In the recent case, Madden International v. Lew Footwear Holdings,1 a New York state court judge faced a situation in which, more than 18 months after the commencement of a lawsuit in Australia against Madden International, and a decision by those courts not to enforce a choice of New York forum clause because it violated Australian public policy, Madden sought an anti-suit injunction in New York against further prosecution of the Australian case. The New York court granted the anti-suit injunction. Considering the typically high threshold for issuing anti-suit injunctions and the inevitable issues of international comity raised by such cases, it is worth looking at whether this was an aberration.
Choice of Law Provision
Madden, the well-known designer and seller of footwear, handbags and accessories, and Lew Footwear entered into a contract under which Lew was to be the exclusive licensee of Madden in Australia and New Zealand, through Dec. 31, 2014. The contract included a provision designating New York as the exclusive choice of forum for resolving disputes. In October 2013, Lew notified Madden that it was going to commence steps to wind down its business operations in respect of Madden products. Madden responded that this notice constituted an anticipatory repudiation of the contract.
This content has been archived.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]
