Foreign judgments

• Pages: 55-58

Page 55

Byblos Bank Europe, S.A. is a Belgian bank (Plaintiff ) and Sekerbank Turk Anonym Syrketi (Defendant) is a Turkish bank. According to Plaintiff, in 1988, it issued two $2.5 million loans to Defendant. An employee of Defendant apparently obtained the loans by issuing a fraudulent loan guaranty to Plaintiff and ultimately made off with the money. After paying some interest due on the fi rst transfer at the outset, Defendant refused to make further payments.

Page 56

Plaintiff filed attachment proceedings and actions for breach of the loan agreements in the courts of Belgium, Turkey and Germany, nations where Plaintiff believed that Defendant held assets. In 1992, the Turkish court of fi rst instance entered judgment dismissing the action on the merits, and a Turkish appellate court upheld that judgment in 1994.

Thereafter, in the German and Belgian proceedings, Defendant sought recognition of the Turkish judgment dismissing Plaintiff 's claims. In March 1996, the German court of fi rst instance granted Defendant's application for recognition of the Turkish judgment; a German court of appeal affirmed that judgment the following year. [246]

Meanwhile, in August 1996, the Tribunal de Commerce de Bruxelles (the Belgian court of fi rst instance) ruled that res judicata barred the relitigation of Plaintiff 's claims and dismissed the complaint. On Plaintiff 's appeal, the Cour d'Appel de Bruxelles, the intermediate appellate court, reversed the judgment of the Tribunal de Commerce in October 2003 and declined to accord the Turkish judgment preclusive eff ect. The court relied upon a now-repealed section of the Belgian Judicial Code which required review of foreign judgments on the merits before deciding whether or not to recognize them. The Cour d'Appel concluded that substantial error "affected" the Turkish judgment. Upon its own review of the facts, it ruled in Plaintiff 's favor on the merits and entered judgment awarding Plaintiff $5 million, plus interest. In September 2005, the Cour de Cassation de Belgique denied Defendant's petition for cancellation of the judgment.

Plaintiff then tried to enforce the Belgian judgment in the New York state courts based on its belief that Defendant had assets in the state. In March 2006, Plaintiff moved ex parte for an order of attachment pursuant to C.P.L.R. 6201(5) seeking to attach up to $12,140,518.32 of Defendant's New York assets. This sum represented the principal and accumulated interest...