Anti-Suit Injunction
| Pages | 6-8 |
6Volume 23, January–March 2017 international law update
© 2017 International Law Group, LLC. All rights reserved. ISSN 1089-5450, ISSN 1943-1287 (on-line) | www.internationallawupdate.com
than change the TVPRA. See Middleton, 578
F.3d at 664; Belli, 981 F.2d at 841. Rather, as the
provision’s title indicates, it provided “[a]dditional
jurisdiction.“[7] Indeed, the two courts to address
TVPRA’s civil remedy provision before 2008 held
that the law did not provide a cause of action for
extraterritorial conduct. See Nattah v. Bush, 541
F.Supp.2d 223, 234 (D.D.C. 2008), aff’d in part,
rev’d in part on other grounds, 605 F.3d 1052
(D.C. Cir. 2010); John Roe I v. Bridgestone Corp.,
492 F.Supp.2d 988, 999-1004 (S.D. Ind. 2007). As
such, in contrast to cases where this Court has held
an amendment was clarifying, there was no circuit
split or conflict that “provoked” Congress to “enact
an amendment to clarify rather than change the
law.” Cowden, 895 F.2d at 1501.” [202]
“Second, Plaintiffs cite the “transitory tort
doctrine,” arguing that KBR would have been liable
under state tort law. But Plaintiffs’ state law claims
are barred by the statute of limitations. Allowing
Plaintiffs to retroactively bring a TVPRA claim
would eliminate that defense, thereby imposing
new liability to KBR. See Hughes Aircraft, 520 U.S.
at 948, 117 S.Ct. 1871. Additionally, Plaintiffs’
rights or remedies under expired claims cannot be
said to parallel the remedies that the TVPRA would
make available if applied. Consequently, allowing
Plaintiffs to bring a TVPRA claim would have an
impermissible retroactive effect.” [206]
citation: Adhikari v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.,
845 F. 3d 184—Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 2017.
ANTI-SUIT
INJUNCTION
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh
Circuit affirms United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Indiana, South Bend Division denying
antisuit injunctive relief
In 2009, Joaquim Salles Leite Neto entered
into a trust agreement with Wells Fargo Bank to
purchase an airplane for use in his business. Wells
Fargo borrowed $6 million from 1st Source and
pledged the aircraft as collateral. In January 2011,
Neto signed a guarantee for that loan. § 3.02 of the
Guarantee dealt with governing law and disputed
choice-of-law and venue provisions. In June 2012,
the Brazilian government seized the airplane. For
several years, Neto continued to pay 1st Source for
his debt on the plane, making almost $3 million
in payments. Neto stopped making payments in
December 2014. In June 2015, 1st Source sued
Neto in the Northern District of Indiana to collect
the remainder of the debt. In July 2016, 1st Source
filed a substantively similar complaint against Neto
in São Paolo, Brazil, seeking to recoup the remainder
of the debt from the airplane transaction. At the
time that 1st Source filed the Brazil lawsuit, Neto
maintained certain assets, including the airplane at
issue, in Brazil. In October, Neto sought antisuit
injunctive relief in Indiana district court in an
effort to prevent 1st Source from proceeding with
the parallel action in Brazil. He argued that § 3.02
of the loan guarantee prohibited 1st Source from
bringing suit in Brazil, and that the Brazil litigation
was vexatious and duplicative. e district court
denied Neto’s motion, concluding that § 3.02
allowed for the parallel litigation, and that Neto
had not met his burden for showing that the Brazil
litigation was vexatious. e appeal followed. *610
On appeal from decisions on injunctive relief,
the Court of Appeals will review legal conclusions
de novo, findings of fact for clear error, and
equitable balancing for abuse of discretion.” Korte
v. Sebelius, 735 F.3d 654, 665 (7th Cir. 2013).
To continue reading
Request your trial