietuvos Energija, the plaintiff was a U.S. corporation. [FOOTNOTE 55]However, all of the agreements at issue were negotiated and executed in Lithuania, the contracts were for the delivery of oil to Lithuania, and all of the negotiations relating to the alleged breach took place in Lithuania. Moreover, the Court of Appeals found that “nearly all of the key witnesses and (original) documents are located in Lithuania and either speak or are written in Lithuanian.” [FOOTNOTE 56]In Murray v. British Broadcasting Corp., the plaintiff was a British citizen who sued a British corporation and its wholly owned U.S. subsidiary for claims related to a British television character designed by the plaintiff. [FOOTNOTE 57]Finding that the matter involved a dispute between British citizens over events that took place exclusively in the United Kingdom, the Court of Appeals stated that “we are, quite frankly, at a loss to see how this lawsuit has any but the most attenuated American connection.” [FOOTNOTE 58]Accordingly, no abuse of discretion was found. [FOOTNOTE 59] EXCEPTIONS TO PATTERN Thus, Guidiand Wiwastand as 2nd Circuit exceptions to the pattern of dismissing cases in situations when the wrongful conduct occurred in another country. These two cases are explained by the emphasis on the plaintiff’s choice of forum and by the powerful interest of the plaintiff in avoiding a forum where their relatives were attacked by extremist terrorists ( Guidi) and where they were victims of human rights violations ( Wiwa). Further, Guidi, Wiwaand Dirienzoalso suggest that the 2nd Circuit’s scope of review of District Court forum non conveniens decisions has been expanded, a point emphasized by Judge Cabranes in his dissent in Dirienzo. [FOOTNOTE 60] With respect to forum non conveniens motions in securities class actions involving the stock of foreign corporations, if most of the shares of the company were purchased by U.S. citizens and the stock was listed on a U.S. exchange, Dirienzosuggests that a forum non conveniens dismissal in the 2nd Circuit will be difficult to obtain. This again suggests that the site of the wrongdoing (here, where purchases were defrauded) tends to dictate the result of forum non conveniens motions. Leon P. Gold is a partner and Richard L. Spinogatti is a senior counsel at Proskauer Rose LLP. James H. Freeman, an associate at the firm, assisted in the preparation of this article. ::::FOOTNOTES:::: FN1The enactment of 28 U.S.C. §1404(a), which controls interstate transfers of cases in domestic federal courts, had the effect of limiting forum non conveniens analyses to cases where the alternative forum is the court of another country. See Am. Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443, 449 n.2 (1994). Moreover, the standards are dissimilar because “the differences between trial in an American court and a foreign court will almost inevitably be greater than those between trial in two federal courts in the United States.” Guidi v. Inter-Continental Hotels Corp., 224 F.3d 142, 148 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Nalls v. Rolls-Royce Ltd., 702 F.2d 255, 261 (D.C. Cir. 1983)). As a result, under the traditional forum non conveniens standard, plaintiff’s choice of forum is entitled to much greater weight. FN2224 F.3d 142 (2d Cir. 2000). FN3226 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2000). FN42000 U.S. App. LEXIS 27957 (2d Cir. Nov. 8, 2000). FN5Forum non conveniens should not be confused with the doctrine of international comity, which allows courts to decline jurisdiction in deference to the laws and interest of a foreign sovereign, rather than to the convenience of the parties. FN6 Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 254 n. 22 (1981); Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 506-07 (1947). FN7 Gilbert, 330 U.S. at 508-509. FN8 Dirienzo v. Philips Service Corp., 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 27957, at *27 (2d Cir. Nov. 8, 2000) (citing Gilbert, 330 U.S. at 508). FN9 Koster v. Lumberman’s Mutual Casualty Co., 330 U.S. 518, 527 (1947). FN10 Dirienzo, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 27957, at *18. FN11Id., at *17 (citing Alfadda v. Fenn, 159 F.3d 41, 45 (2d Cir. 1998)). FN12 Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 249. FN13Id., at 254, n. 22. FN14 Gilbert, at 508-09. FN15Id. FN16 Peregrine Myanmar Ltd. v. Segal, 89 F.3d 41, 46 (2d Cir. 1996). FN17 Gilbert, 330 U.S. at 508-509; Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 241 n. 6. FN18 Dirienzo, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 27957, at *18. FN19Id., at *35. FN20 Piper, 454 U.S. at 251. FN21 Murray v. British Broad. Corp., 81 F.3d 287, 290 (2d Cir. 1996); Piper, 454 U.S. at 255 n. 23 (noting that the choice of forum by its citizens and residents is entitled to greater deference than a stranger’s choice); Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 226 F.3d 88 at 102 (“[t]he greater the plaintiff’s ties to the plaintiff’s chosen forum, the more likely it is that the plaintiff would be inconvenienced by a requirement to bring the claim in a foreign jurisdiction”). FN22 Guidi, 224 F.3d at 146. FN23 Dirienzo, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 27957 at *47 (citing Koster, 330 U.S. at 524). FN24224 F.3d 142 (2d Cir. 2000). FN25 Guidi v. Inter-Continental Hotels Corp., 1997 U.S. Dist LEXIS 10444, *6-8 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 1997) (finding that defendant was amenable to accepting process in Egypt and that Egyptian law provides for recovery in tort when defendant causes a wrongful act and plaintiff is injured as a result). FN26See Guidi, 224 F.3d at 144 (“The [district] court found that with respect to the private interests of the litigants, the balance slightly favored the Egyptian forum because a viewing of the hotel premises would be possible there and because IHC would be able to implead the Egyptian government as a third party. Turning to the public interest factors presented by the case, the court found that (1) the Southern District of New York has an overburdened docket; (2) Egypt has a greater interest in the litigation than New York because it is committed to protecting its tourist industry; (3) an Egyptian court would be more familiar with Egyptian law and have a greater interest in its application; and (4) most significantly, there were two related lawsuits pending in Egypt at the time of dismissal.”) FN27 Guidi, 224 F.3d at 147, relying on the presumption that “a real showing of convenience by a plaintiff who has sued in his home forum will normally outweigh the inconvenience the defendant may have shown” (quoting Koster, 330 U.S. at 524). FN28Id. (“We believe that justice is best served in this case by acknowledging the unique and heavy [emotional] burden placed on Plaintiffs if they are required to litigate in Egypt”). FN29226 F.3d 88 (2d Cir 2000) (Alien Tort Claims Act is 28 U.S.C.S. §1350) FN30 Wiwa v. Wiwa, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23064, at *14-15 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 1998) (citing the suitability of English courts to address plaintiff’s claims). The 2nd Circuit agreed, stating “[w]e regard the British courts as exemplary in their fairness and commitment to the rule of law.” Wiwa, 226 F.3d at 101. FN31 Wiwa, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23064, at *16-17. With respect to the private interest factors, the District Court found that the British forum would be a better forum for litigation because (1) the bulk of documentation was located in England; (2) plaintiff’s or defendant’s witnesses were not in the jurisdiction; and (3) only two of the plaintiffs resided in the United States. With respect to the public interest factors, the court found that (1) none of the parties to the action was a citizen of the United States; (2) no allegations were made that defendant’s actions had any effect on the United States; and (3) “the conduct at issue was engaged in by an English corporation, in a nation formerly part of the Commonwealth of Nations, under a liability standard determined by English law.” FN32The Wiwacourt noted: “[t]hat is the case not because of chauvinism or bias in favor of U.S. residents. It is rather because the greater the plaintiff’s ties to the plaintiff’s chosen forum, the more likely it is that the plaintiff would be inconvenienced by a requirement to bring the claim in a foreign jurisdiction.” Furthermore, the court stated that Wiwaand Guidi” do not reflect a rigid rule of decision protecting U.S. citizens or resident plaintiffs from dismissal for forum non conveniens. Rather, they illustrate the manner in which a court must take into account the hardship dismissal would cause to a resident plaintiff when evaluating the Gilbertfactors; in the words of this court the cited cases represent a ‘consistent, pragmatic application’ of the Gilbertfactors to actions in which a plaintiff has particular ties to the forum state.” Wiwa, 226 F.3d 88, 102 (2d Cir. 2000) (citing Alcoa S.S. Co. v. M/V Nordic Regent, 654 F.2d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 1980). FN33 Wiwa, 226 F.3d at 106 (“[T]orture committed under color of law of a foreign nation in violation of international law is ‘our business,’ as such conduct not only violates the standards of international law but also as a consequence violates our domestic law”). FN34The 2nd Circuit noted that the lower court “gave no consideration to the very substantial expense and inconvenience (perhaps fatal to the suit) that would be imposed on the impecunious plaintiffs by dismissal in favor of a British forum.” Wiwa, 226 F.3d 106. FN352000 U.S. App. LEXIS 27957 (2d Cir. Nov. 8, 2000). FN36Id., at *3-4. FN37Id. FN38Id., at *36. FN39Id., at *51. FN40Id., at *52. FN41Id., at *68-74. FN42Id., at *78-79. FN43 Red Rock Holdings, Ltd. v. Union Bank Trust Co., 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 9018 (2d Cir. May 6, 1999); McLaughlin v. Bankers Trust Co., 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 11803 (2d Cir. June 1, 1999); Trigano v. Bain & Co., Inc., 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 14626 (2d Cir. June 29, 1999); Alfadda v. Fenn, 159 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 1998); PT United Can Co. v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., 138 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 1998); Boosey & Hawkes Music Publishers, Ltd. v. Walt Disney Co., 145 F.3d 481 (2d Cir. 1998); Mobil Sales & Supply Corp. v. JSC Lieutuvos Energija, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 32573 (2d Cir. Dec. 18, 1998); Capital Currency Exch. v. National Westminister Bank, 155 F.3d 603 (2d Cir. 1998); Peregrine Myanmar Ltd. v. Segal, 89 F.3d 41, 46 (2d Cir. 1996); Scottish Air Int’l v. British Caledonian Group, 81 F.3d 1224 (2d Cir. 1996); Murray v. British Broadcasting Corp., 81 F.3d 287 (2d Cir. 1996); Allstate Life Ins. Co. v. Linter Group, Ltd. (2d Cir. 1993); R. Maganlal & Co. v. M.g. Chem. Co., 942 F.2d 164 (2d Cir. 1991); Borden, Inc. v. Meiji Milk Prods. Co., 919 F.2d 822, 827 (2d Cir. 1990). FN44The 2nd Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of a motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens in Peregrine Myanmar Ltd. v. Segal, 89 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 1996). FN45145 F.3d 481 (2d Cir. 1998). FN46Id., at 491. FN47Id. FN48942 F.2d 164 (2d Cir. 1991). FN49Id., at 168-169. FN501999 U.S. App. LEXIS 11803 (2d Cir. June 1, 1999). FN511999 U.S. App. LEXIS 14626 (2d Cir. June 29, 1999). FN52Id., at *4. FN53159 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 1998). FN54 Id., at 46 (2d Cir. 1998). FN551998 U.S. App. LEXIS 32573 (2d Cir. Dec. 18, 1998). FN56Id., at *4-5. FN5781 F.3d 287 (2d Cir. 1995). FN58Id., at 293. FN59See also Borden, Inc. v. Meiji Milk Prods. Co., 919 F.2d 822, 827 (2d Cir. 1990) (bulk of evidence and majority of witnesses were located in Japan); Scottish Air Int’l v. British Caledonian Group, 81 F.3d 1224 (2d Cir. 1996) (all documents were located in England and England had substantial interest in litigation to determine legal rights to seats on the board of directors of a Scottish corporation); Allstate Life Ins. Co. v. Linter Group, Ltd. (2d Cir. 1993) (bank’s fraudulent acts occurred in Australia; documents, witnesses all located in Australia). FN602000 U.S. App. LEXIS 27957, at *51 (2d Cir. Nov. 8, 2000).

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.