When the U.S. Supreme Court decided Daimler v. Bauman1—sharply narrowing circumstances where a court could exercise general jurisdiction over a defendant—many hoped that it would finally limit a plaintiff’s ability to invoke broad jurisdiction of U.S. courts to prosecute claims against foreign financial institutions arising out of foreign conduct in the United States.
As we noted last year, however, lower courts have resisted Daimler’s core teaching—that a corporation is only subject to general jurisdiction in the forum in which it is incorporated or has its primary place of business—and have found the exercise of general jurisdiction proper on a much lower showing than what appeared to be contemplated by the Supreme Court. (“Limits of General Jurisdiction: Do Recent Decisions Undo ‘Daimler’?” NYLJ, June 11, 2015.) Those cases are pending and subject to ongoing appellate review.
This content has been archived.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]
