Forum non conveniens

Pages84-85
84 Volume 17, October–December 2011 international law update
© 2012 Transnational Law Associates, LLC. All rights reserved. ISSN 1089-5450, ISSN 1943-1287 (on-line) | www.internationallawupdate.com
surveillance orders are reasonable under the Fourth
Amendment.” [Slip op. 23-24]
With regard to the “signicant purpose test” of
FISA, the Court holds that it is reasonable under the
Fourth Amendment, and, therefore, constitutional.
“First, the ‘signicant purpose’ standard reects a
balance struck by Congress between ‘the legitimate
need of Government for intelligence information’
and ‘the protected rights of our citizens.’ Keith, 407
U.S. at 323.” [Slip op. 28] “e legislative history
reveals that Congress was keenly aware that [the
Patriot Act’s amendment to what is now § 1804(a)
(6)(B)] relaxed a requirement that the government
show that its primary purpose was other than
criminal prosecution.” [Slip op. 28]
Additionally, the Court concludes that the
signicant purpose test is reasonable by examining
the government’s legitimate national security goals.
“We are mindful of the high stakes involved and
emphasize the Supreme Court’s admonition that
‘[w]here, as here, the possible harm against which
the Government seeks to guard is substantial, the
need to prevent its occurrence furnishes an ample
justication for reasonable searches calculated to
advance the Government’s goal.’ [Nat’l Treasury
Emps. Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 674-75
(1989)].” [Slip op. 29]
Lastly, the Court highlights that FISA contains
several safeguards against abuse and provides
appropriate judicial review.
: United States v. Duka, 2011 U.S. App.
LEXIS 25868 (3rd Cir. Dec. 28, 2011).
FORUM NON
CONVENIENS
A     
    
 P, S C 
      
  F N C
Figueiredo Ferraz Consultoria E Engenharia de
Projeto Ltda. entered into a consulting agreement
with the Programa Agua Para Todos (“the Program”),
where Figueiredo was to prepare engineering
studies on water and sewage services in Peru. e
agreement stated that they would avail themselves
to the Judges and Courts of the City of Lima or the
Arbitration Proceedings, if a dispute arose. When
a fee dispute did arise, Figueiredo commenced an
arbitration action in Peru against the Program. In
2005, the arbitral tribunal rendered an award. e
Ministry of Housing, Construction, and Sanitation
appealed the arbitration award to the Court of
Appeals in Peru, but the appeal was denied.
Figueiredo led a petition in the Southern
District Court of New York to have the arbitration
order conrmed. e arbitration award was
conrmed against the Republic of Peru and its
agencies for a sum of more than $21 million.
However, Peru has a statutory cap that prevents
the country from paying more than 3% of its
annual budget in awards enforced against the state.
erefore, the country sought to dismiss the action
for forum non conveniens (“FNC”). e district
court denied the motion, nding that dismissal was
not proper under FNC.
e U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reverses the district court’s ruling and remands the
case with directions to dismiss the petition. e
Court notes that in analyzing FNC, courts must
look to public and private interests. e public
interests can include “a local interest in having
localized controversies decided at home . . . and
the interest in having foreign law interpreted by a
foreign court.” [Slip op. 9] e Court further notes
that although the Panama Convention established

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT