In Daimler v. Bauman, issued last term, the U.S. Supreme Court significantly limited the circumstances in which U.S. courts can exercise general jurisdiction over a corporate defendant, holding that absent exceptional circumstances, exercise of general jurisdiction over a corporate defendant is only proper in the forum where the defendant is organized or has its primary place of business.1 Relying on Daimler, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in Gucci v. Li, that a foreign bank merely having a branch in a forum was not sufficient to warrant the exercise of general jurisdiction over the bank in that forum.2
Combined, the limited approach to general jurisdiction articulated in Daimler and Gucci suggest limits on plaintiffs’ ability to invoke the broad jurisdiction of U.S. courts—and with it the broad U.S.-style discovery—to prosecute claims against foreign financial institutions arising out of non-U.S.-based conduct.
This content has been archived.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]
