Eur. Over. Comm. v. Banque Paribas L.

13 Citing cases

  1. Pyrenee, Ltd. v. Wocom Commodities, Ltd.

    984 F. Supp. 1148 (N.D. Ill. 1997)   Cited 15 times
    Noting that cost of transporting witnesses from Hong Kong would be prohibitive

    Moreover, Wocom supplies authority that rejects a corporate agent's short-term United States residence as the basis for jurisdiction over his foreign corporation's claims. In Europe Overseas Commodity Traders v. Banque Paribas London, 940 F. Supp. 528 (S.D.N.Y. 1996), the court held that a foreign corporate investor whose sole shareholder lived in Florida "for most of the time of the investment at issue" could not establish jurisdiction over the foreign defendant's alleged securities fraud. Id. at 535.

  2. Europe, Overseas Com. v. Banque Paribas London

    147 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 1998)   Cited 99 times
    Holding sale of securities by agent for foreign bank to foreign corporate investor, which was represented by agent who was present in United States at time of sale, did not give rise to jurisdiction and explaining that this Circuit looks to "conduct, effects, or a combination thereof in the United States" to determine Congressional intent as to extraterritorial application of the anti-fraud provisions of the U.S. securities laws

    Europe and Overseas Commodity Traders, S.A. ("EOC"), a Panamanian corporation, appeals from a final judgment dismissing EOC's complaint pursuant to a Memorandum-Decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Barbara S. Jones, Judge, dated June 19, 1996, as amended June 28, 1996. Europe and Overseas Commodity Traders, S.A. v. Banque Paribas London, 940 F. Supp. 528, 530 n. 1 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). EOC's sole business is the investment of its capital in securities and other ventures.

  3. LaSala v. UBS, AG

    510 F. Supp. 2d 213 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)   Cited 41 times
    Holding Switzerland is an adequate alternative forum

    However, in an age of electronic communication, where files are usually kept in digital form, this factor does not carry great weight. Europe Overseas Commodity Traders, S.A. v. Banque Paribas London et al., 940 F. Supp. 528, 537-38 (S.D.N.Y. 1996), aff'd 147 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 1998) ("[I]n light of technological advances in transportation and communication, this Court recognizes that the location of documents is a factor which is to be given less weight now. . . ."). The location of witnesses is a factor in the private interests analysis carrying greater weight.

  4. LaSala v. Bank of Cyprus Public Co.

    510 F. Supp. 2d 246 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)   Cited 52 times
    Holding that the United States' interest in "ensuring that American currency not be laundered and that American investors not be defrauded by those who attempt to use foreign banks to further a criminal scheme" pales in comparison to the interest of Cyprus where the banks accounts were opened and the allegedly improper transfers were authorized

    However, this private interest factor is about convenience to the parties; thus the presence of the vast majority of witnesses in one forum weighs in favor of that forum, even if the witnesses could be transported. See Europe Overseas Commodity Traders, S.A. v. Banque Paribas London et al., 940 F. Supp. 528, 538 (S.D.N.Y. 1996), aff'd 147 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 1998) (where nearly all witnesses reside overseas, "transporting witnesses from England to the United States — even if they were within this Court's subpoena power or would appear voluntarily — would be extremely inconvenient and would impose a prohibitive cost on defendants"); Scottish Air Int'l Inc. v. British Caledonian Group, PLC, 81 F.3d 1224, 1232-33 (2d Cir. 1996) (affirming district court's dismissal on forum non conveniens ground and noting that since vast majority of potential witnesses were residents of Great Britain, "the difficulty, cost, and disruption of requiring the attendance of such witnesses in New York — whether they were willing to appear or not — would be considerable" and this weighed in favor of dismissal). Second, evidence obtained by means of the Hague Convention, which delivers testimony in the form of a judge's summary of a deposition, is a poor substitute for live trial testimony.

  5. Lasala v. Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC

    514 F. Supp. 2d 447 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that "the mere likelihood of the application of foreign law weighs in favor of dismissal" and collecting cases

    However, in an age of electronic communication, where files are usually kept in digital form, this factor does not carry enormous weight. See Europe Overseas Commodity Traders, S.A. v. Banque Paribas London et al., 940 F. Supp. 528, 537-38 (S.D.N.Y. 1996), aff'd 147 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 1998) ("[I]n light of technological advances in transportation and communication, this Court recognizes that the location of documents is a factor which is to be given less weight now. . . ."). The location of witnesses is a factor in the private interests analysis carrying greater weight.

  6. Mucha v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft

    540 F. Supp. 3d 269 (E.D.N.Y. 2021)   Cited 7 times

    The location of evidence outside of the United States suggests that a United States federal court may not be the most appropriate forum for a case. See,In re Optimal U.S. Litigation , 886 F. Supp.2d at 307 ("[L]ocation abroad of the vast bulk of the evidence weighs against according significant deference to plaintiffs’ choice of forum."); LaSala v. UBS, AG , 510 F. Supp.2d 213, 225 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) ("Where alleged misconduct is centered in the foreign forum and the majority of evidence resides there, dismissal is favored."); But see,Europe & Overseas Commodity Traders, S.A. v. Banque Paribas London, et al. , 940 F. Supp. 528, 537–38 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (affording "less weight" to location of documents due to "technological advances in transportation and communication"). Defendants do not address the role of technological advances in transportation and communication with respect to the documentary evidence.

  7. KENSINGTON INTERNAT'L v. SOCIÉTÉ NATIONALE DES PÉTROLES

    05 Civ. 5101 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2006)   Cited 3 times

    The third factor weighs slightly against the United States as a forum because while Plaintiff has alleged that the United States, and particularly New York, was heavily implicated by Defendants' actions, this is not solely a "local dispute," and none of the parties is a U.S. citizen. See Alfadda et al. v. Fenn et al., 159 F.3d 41, 46 (2d Cir. 1998); Europe Overseas Commodity Traders v. Banque Paribas London, 940 F. Supp. 528, 539 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). The final factor, however, does not weigh in favor of either forum because "[i]n adjudicating plaintiffs' RICO . . . claims, an American court would apply American law.

  8. In re Cinar Corp. Securities Litigation

    186 F. Supp. 2d 279 (E.D.N.Y. 2002)   Cited 75 times
    Holding that single instance of signing a registration statement on behalf of corporation was sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over general counsel

    All of the plaintiffs are American citizens, and although all of the defendants are Canadian citizens, United States courts have a great interest in providing relief to American citizens. See Europe and Overseas Commodity Traders, S.A v. Banque Paribas London, 940 F. Supp. 528, 539 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). United States courts have a special interest in preserving the integrity of American financial markets as well — an interest that should be given due weight.

  9. ISI INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS

    No. 98 C 7614 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 30, 2001)

    The factfinder should have the benefit of assessing the demeanor of witnesses at trial. Europe Overseas Commodity Traders S.A. v. Banque Paribas London, 940 F. Supp. 528, 538 (S.D.N.Y. 1996); Fustok v. Banque Populaire Suisse, 546 F. Supp. 506, 511 (S.D.N.Y. 1982). In addition, the parties dispute whether Scott Aylen represented Reitsma individually or ISI.

  10. Silva Run Worldwide Limited v. Gaming Lottery Corporation

    96 Civ. 3231 (RPP) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 19, 2001)

    Additionally, as noted in the district court's opinion in Banque Paribas, the shares at issue in that case were neither registered nor listed on a U.S. securities exchange. See Europe and Overseas Commodity Traders v. Banque Paribas London, 940 F. Supp. 528, 533 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). Here, shares of both GLC and IPI/Diversinet were listed and traded on the NASDAQ, a U.S. securities exchange.