Comity

• Pages: 87-88

Page 87

In the Fall of 2003, Innovative Communications Company (ICC) and its subsidiary Belize Telecom (BT) (Appellants) entered into an agreement to purchase stock in Belize Telecommunications Limited (BTL) from the Government of Belize (Government). After Appellants had failed to make certain obligated payments, the Government seized their shares and replaced 4 board members that appellants had appointed with new members.

The companies brought action in both the U.S. and Belize to litigate the interpretation of the BTL Articles of Association. Appellants fi led suit in a Florida federal court; it granted a preliminary injunction reinstating Appellant's 4 board members on March 11, 2005. The U.S. district court issued a contempt order against the Belize Government after the Government and other shareholders voted to replace the directors appointed by appellants. In June 2005, the federal court held a bench trial that resulted in a verdict for the Government; it also vacated the preliminary injunction and contempt order.

Meanwhile, Belize had filed an action its courts for a declaratory judgment after the issuance of the preliminary injunction. The Belize Supreme Court (of fi rst instance) ruled for the Government. The U.S. district court held that it had no duty to defer to the Belizean decision. After the Belize Court of Appeals (BCA) reversed the decision of the Belize Supreme Court, the Appellants moved for reconsideration in the U.S. district court. The district court adhered to its earlier ruling, and an appeal ensued.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirms in part and reverses in part. Here, the Belize courts had resolved the proper interpretation of Article 90(D)(ii). The trial Page 88 court interpreted Article 90(D)(ii), which the BCA later reversed. The U.S. district court refused to recognize either Belizean decision. This Eleventh Circuit, however, concludes that international comity required deference to the Belizean decision.

"This circuit [has] identified the primary concerns in an international comity analysis: '(1) whether the judgment was rendered via fraud; (2) whether the judgment was rendered by a competent court utilizing proceedings consistent with civilized jurisprudence; and (3) whether the foreign judgment is prejudicial, in the sense of violating American public policy because it is repugnant to fundamental principles of what is decent and just.' [Cite]. We also identifi ed the relative...