This month, we discuss Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL,1 in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered whether a district court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over a foreign bank based on its correspondent banking accounts in New York is consistent with the due process protections of the U.S. Constitution. The court’s opinion, written by Judge Robert D. Sack, and joined by Chief Judge Robert A. Katzmann and Judge Amalya L. Kearse, addressed an issue previously reserved in Licci II,2 in which the court certified state law questions regarding personal jurisdiction to the New York Court of Appeals, but reserved decision on the due process issue until after the state law ruling.
Following the New York Court of Appeals’ decision that personal jurisdiction exists under state law,3 the Second Circuit, vacating the district court’s opinion, held that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a foreign bank using a New York correspondent bank account to execute dozens of wire transfers is also consistent with due process.
Background
This content has been archived.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]
