Justia U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

After receiving an arbitral award against MatlinPatterson, VRG filed a petition in the district court seeking confirmation of the award in accordance with the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention), 9 U.S.C. 201-08. On appeal, VRG argued that the district court usurped the Arbitral Tribunal's role when it decided that the scope of the parties' arbitration agreement - assuming there was one - did not extend to the dispute at hand. The court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded so that it could decide, in the first instance and on the particular facts of this case, who - the court or the Arbitral Tribunal - had the power to determine the scope of the alleged arbitration agreement between VRG and MatlinPatterson. This power - to determine the scope of any agreement to arbitrate - was to remain with the district court unless the parties agreed to an arbitration clause that clearly and unmistakably assigned such questions to arbitration. View "VRG Linhas Aereas S.A. v. MatlinPatterson Global Opportunities Partners II L.P." on Justia Law

Petitioner initiated proceedings pursuant to Article 3 of the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 51 Fed. Reg. 10, implemented by the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), 42 U.S.C. 11601 et seq., and sought return of his children to Canada from New York in order to allow the Canadian courts to determine which parent was to be awarded custody of the children. The court concluded that the district court properly determined under the Convention that the parties' last shared intention regarding the children's residence was that they live in Canada and for that reason the habitual residence of the children remained in Canada; there was no basis to conclude that the district court clearly erred in finding that the children have not become so acclimatized to life in New York that returning them to Canada would be harmful to them; and respondent failed to prove any affirmative defense. The court considered respondent's remaining arguments and found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Hofmann v. Sender" on Justia Law

Morning Mist appealed from the judgment of the district court affirming the order of the bankruptcy court, which determined that the debtor had its "center of main interests" (COMI) in the British Virgin Islands (BVI), and therefore recognized debtor's liquidation in the BVI as a "foreign main proceeding" under 11 U.S.C. 1517. To determine the proper COMI, the court considered the relevant time period for weighing the interests, and the principles and factors for determining which jurisdiction predominated. The court concluded that the relevant time period was the time of the Chapter 15 petition, subject to an inquiry into whether the process had been manipulated. The relevant principle was that the COMI lies where the debtor conducts its regular business, so that the place was ascertainable by third parties. The statute included a presumption that the COMI was where the debtor's registered office was found. Among other factors that could be considered were the location of headquarters, decision-makers, assets, creditors, and the law applicable to most disputes. Applying these principles, the court affirmed the decision of the district court recognizing the BVI liquidation as a foreign main proceeding. View "Morning Mist Holdings Ltd. v. Krys" on Justia Law

This appeal involved claims by families and the estates of the victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. This opinion addressed only the claims against the 37 defendants dismissed by the district court for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court agreed with the district court that it lacked personal jurisdiction over most of these defendants pursuant to the court's decision in In re Terrorist Attacks III, because plaintiffs failed to plead facts sufficient to show that most of these defendants expressly aimed their allegedly tortious conduct at the United States. The court concluded, however, that jurisdictional discovery was warranted with regard to 12 defendants. View "In Re: Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed from the district court's dismissal of their action brought under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), 18 U.S.C. 2331 et seq., against UBS, alleging that plaintiffs were direct or indirect victims of terrorist attacks in Israel facilitated by UBS's furnishing of United States currency to Iran, which the U.S. Department of State had listed as a state sponsor of terrorism. The district court dismissed plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (FAC) for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. On appeal, plaintiffs contended principally that the FAC alleged a chain of causation between transfers of funds to Iran by UBS and plaintiffs' injuries at the hands of various terrorist groups sponsored by Iran, sufficient to establish traceability for purposes both of standing and of stating a claim under the ATA. The court concluded that the FAC was sufficient to show Article III standing but insufficient to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Rothstein v. UBS AG" on Justia Law

Petitioner (Father) brought this suit under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), 42 U.S.C. 11603(b), seeking the return of his two minor children to Turkey, as well as an order enforcing his rights under Turkish law to visit the children as long as they stayed in the United States with their mother. The court held that the Father had demonstrated that he retained custody rights under Turkish law and that the Mother's removal of the children from Turkey in 2011 interfered with the exercise of his custody rights. With regard to visitation claims, the court held that section 11603(b) created a federal right of action to enforce "access" rights protected under the Hague Convention. With regard to costs, however, the court concluded that in light of the particular circumstances of this case, an award of full costs would be "clearly inappropriate." Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's return order and vacated the costs award. View "Ozaltin v. Ozaltin" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, victims and families of victims of terrorist attacks committed in Israel between 1995-2004, brought claims under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 18 U.S.C. 2333, and the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 1350, seeking monetary damages from Arab Bank. Plaintiffs alleged that Arab Bank provided financial services and support to terrorists during this period, facilitating the attacks. On appeal, Arab Bank challenged the district court's orders imposing sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(b) for its failure to comply with several of that court's discovery-related orders, and petitioned the court under 28 U.S.C. 1651 for a writ of mandamus directing vacatur of the district court's sanctions order. The court concluded that the sanctions order was not a reviewable collateral order, and therefore dismissed Arab Bank's appeal for want of jurisdiction. The court also concluded that this was not an appropriate case for issuance of the extraordinary writ of mandamus, since the court agreed with plaintiffs that Arab Bank had not established that it had a clear and indisputable right to such drastic relief or that review after final judgment would not provide adequate relief. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal and denied the petition for mandamus. View "Linde v. Arab Bank, PLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed from the district court's dismissal of his action against the Museum for its acquisition, possession, display, and retention of a painting that had been confiscated by the Russian Bolshevik regime from plaintiff's great-grandfather in 1918. On appeal, plaintiff contended principally that the district court erred in holding that the painting was taken pursuant to a valid act of state despite factual allegations in his Amended Complaint to the contrary. The court found that it was clear that the Amended Complaint, on its face, showed that plaintiff's action was barred by the act of state doctrine. The court considered all of plaintiff's arguments and concluded that they were without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Konowaloff v. The Metropolitan Museum of Art" on Justia Law

Argentina appealed from permanent injunctions entered by the district court designed to remedy Argentina's failure to pay bondholders after a default in 2001 on its sovereign debt. The district court granted plaintiffs summary judgment and enjoined Argentina from making payments on debt issued pursuant to its 2005 and 2010 restructurings without making comparable payments on the defaulted debt. The court held that an equal treatment provision in the bonds barred Argentina from discriminating against plaintiffs' bonds in favor of bonds issued in connection with the restructurings and that Argentina violated that provision by ranking its payment obligations on the defaulted debt below its obligations to the holders of its restructured debt. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court; found no abuse of discretion in the injunctive relief; and concluded that the injunction did not violate the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1602-1611. However, given the need for clarity as to how the injunctions were to function, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "NML Capital, Ltd. v. The Republic of Argentina" on Justia Law

Two now-separated parents dispute whether courts in the United States or the United Kingdom should decide who has custody of their five-year-old child. At issue was the interpretation of Article 12 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 51 Fed. Reg. 10,494. The court held that courts could not equitably toll the one-year period before a parent could raise the now settled defense available under Article 12 of the Convention, and that when making a now settled determination, courts need not give controlling weight to a child's immigration status. The court also considered and rejected petitioner's objections to the district court's findings of fact. View "Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez" on Justia Law