Carlos Ghosn, former chief executive officer of Nissan Motor Co. and Renault SA, gestures as he speaks to the media at the Lebanese Press Syndicate in Beirut, Lebanon, on Wednesday, Jan. 8, 2020. "Ripped from my family, my friends, my communities, from Renault, Nissan and Mitsubishi and the 450,000 women and men who comprise those companies. It is impossible to express the depth of that deprivation and my profound appreciation to once again be able to be reunited with my family and loved ones," Ghosn said. Photographer: Hasan Shaaban/Bloomberg

For a while, it seemed like Paul Weiss lawyers had a strong argument that all claims in a securities fraud class action against their client Carlos Ghosn should be dismissed—that the federal court in Nashville lacked personal jurisdiction over the ex-Nissan chairman.

"Subjecting a foreigner to suit in the United States is burdensome under ordinary circumstances, but here the burdens are much higher since Mr. Ghosn at present cannot even leave Japan by order of the Japanese authorities, is subject to constant surveillance, and is barred from interacting with witnesses in his case (among other limitations)," wrote Paul Weiss securities litigation co-chair Audra Soloway in August, back when all of that was true.

But there's nothing like your client jumping bail and fleeing to Lebanon stuffed in a big black box on an illegally chartered business jet to derail your best-laid jurisdiction and forum non conveniens arguments.

(Man, I hate it when that happens.)

Plaintiffs lawyers from Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd are leveraging their newfound advantage after Ghosn in December escaped from Japan, where he faces criminal charges of financial misconduct. 

In court papers filed Tuesday, the plaintiffs lawyers argued that with Ghosn "on the lam, the circumstances he has so heavily relied upon no longer exist."

That is, Ghosn 1) is no longer in Japan 2) isn't subject to constant surveillance by Japanese authorities and 3) can interact with witnesses in his case as he sees fit.

"By absconding, Ghosn has successfully freed himself of every restriction he had complained of," wrote Robbins Geller partner Christopher Wood. 

Bonus for Ghosn: Lebanon doesn't have an extradition treaty with Japan, and Lebanese law precludes the extradition of its own citizens.

True, Ghosn is now subject to a temporary travel ban by Lebanon, but Wood argues that's hardly equivalent to awaiting a lengthy criminal trial in Japan.

 "Ghosn now casually attempts to substitute the burden arguments above, suggesting that it is now the temporary travel ban by Lebanon that would make the court's exercise of personal jurisdiction unreasonable," Wood wrote. "Ignoring, for a moment, Ghosn's pattern of deception with this court and his stated willingness 'to stand trial anywhere where I think I can have a fair trial,' that is preposterous."

Ghosn didn't help his cause at a press conference in Beirut, where he told reporters "I don't consider myself as a prisoner in Lebanon… I am with my family. My kids can come visit me. I can use the phone and the internet. I don't have 'followers' (keeping an eye on me)."

"In other words," the Robbins Geller lawyers wrote, "Ghosn has no restrictions on his ability to communicate, no surveillance by the state, and therefore no meaningful burden on his ability to defend himself in this action."

Also, they argued, even if Ghosn couldn't leave Lebanon, that wouldn't preclude federal discovery, including a deposition. Ghosn himself opened this door when he told the reporters, "There are many other documents I can provide. … If you contact my lawyers, they can show you the documents."

Wood wrote, "Ghosn's willingness to disclose probative materials when it suits him further demonstrates that he is fully capable of doing so in this action."

Robbins Geller sued defendants including Ghosn and Nissan (represented by Latham & Watkins) in December of 2018 on behalf of the Jackson County Employees' Retirement System and other purchasers of Nissan American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") between December 10, 2013 and November 16, 2018.

Nissan's U.S. headquarters is located in Smyrna, Tennessee—hence the Middle District of Tennessee venue. The suit alleges that unbeknownst to investors, Nissan "has been materially understating its expenses—and overstating profits—by concealing half of the annual executive compensation" that it paid to Ghosn.

"In truth and in fact, Nissan paid defendant Ghosn an additional ¥1 billion per year in the form of deferred compensation I.O.U.'s, but failed to disclose these payments in the company's publicly filed financial reports," the complaint states. 

(¥1 billion is about $9 million, but that doesn't sound nearly as impressive.)

"Not only did the underreporting deceive Nissan's investors, it violated the pay cap Nissan shareholders approved, and so Nissan ordinary shares are now under threat of being delisted," according to the complaint.

That sounds solid enough. But a key threshold question remains: Does the court in Tennessee have jurisdiction?

Escaping to Lebanon may have solved some of Ghosn's problems, but not this one. 

A Paul Weiss spokesman did not respond to a request for comment. The suit remains pending before U.S. District Judge William L. Campbell, Jr.