The Supreme Court recently confirmed in a unanimous decision the requirements for personal jurisdiction over foreign states when parties seek to confirm international arbitration awards, but important questions remain. In...more
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court in CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd., et al. v. Antrix Corp., et al., No. 23-1201 held that personal jurisdiction exists over a foreign entity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA)...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its unanimous opinion in CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd. et al. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. et al. (605 U.S. ___ (2025)), holding that personal jurisdiction exists over an enforcement action...more
As this term draws to a close, the U.S. Supreme Court is getting busy in reducing its inventory of pending cases. Yesterday, six of them were resolved....more
The Supreme Court of the United States issued six decisions today: Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services, No. 23-1039: This case addresses whether majority-group plaintiffs are held to a heighted evidentiary standard in...more
On Oct. 4, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in CC/Devas Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. to decide whether either the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act or the U.S. Constitution requires plaintiffs to establish personal...more
The US Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”) codifies the doctrine of sovereign immunity and generally prohibits lawsuits in US courts against non-US sovereigns. But the FSIA has an exception where, among other things, a...more
The Supreme Court of the United States announced the following decision today: OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs, No. 13 1067: Respondent Carol Sachs, a California resident, purchased a Eurail Pass over the Internet...more
New York is a key venue for the enforcement of judgments and arbitral awards, and two recent decisions concerning post-judgment discovery demonstrate that while courts will apply their execution and garnishment authority with...more
In a series of recent decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court has sought to restrict plaintiffs’ ability to apply U.S. law to, and to bring claims in the U.S. courts based on, extraterritorial conduct. In Morrison v. National...more