This case suggests that parties seeking to oppose a foreign judgment should consider how to raise due process concerns at the earliest opportunity and that plaintiffs should think strategically about where they will be able to enforce a judgment.

A recent ruling[1] from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has clarified what is required to recognize foreign judgments under New York law. The court recognized a $124 million British judgment and clarified that, unlike enforcement of a foreign judgment, recognition of a foreign judgment does not require jurisdiction over the defendant.

U.S.-based Cargill Financial Services International, Inc. and CFSIT Inc. confirmed their arbitration award against T.B. Fruit Group founder Taras Barshchovskiy in British court after failing to serve Barshchovskiy in Ukraine. Plaintiffs then filed suit in New York for recognition of the judgment pursuant to the Uniform Foreign Country Money Judgments Act, N.Y. CPLR Article 53. Barshchovskiy removed the suit to federal court, and after the court denied his motion to dismiss based on improper service[2], the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment.

Overcoming Jurisdictional Objections

Barshchovskiy argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over him because he did not have the required “minimum contacts” with New York. The court clarified that recognition simply converts a foreign judgment into a New York judgment and does not require jurisdiction over the defendant. Barshchovskiy cited a case[3] where personal jurisdiction was required for recognition, but the court distinguished it because—unlike the present case where the court’s role was “merely ministerial”—it involved evidence of serious fairness concerns requiring litigation. Notably, the court only examined whether such fairness concerns existed in the British judgment confirmation proceeding and refused to consider allegations about the underlying arbitration.

To enforce a judgment, jurisdiction over the defendant or their property is necessary as a practical matter. The court explained that recognition gives the plaintiffs access to a variety of legal tools that enable enforcement, but that plaintiffs must still identify something or someone to enforce against.

This case suggests that parties seeking to oppose a foreign judgment should consider how to raise due process concerns at the earliest opportunity and that plaintiffs should think strategically about where they will be able to enforce a judgment.

For More Information

If you have any questions about this Alert or about the enforcement or recognition of foreign judgments in the United States, please contact J. Manly Parks, Brian Adam Kennedy, any of the attorneys in our Trial Practice Group, or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.

Notes

Disclaimer: This Alert has been prepared and published for informational purposes only and is not offered, nor should be construed, as legal advice. For more information, please see the firm's full disclaimer.