Navigating the Maze: Jurisdiction in Cross-Border Enforcement Cases

When it comes to enforcing judgments or resolving disputes involving parties from different jurisdictions, one of the key challenges is determining where legal proceedings should take place. Jurisdiction in cross-border enforcement cases is a complex and multifaceted issue, influenced by a variety of factors including legal principles, international treaties, and practical considerations. In this article, we'll explore the intricacies of jurisdiction in cross-border enforcement cases and the challenges it presents to parties seeking to enforce their rights across borders.

Understanding Jurisdiction in Cross-Border Cases

Jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear and decide a case. In cross-border enforcement cases, jurisdictional issues arise when parties from different countries are involved in a legal dispute or when the enforcement of a judgment or arbitration award extends beyond the borders of a single jurisdiction. Determining the appropriate jurisdiction in such cases involves considering various factors, including:

1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction: This refers to the court's authority to hear cases of a particular type or subject matter. In cross-border enforcement cases, the court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute, which may involve issues such as contract law, torts, or intellectual property rights.

2. Personal Jurisdiction: Also known as "jurisdiction over the person," this refers to the court's authority to adjudicate the rights and obligations of the parties involved. Personal jurisdiction is often determined based on factors such as the defendant's presence or activities within the jurisdiction, consent to jurisdiction, or the effects of the defendant's actions within the jurisdiction.

3. In Rem Jurisdiction: This refers to the geographical boundaries within which a court has authority to hear cases. In cross-border enforcement cases, questions may arise regarding whether a court in one jurisdiction has the authority to enforce judgments or orders against assets located in another jurisdiction.

4. Forum Selection Clauses: Parties may agree in advance to submit to the jurisdiction of a particular court or to resolve disputes through arbitration. Forum selection clauses are commonly included in contracts and can significantly impact jurisdictional issues in cross-border enforcement cases.
   

Jurisdictional Challenges in Cross-Border Enforcement Cases

Navigating jurisdictional issues in cross-border enforcement cases can be fraught with challenges due to the diverse legal systems, conflicting laws, and procedural complexities involved. Some of the key challenges include:

1. Conflicting Jurisdictional Rules: Different countries have their own rules and principles governing jurisdiction, leading to potential conflicts when parties from multiple jurisdictions are involved in a dispute. Determining which jurisdiction's laws apply and which court has authority to hear the case can be contentious and may require careful analysis of applicable legal principles and international treaties.

2. Enforcement of Foreign Judgments: Even if a judgment is obtained in one jurisdiction, enforcing it in another jurisdiction can be challenging. The principles of comity and reciprocity govern the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, but each jurisdiction may have its own procedures and requirements for recognition and enforcement.

3. Lack of Uniformity: The lack of uniformity in jurisdictional rules and procedures across jurisdictions can create uncertainty and unpredictability for parties involved in cross-border enforcement cases. Harmonizing jurisdictional rules and promoting international cooperation are essential for addressing this challenge and facilitating the enforcement of judgments across borders.

4. Jurisdictional Disputes: Jurisdictional disputes between parties can prolong legal proceedings and increase costs. Parties may engage in "forum shopping" to seek a jurisdiction favorable to their interests or challenge the jurisdiction of a court in an attempt to delay or thwart enforcement efforts.
   

Although lack of personal jurisdiction is not one of the seven grounds on which confirmation may be denied under the New York Convention, U.S. courts have held that "dismissal of a petition under the New York Convention for lack of personal jurisdiction is appropriate as a matter of constitutional due process." See First Inv. Corp. of Marshall Islands v. Fujian Mawei Shipbuilding, Ltd., 703 F.3d 742, 748 (5th Cir. 2012), as revised (Jan. 17, 2013). "Because the New York Convention, through its implementing legislation, is an exercise of presidential and congressional power, whereas personal jurisdiction is grounded in constitutional due process concerns, there can be no question that the Constitution takes precedence." Id. at 749-750; see also Frontera Res. Azer. Corp. v. State Oil Co. of Azer. Rep., 582 F.3d 393, 397–98 (2d Cir.2009) (confirmation proceeding under New York Convention requires personal or quasi in rem jurisdiction over parties); Telcordia Tech Inc. v. Telkom SA Ltd., 458 F.3d 172, 178–79 (3d Cir.2006) (observing that “the New York Convention does not diminish the Due Process constraints in asserting jurisdiction over a nonresident alien”); Base Metal Trading, Ltd. v. OJSC “Novokuznetsky Aluminum Factory”, 283 F.3d 208, 212 (4th Cir.2002) (“[W]hile the [New York] Convention confers subject matter jurisdiction over actions brought pursuant to the Convention, it does not confer personal jurisdiction when it would not otherwise exist.”).

Once a defendant raises a personal jurisdictional defense, the “plaintiff bears the burden of proving by affidavits or other competent evidence that jurisdiction is proper. Permissible evidence to meet this burden must be more than an 'unverified complaint,' or bare allegations made 'upon information and belief.'" Simplot India LLC v. Himalaya Food Int'l Ltd., 2024 WL 1136791, at *4 (D.N.J. Mar. 15, 2024) (internal citations omitted). The District of New Jersey's opinion in Simplot comprehensively summarizes most common arguments for finding personal jurisdiction over a foreign entity in the context of a petition to confirm an arbitration award under the New York Convention.

The Alter Ego Theory of Personal Jurisdiction

"The contacts of a defendant company's alter ego may, under some circumstances, be treated as the defendant's contacts for the purposes of personal jurisdiction." Simplot, 2024 WL 1136791, at *5. In Simplot, the District of New Jersey refused to find that petitioners seeking to confirm an arbitration award established that the court had jurisdiction over the respondent because respondent had an alter ego operating in New Jersey. The court pointed out that U.S. courts usually start from a presumption of corporate separation between a parent company and its subsidiary, and respondents did not meet their burden to show that "[r]espondent exercises such 'complete domination' of finances, policy, and business practice over" the New Jersey entity. Id. at 6. Some jurisdictions, such as New Jersey, also require "some showing of fraud or injustice that would result in the absence of veil-piercing." Id. at 9. Petitioners in Simplot failed to show that as well.

Registration to Do Business in the State

The Simplot court also failed to find persuasive in this case the fact that respondents had registered to do business in New Jersey. Id. The court explained that "[w]hether corporate registration constitutes consent turns on the text of the state's registration statute." Id. In Pennsylvania, for example, "the statutory provision explicitly stating that qualification as a foreign corporation subjected the corporation to personal jurisdiction in the state or the provision explicitly listing 'consent' as a basis for jurisdiction supported a finding of personal jurisdiction over the corporate defendant." Id. Unfortunately for petitioners in Simplot, the New Jersey statute did not. Id.

Quasi In Rem Jurisdiction

The Simplot court also provided an overview of quasi in rem jurisdiction. The court explained that the U.S. "Supreme Court laid out the basics of the doctrine in Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (1977). A quasi in rem judgment 'affects the interests of particular persons in designated property,' including when a 'plaintiff seeks to apply what he concedes to be the property of the defendant to the satisfaction of a claim against him.'” Id. at *11. The rationale for quasi in rem jursidiction is that “a wrongdoer ‘should not be able to avoid payment of his obligations by the expedient of removing his assets to a place where he is not subject to an in personam suit.’ ” Id. The court noticed that cases applying this doctrine are rare, and viewed this as a warning that its application requires a careful approach. Id. Specifically, the court cautioned that this doctrine should apply only in cases where "the respondent's interest in the property that serves as the jurisdictional hook is clear." Id. The court contrasted those cases to the matter at hand where, per the court, respondents' interest in the assets -- held in the subsidiary's bank account in New Jersey -- was at best speculative, based on the fact that Respondents ship frozen food to the subsidiary, meaning that the subsidiary owe payments to Respondents.

SDNY Dismisses Petition against Republic of Congo for Turnover of Property

On May 23, 2023, the Southern District of New York dismissed a petition against the Republic of Congo and Ecree LLC seeking turnover of a New York condo allegedly bought using funds embezzled from the Republic.

The action seeks enforcement of two arbitration awards against the Republic of Congo, which were confirmed and reduced to judgment in the District of Columbia, and then registered in the Southern District of New York.

The Court held that while the Petitioner alleged a theory within the Court's ancillary jurisdiction (as it involved a fraudulent conveyance of the property of Petitioner's debtor), the Petition had to be dismissed as it failed to make any allegations regarding the Republic itself.

The Court's discussion of ancillary jurisdiction related to fraudulent conveyance is notable. The Court explained:

The Second Circuit has held that an action to collect a judgment does not require an independent jurisdictional basis even where parties are nondiverse. See Epperson, 242 F.3d at 104. As Epperson explains, a fraudulent conveyance claim is a quintessential example of a follow-on action to collect a judgment that does not require an independent jurisdictional basis, inasmuch as failing to allow ancillary jurisdiction over such actions “would encourage judgment debtors to engage in such conduct, not only to avoid payment of the judgment but also to force the winning plaintiff to pursue him to another jurisdiction.” Id. at 107 n.10. Since Epperson, courts within the Second Circuit have routinely found that ancillary jurisdiction exists where the plaintiff or petitioner adequately pleads that the judgment debtor’s assets have been fraudulently conveyed in order to avoid payment of the subject judgment. See, e.g., Nat’l Council on Comp. Ins., Inc. v. Caro & Graifman, P.C., 259 F. Supp. 2d 172, 177 (D. Conn. 2003) (finding, in context of plaintiffs’ action seeking declaration that granting of mortgage was fraudulent and designed to avoid restitution order, that “action is within the ancillary jurisdiction of [the] court” and declining to dismiss due to non-diverse parties).

The Court explained that, however, the ancillary jurisdiction is not without limits. It does not, for example, extend beyond attempts to execute, or to guarantee eventual executability of, a federal judgment. This means, the Court continued, that a "federal court does not have ancillary jurisdiction over a 'new theor[y] of liability,' such as a veil-piercing claim that seeks to hold a third party independently liable for a judgment." The Second Circuit and courts within it have thus "draw[n] a distinction between post-judgment proceedings to collect an existing judgment and proceedings, such as claims of alter ego liability and veilpiercing, that raise an independent controversy with a new party in an effort to shift liability.”

The Court however held that the Petition failed to allege that the Republic has fraudulently conveyed the funds. The Court reviewed the state of the law and recognized "the well-accepted principle that 'not every action that happens to be taken by officials of a foreign state is properly attributable to that state.'” The Court explained that "[u]nder the act-of-state doctrine, courts distinguish between public acts taken by individual government actors that are attributable to the state and protected, and private acts that are not attributable to the state and not protected." Therefore, the question here was whether "Petitioner has alleged facts supporting a conclusion that the President (or any member of his family) was acting as an agent of the Republic when they allegedly fraudulently transferred the funds."

The Southern District found that "Petitioner has not asserted any non-conclusory allegations suggesting that the President was acting as an agent of the Republic when he allegedly misappropriated the funds at issue." It noted that the "Petitioner has not alleged that the President was acting within the scope of his employment, or that he acted with actual or apparent authority to bind the Congo when making the transfers. Embezzling funds for private use is undoubtedly a 'private' act — a 'useful [determination of] whether a foreign official’s conduct is attributable to his government or sovereign state[.]'”

The Court also dismissed the Petition on the grounds that Petitioner has not sufficiently pleaded that the condo is not immune from execution under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (FSIA). The Court sided with Petitioner in finding that the alleged holding of the condo by a sovereign as a real estate investment constituted "commercial activity" under the FSIA. Nevertheless, the Court found that Petitioner failed to allege that it was the Republic's commercial activity. Thus, the use of the condo appeared to be a “private” act and not one that may be “attributable to [the] government.”

The case is Commissions Import Export S.A. v. Republic of the Congo et al., No. 1:19-mc-00195 (S.D.N.Y.).

Read the entire opinion here:

Commissions Import Export S.A. v. Republic of the Congo et al, 1_19-mc-00195, No. 127 (S.D

Download D • 467KB