Should the jurisdictional requirements for obtaining a pre-judgment attachment in aid of a foreign arbitration be different from the requirements for executing against assets when attempting to enforce the award in which that very same arbitration culminates? Should the answer be different depending on whether one is in state or federal court? Is the jurisdictional analysis one of jurisdiction over the person or the property? The four decisions that we review in this column demonstrate that one should navigate carefully the jurisdictional waters when it comes to attachments and judgment enforcement. But they likewise show that, with some careful thought and creativity, the New York courts can be especially hospitable to efforts to seize assets.
The most recent of these decisions is just a few months old. In In Re Sojitz Corp., 2011 NY Slip Op. 01741 (1st Dept., March 10, 2011), the Appellate Division, First Department, stated that the following issue was one of first impression in New York: “whether a creditor can attach assets in New York, for security purposes, in anticipation of an award that will be rendered in a foreign country, where there is no connection to New York by way of subject matter or personal jurisdiction.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
