Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc. case brief summary
504 U.S. 607 (1992)
CASE FACTS
Petitioners, a foreign state and bank, refinanced the debts they owed respondent creditors by issuing government bonds to respondents, which were denominated in United States dollars. Petitioners subsequently attempted to reschedule the bonds, and respondents sued petitioners for breach of contract. The district court denied petitioners' motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, and forum non conveniens. The appellate court affirmed the judgment and held that petitioners were not immune from the federal courts' jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (the Act),28 U.S.C.S. § 1602 et seq.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The judgment affirming the denial of petitioners' motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, and forum non conveniens was affirmed because petitioners' issuance of government bonds constituted commercial activity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, and petitioners' rescheduling the bonds had a direct effect on the United States.
***
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
504 U.S. 607 (1992)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioners, a foreign government and
bank, appealed a judgment from the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit that affirmed the denial of petitioners' motions
to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal
jurisdiction, and forum non conveniens in respondent creditors'
breach of contract action.CASE FACTS
Petitioners, a foreign state and bank, refinanced the debts they owed respondent creditors by issuing government bonds to respondents, which were denominated in United States dollars. Petitioners subsequently attempted to reschedule the bonds, and respondents sued petitioners for breach of contract. The district court denied petitioners' motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, and forum non conveniens. The appellate court affirmed the judgment and held that petitioners were not immune from the federal courts' jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (the Act),28 U.S.C.S. § 1602 et seq.
DISCUSSION
- The Supreme court affirmed the judgment.
- Petitioners' issuance of the bonds was a commercial activity under the Act because petitioners' actions could be exercised by private parties; the bonds could be held by private parties, were negotiable, and were traded on the international market.
- Petitioners' attempted rescheduling of the bonds had a direct effect on the United States because New York was the place of performance for petitioners' ultimate contractual obligations.
CONCLUSION
The judgment affirming the denial of petitioners' motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, and forum non conveniens was affirmed because petitioners' issuance of government bonds constituted commercial activity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, and petitioners' rescheduling the bonds had a direct effect on the United States.
***
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
Also see: http://www.invispress.com/law/international/weltover.html
ReplyDelete