International Disputes

With globalization and the proliferation of international trade and cross-border business transactions, business and other disputes often take on an international character, and parties from different countries routinely find themselves embroiled in transnational disputes which raise difficult questions involving, for example, which country's law should apply, where the dispute should be litigated, and how to efficiently manage the international dispute resolution process.  Our firm brings extensive experience to bear in addressing these and other transnational issues that are important to our clients and which must be carefully addressed to protect their interests and ensure an optimal result.
 
Having practiced complex business litigation for decades at elite global firms, we have been intimately involved in litigating numerous international disputes.  We have represented clients from dozens of countries around the globe and have appeared before courts and arbitral tribunals in multiple U.S. states and foreign countries.  We have a great deal of experience in jurisdictional battles, choice of law issues, obtaining evidence located abroad, managing discovery with foreign entities, and negotiating resolutions to complex cases involving multiple aspects of foreign and U.S. law and business practices.  We have litigated cases involving the application of U.S. business law to foreign entities, including cases brought under the Alien Tort Claims Act, the Securites and Securities Exchange Acts, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, U.S. bankruptcy laws, and U.S. corporate, tort and contract laws.  And we have also handled many cases where foreign law governed the parties' dispute.  In light of our extensive experience in this area of practice, we are particularly sensitive to the needs of our overseas clients and to addressing the features of U.S. litigation that non-U.S. clients may find unfamiliar and uncomfortable.  We recognize that while few parties want to become embroiled in international lawsuits or arbitration, the reality is that in today's business environment individuals and entities need to be prepared for this possibility and position themselves for this eventuality by proactively protecting their interests.  We are there to support and protect our clients’ interests in all aspects of cross-border disputes, including pre-litigation counseling.
 

Representative Matters

• Amromco Energy, LLC v. Amromco Holdings LP, JAMS Ref. No. 1425011836 – represented certain sellers in a mediation involving alleged breaches of contract arising from the sale of Romanian oil and gas business and related rights to access state-owned oil and gas reserves.  Successfully negotiated settlement of dispute. 
• In re Enron (Class Action Litigation, Bankruptcy, Prosecutions and Regulatory Actions) – key members of an international legal team that, for years, defended several financial institutions in the massive and unprecedented securities class action litigation and regulatory actions stemming from the historic collapse of Enron.  Specifically, represented the Royal Bank of Scotland and affiliated multi-national entities in adversary proceedings, a shareholder class action and related cases, U.S. and foreign criminal investigations and regulatory proceedings arising out of the collapse of Enron, alleging participation in a worldwide dscheme to misrepresent Enron’s financial condition via certain structured finance transactions. 
• In re Application of Mauricio Mota For An Order To Take Discovery For Use In Foreign Proceedings Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, No. 19-mc-573 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.), No. 19-mc-369 (UNA) (D. Del.) – represented Brazilian client seeking discovery of documents located in the United States from several U.S. corporations and financial institutions relating to foreign litigation concerning the alleged expropriation of billions of dollars of public funds by large Brazilian-based meat producer, JBS, and its controlling shareholders.
• North Shore Window & Door, Inc. v. Andersen Corporation and Fenetres MQ Inc., 19-cv-6194 (ENV)(ST) (E.D.N.Y.) – represent plaintiff distributor in cross-border lawsuit against multi-national luxury window manufacturers (from the U.S. and Canada) concerning the enforcement of a multi-state exclusive distributorship agreement and claims under various state franchisee protection statutes.
• In re the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico, No. 17-BK-3283 (LTS) (D.P.R.) – served as conflicts counsel representing a bondholder group in Promesa Title III litigations concerning claims relating to the validity of multi-billion dollar bonds issued by the Employees Retirement System of the Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
• Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, et al. (S.D.N.Y.) (N.Y. Ct. of Appeals) – advised and represented the Central Bank of Jordan in civil fraud suit seeking recovery of multi-billion dollar judgment against members of Turkey’s Uzan family.  The suit stemmed from billions in financing provided to the fugitive Uzans and their company, Telsim, Turkey’s second-largest mobile phone company.  Represented the Central Bank in federal court proceedings and abroad, as well as on appeal before the New York Court of Appeals regarding New York courts’ powers to seize foreign assets and enforce judgments against international entities and individuals.   
• BCP Voyager Master Fund SPC, Ltd. vs. The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) – represented the Royal Bank of Scotland in New York Supreme Court’s Commercial Division in $200 million breach of contract action involving counter-claims of misappropriating and trading on confidential insider information and breaches of fiduciary duty by entities and individuals located in the U.K.  
• In re Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A., MDL No. 1374, M 21-89 (S.D.N.Y.) – represented foreign insurance company in this, and other, putative class actions and other lawsuits concerning insurance claims arising from World War II-era confiscations and post war nationalizations and in proceedings before an international commission established for such claims.
• Biocon Limited v. Abraxis Bioscience, Inc., No. 16 Civ. 6894 (S.D.N.Y.)(RMB) - defended drug manufacturer (affiliate of Celgene Corporation) against allegations arising from licensing and distribution agreement that manufacturer terminated due to diversion of drugs to black market distributors in Asia and the Middle East.  Defeated motion for injunctive relief brought by Indian distributor in TRO/preliminary injunction hearing to prevent termination of supply agreement.  
• Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. v. Nomura Int’l PLC, No. 08-13555 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (JMP) – represented bankrupt estate in adversary proceeding concerning claims asserted by Japanese company under currency swap agreements involving disputed amounts owed upon early termination.  Negotiations resulted in settlement of dispute. 
• In re Royal Group Technologies Securities Litig., No. 04 Civ. 9809 (HB) (S.D.N.Y.) - represented former CEO of Canadian building materials company against securities law and other claims in putative U.S. class action. 
• Richtree Inc. vs. Mövenpick Holding A.G., et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t) – defended Swiss international restaurant franchisor Mövenpick Holding AG in a contract dispute stemming from the planned opening of restaurants in the U.S. and Canada.  Action dismissed on jurisdictional grounds by New York’s Commercial Division, and dismissal affirmed on appeal by New York’s intermediate appellate court.   
• In re Sunopta Inc. Securities Litig., No. 1:08-cv-00933-PAC (S.D.N.Y.) – represented Canadian company and individual officers in putative class action asserting securities law claims and parallel claims in proceedings before Canadian courts. 
• Artal Nederland B.V. v. Hoechst Schering AgrEvo GmbH,  No. 2087 (Netherlands Arbitration Institute) – represented foreign corporation in international arbitration involving claims arising out of corporate auction in the bio-technology industry.   
• Centragas v. Techint Construction Corp., No. 10690 (International Chamber of Commerce) – represented foreign affiliate of Enron in international arbitration of contractual claims concerning pipeline construction project in Colombia, South America. 
• In re Yahoo! Shareholder Derivative Litigation (N.D. Cal.) – represented special committee of Yahoo!’s board of directors in connection with shareholder derivative litigation, internal investigations and U.S. Congressional hearings related to claims of internet censorship and human rights violations in China.