Forum non Conveniens

• Author: International Law Group
• Pages: 105-108

Page 105

In 1998 Wayne Duha (Plaintiff) agreed to move to Argentina at the request of his employer, Agrium U. S., a subsidiary of Canadian-based Agrium, Inc. (Defendant), to enhance Agrium's Argentine subsidiary, Agroservicios Pampeanos, S.A. (ASP). Plaintiff accepted the position in reliance on certain incentives; these included not only 3,000 stock options but also additional creditPage 106 for years of service to improve his benefi ts and any severance pay.

During his two years in Argentina, Plaintiff claims he observed ASP engaging in "shady record-keeping and business practices," including "bribery." Further, Plaintiff alleges that ASP was using his Michigan residence to buy equipment and supplies, to avoid having to pay tax and costs associated with letters of credit; ASP processed more than $20 million worth of goods in this way. An investigation revealed that the alleged practices were, in fact, taking place.

Shortly after Plaintiff reported these practices to his supervisors and U. S. authorities, Agrium fi red him, allegedly because Plaintiff was supplying his subordinates with prostitutes as a work incentive. A human resources manager, however, had sent an e-mail to ASP management claiming that the comments referring to the prostitute were made jokingly.

While still in Argentina, Plaintiff filed for legal conciliation as required by Argentine law. Although the parties did come to a tentative settlement, the agreement fell apart when Agrium required Plaintiff to release all claims against Agrium and Agrium U.S. in addition to his claims against ASP. In late June 2000, Plaintiff moved back to Michigan without receiving severance pay, or pay for unused vacation, or money due for business expenses incurred before his termination. Furthermore, Plaintiff alleged that Agrium had canceled his stock options.

Plaintiff agreed to go to work for a different company in September of 2000 for which he had to move to Indiana. Plaintiff claimed, however, that Agrium's Board of Directors intervened and prevented the award of a business opportunity to Plaintiff's new company, potentially robbing Plaintiff of a substantial commission.

Plaintiff then filed a 45-count complaint against Agrium in a Michigan federal court. The complaint dealt mainly with claims under contract and tort principles, including many allegations directly relating to his termination. Initial discovery revolved around defendants' motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non...