Printer Friendly

Anti-suit injunction: where defendants seek anti-suit injunction in Singapore, Second Circuit affirms the issuance of an anti-suit injunction, finding that the district court properly exercised its discretion in preventing a clear threat to its jurisdiction over the case.

Defendants, Morgan Stanley Asia (Singapore) PTE, Morgan Stanley & Co. International, PLC, Morgan Stanley Capital Services Incorporated, Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, and Pinnacle Performance Limited ("Pinnacle"), appeal from an order of the district court issuing a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Defendants from pursuing their own anti-suit injunction in the Republic of Singapore. Such an injunction would require the Plaintiffs to litigate their claims exclusively in Singapore. The Defendants also seek review of the district court's denial of their motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint for forum non conveniens or due to the forum selection clause included in the contracts upon which the suit is based.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirms the district court's issuance of the anti-suit injunction. The Court notes that in order to issue such an injunction, the court must address the propriety of the injunction under the "China Trade Test" and then determine whether it is appropriate to enter a preliminary injunction. The Court holds that that district court was correct in determining that the Plaintiffs satisfied both tests. "Faced with this clear threat to its jurisdiction over the case, the district court properly exercised its discretion in finding that this factor weighed heavily against Appellants. ... We agree with the district court that Appellees have demonstrated irreparable harm through the actual and imminent possibility that they will be enjoined from prosecuting their suit in this, or in any other non-Singaporean, forum, and that there are sufficiently serious questions going to the merits." [Slip op. 5] (internal quotation omitted).

With regard to the motion to dismiss, the Court declines to address it, remanding it to the district court to determine the question of personal jurisdiction over the Defendants.

CITATION: Leng v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., No. 11-5150-cv (2nd Cir., Apr. 10, 2012).

COPYRIGHT 2012 Transnational Law Associates
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2012 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:International Law Update
Geographic Code:9SING
Date:Apr 1, 2012
Previous Article:The United States has signed agreements to promote freedoms of international trade and. investment among all nations.
Next Article:Copyright: Fourth Circuit holds that Copyright Act has extraterritorial reach when the type of infringement permits further reproduction abroad.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters