CTQ-2014-00001
Court of Appeals
STATE OF NEW YORK
MOTOROLA CREDIT CORPORATION,
Appellant-Respondent,
NOKIA CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant,
MOTOROLA, INC., ET AL.,
Counter-Defendants,
—against—
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,
Respondent-Appellant,
MURAT HAKAN UZAN, ET AL.,
Defendants-Counter-Claimants,
KEMAL UZAN, ET AL.,
Defendants.
________________
On Question Certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
(USCOA Docket Nos. 13-2535-cv(L) and 13-2639-cv(con))
BRIEF OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF
GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AS AMICUS CURIAE
IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT-APPELLANT
August 29, 2014
Timothy G. Cameron
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Worldwide Plaza
825 Eighth Avenue
New York, New York 10019
Tel: (212) 474-1000
Fax: (212) 474-3700
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae the
Government of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ........................................... 1
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................................................... 4
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 5
I. THE SEPARATE ENTITY RULE RECOGNIZES AND PROTECTS
THE IMPORTANT SOVEREIGN INTERESTS OF OTHER
NATIONS, AVOIDS SUBJECTING BANKS TO INCONSISTENT
LAWS AND IS CONSISTENT WITH COMITY. ......................................... 5
A. The United Kingdom Has a Strong Sovereign Interest in
Ensuring that Banking Activities in the United Kingdom –
Including the Restraint of Assets Located in U.K. Bank
Accounts – Comply Fully with U.K. Laws and Regulations. ............... 5
B. The Separate Entity Rule Avoids Subjecting Banks to the
Potentially Inconsistent Laws of Different Nations and to a Risk
of Double Liability. ............................................................................... 7
C. Application of the Separate Entity Rule Respects the Public
Policy Choices of Other Nations and Promotes Comity. ...................... 8
II. THE SEPARATE ENTITY RULE APPROPRIATELY
CONSTRAINS THE EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF
U.S. LAWS. ................................................................................................... 12
A. The United Kingdom Has a Longstanding and Legitimate
Interest in Limiting the Extraterritorial Application of U.S.
Laws. ................................................................................................... 12
B. Courts in the United States Have Recognized a Presumption
Against the Extraterritorial Application of Federal and State
Laws. ................................................................................................... 13
C. The Separate Entity Rule Appropriately Constrains the
Extraterritorial Application of N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5222. ........................ 14
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 15
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Ayyash v. Koleilat,
38 Misc. 3d 916 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012),
aff’d, 115 A.D.3d 495 (1st Dep’t 2014).............................................................. 10
Byblos Bank Europe, S.A. v. Sekerbank Turk Anonym Syrketi,
10 N.Y.3d 243 (2008) ........................................................................................... 9
City of Pontiac Policemen’s & Firemen’s Ret. Sys. v. UBS AG,
752 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2014) ................................................................................. 4
Daimler AG v. Bauman,
134 S. Ct. 746 (2014) ............................................................................................ 9
F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A.,
542 U.S. 155 (2004) ........................................................................................ 9, 13
Global Reinsurance Corp. v. Equitas Ltd.,
18 N.Y.3d 722 (2012) ................................................................................... 14-15
Hilton v. Guyot,
159 U.S. 113 (1895) .............................................................................................. 8
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.,
133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013) .......................................................................................... 8
Morrison v. Nat’l Austl. Bank Ltd.,
561 U.S. 247 (2010) ........................................................................................ 4, 13
Société Eram Shipping Co. v. Cie Internationale de Navigation,
[2003] UKHL 30, [2004] 1 A.C. 260 (H.L.)
(appeal taken from Eng.) .............................................................................. 10-11
Statutes & Rules
N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5222 ......................................................................................... 12-15
Civil Procedure Rules, 72.1-72.11 ............................................................................. 6
iii
Other Authorities
New York State Department of Financial Services,
Foreign Branches (May 6, 2014),
http://www.dfs.ny.gov/about/whowesupervise/sifbranc.htm ............................... 2
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
By Order dated January 14, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit certified the following question to this Court: “[W]hether
the separate entity rule precludes a judgment creditor from ordering a garnishee
bank operating branches in New York to restrain a debtor’s assets held in foreign
branches of the bank.” The Court’s resolution of that question – including its
ruling with regard to the continued application of the separate entity rule under
New York law – has the potential directly to affect the large number of banks
headquartered or operating in the United Kingdom which also have branches in
New York. As such, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland (the “Government of the United Kingdom”) respectfully submits
that it has an interest in these proceedings, for the following reasons:
First, banking is a heavily regulated and economically significant
industry that is important not only globally, but particularly in the United
Kingdom, which is an international center of banking and finance. Banks
headquartered in the United Kingdom are among some of the largest foreign banks
that have operations in New York. Those banks include the Bank of Scotland,
2
Barclays Bank, Lloyds Bank, Standard Chartered Bank and the Royal Bank of
Scotland.1
Second, the Government of the United Kingdom has a strong interest
in ensuring that all banking activities that occur in the United Kingdom – including
applications by judgment creditors seeking to restrain funds held in U.K. bank
accounts – comply fully with U.K. banking laws and regulations. The United
Kingdom has enacted a comprehensive system of laws and regulations to
effectuate its policy preferences about the appropriate operation of banks, banking
activities and the enforcement of judgments within its territorial boundaries, and it
expects those laws and regulations to be observed and complied with fully. In the
absence of the recognition by New York courts of the separate entity rule, the
Government of the United Kingdom is concerned at the prospect that judgment
creditors may be permitted to seek, and obtain, orders from a New York court
restraining assets held in a U.K. bank account – instead of seeking such a remedy
in the courts of the United Kingdom, in compliance with U.K. law. Permitting
judgment creditors to proceed in that manner not only fails to respect the sovereign
interest that foreign governments, such as the Government of the United Kingdom,
have in enforcing their own laws, but may expose the banks who are the subject of
1 See New York State Department of Financial Services, Foreign Branches (May 6, 2014),
http://www.dfs.ny.gov/about/whowesupervise/sifbranc.htm (listing foreign banks with New
York branches). The Government of the United Kingdom has an equity interest in the Royal
Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group, which owns the Bank of Scotland.
3
such orders to conflicting obligations under local laws and the risk of double
liability, simply because they operate branches in both jurisdictions.
Third, in the view of the Government of the United Kingdom,
application of the separate entity rule is consistent with important principles of
comity and mutual respect for the sovereignty of other nations. For those same
reasons, courts in the United Kingdom have previously recognized and applied a
common law rule equivalent to the separate entity rule recognized by New York
courts.
Finally, in the view of the Government of the United Kingdom,
application of the separate entity rule in this context avoids the undue (and
unnecessary) extraterritorial application of U.S. law – here, with regard to the
garnishment of assets in bank accounts located outside the United States. Given
the United Kingdom’s stake in its own laws and policies, the overly broad,
extraterritorial application of U.S. law substantially implicates the United
Kingdom’s legitimate sovereign interests. For that reason, the Government of the
United Kingdom has repeatedly filed amicus briefs in U.S. courts to express its
concerns about extraterritorial applications of U.S. law.2 It does so once again
2 See, e.g., Brief of the United Kingdom et ano. in Support of Respondents, Kiobel v. Royal
Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013) (No. 10-1491), 2012 WL 405480; Brief of the
United Kingdom in Support of Respondents, Morrison v. Nat’l Austl. Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247
(2010) (No. 08-1191), 2010 WL 723009; Brief of the United Kingdom et ano. in Support of
Petitioners, F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A., 542 U.S. 155 (2004) (No. 03-724),
2004 WL 226597; Brief of the United Kingdom et al. in Support of Petitioner, Sosa v.
4
here, because the question certified to this Court again raises the prospect of the
extraterritorial application of U.S. law to permit garnishment orders over countless
assets located in the United Kingdom and elsewhere around the world, in violation
of the sovereign interests of the United Kingdom and other nations.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The Government of the United Kingdom respectfully submits that the
question certified to this Court should be answered in the affirmative, namely, that
the separate entity rule precludes a judgment creditor from ordering a garnishee
bank operating branches in New York to restrain a debtor’s assets held in foreign
branches of the bank. Applying the separate entity rule – which treats each branch
of a bank as a separate entity, inter alia, for purposes of enforcing judgments – in
the Government of the United Kingdom’s view promotes comity, respects the
rights of sovereign nations worldwide to regulate the operation of banks and the
enforcement of judgments against assets located within their borders, avoids the
risk of double liability on the part of the banks involved, and appropriately
constrains the extraterritorial application of U.S. law.
Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004) (No. 03-339), 2004 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 910; Brief
for the United Kingdom in Support of Defendants-Appellants, City of Pontiac Policemen’s &
Firemen’s Ret. Sys. v. UBS AG, 752 F.3d 173 (2d Cir. 2014) (No. 12-4355-cv), 2013
WL 2167229. In the Morrison and City of Pontiac cases, for example, the Government of the
United Kingdom successfully urged the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit to reject the extraterritorial application of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 to foreign securities claims. Morrison v. Nat’l Austl. Bank Ltd., 561
U.S. 247, 265 (2010); City of Pontiac Policemen’s & Firemen’s Ret. Sys. v. UBS AG, 752
F.3d 173, 181 (2d Cir. 2014).
5
ARGUMENT
I. THE SEPARATE ENTITY RULE RECOGNIZES AND PROTECTS
THE IMPORTANT SOVEREIGN INTERESTS OF OTHER
NATIONS, AVOIDS SUBJECTING BANKS TO INCONSISTENT
LAWS AND IS CONSISTENT WITH COMITY.
A. The United Kingdom Has a Strong Sovereign Interest in Ensuring
that Banking Activities in the United Kingdom – Including the
Restraint of Assets Located in U.K. Bank Accounts – Comply
Fully with U.K. Laws and Regulations.
The Government of the United Kingdom has a strong, sovereign
interest in ensuring that banks headquartered or operating in the United Kingdom,
as well as all banking activities conducted in the United Kingdom, comply fully
with U.K. laws and regulations. That interest includes ensuring that all steps taken
to enforce a judgment against, or to restrain in any way, funds held in a bank
account in the United Kingdom similarly comply fully with U.K. laws and
regulations.
To that end, the United Kingdom has adopted a comprehensive
mechanism for restraining assets held in U.K. bank accounts, in order to enforce or
satisfy court judgments. The Civil Procedure Rules of England and Wales, for
example, provide an effective avenue for judgment creditors to obtain orders from
courts in England and Wales for the payment of money from a third party, such as
6
a bank, holding the debtor’s funds.3 Civil Procedure Rules, 72.1-72.11 (Eng. &
Wales), available at http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/
part72. Those procedures – which differ to those that apply in New York – reflect
important public policy determinations made by or on behalf of the Government of
the United Kingdom regarding how judgments should be enforced, and how assets
held in bank accounts within its jurisdiction can be restrained.
Against that background, the Government of the United Kingdom is
very concerned that – should the separate entity rule not be applied in New York in
the post-judgment context for any reason – judgment creditors could be permitted
to seek and obtain orders from a court in New York restraining assets held in a
U.K. bank account, instead of seeking such a remedy in the courts of the United
Kingdom, in accordance with U.K. law. Permitting judgment creditors to proceed
in that manner – particularly on the basis of nothing more than the fact that the
bank involved operates branches in the United Kingdom and New York – fails to
respect the important sovereign interests that foreign governments, such as the
Government of the United Kingdom, have in enforcing their own unique laws.
The Government of the United Kingdom thus respectfully urges that the question
certified to this Court be answered in the affirmative, so that – consistent with
3 The Civil Procedure Rules of 1998 referred to here are applicable only in England and
Wales. There are analogous procedures available for the enforcement of judgments in the other
parts of the United Kingdom.
7
those sovereign interests – any judgment creditor seeking to restrain funds in a
U.K. bank account must seek such a remedy before a U.K. court, in accordance
with U.K. law.
B. The Separate Entity Rule Avoids Subjecting Banks to the
Potentially Inconsistent Laws of Different Nations and to a Risk of
Double Liability.
If the separate entity rule is not applied in the instant context, the
Government of the United Kingdom is concerned that courts in New York would
be permitted to order the garnishment of assets held in foreign accounts of banks
with branches in New York without first considering – or ensuring compliance
with – the applicable rules and banking regulations in the foreign country where
the assets are actually located. That possibility creates a real risk that the bank in
question could be confronted with inconsistent obligations, if there are differences
between U.S. (or New York) law and local law in the foreign jurisdiction regarding
the garnishment of assets. Those inconsistencies may also expose a bank to the
risk of double liability, even after it has complied with the U.S. court’s
garnishment order.
In that regard, the Government of the United Kingdom is concerned
that a bank that – in the absence of the separate entity rule – restrains funds held in
an account in the U.K. in response to a garnishment order issued by a court in New
York, without also complying with the requirements for that relief imposed in the
8
United Kingdom, could potentially remain liable to pay those same funds again to
the judgment debtor under U.K. law. That issue has not been addressed by courts
in the United Kingdom, and it is not clear how it would be resolved were it to arise.
However, faced with the possibility of conflicting obligations, the Government of
the United Kingdom is concerned about the potential for, as the U.S. Supreme
Court described it, “unintended clashes between [U.S.] laws and those of other
nations which could result in international discord”. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch
Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659, 1664 (2013). Application of the separate entity
rule in this context avoids such inconsistencies, as well as the risk of double
liability for the banks involved.
C. Application of the Separate Entity Rule Respects the Public Policy
Choices of Other Nations and Promotes Comity.
The separate entity rule is necessary to respect the policy choices
made by foreign nations – such as the United Kingdom – and to promote comity.
Comity, an international principle of fundamental importance, has been defined by
the U.S. Supreme Court as:
“the recognition which one nation allows within its
territory to the legislative, executive or judicial acts of
another nation, having due regard both to international
duty and convenience, and to the rights of its own
citizens, or of other persons who are under the protection
of its laws.”
Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 164 (1895).
9
It is well established that courts can and should respect the public
policy decisions made by foreign nations and seek to preserve and promote comity
by “avoid[ing] unreasonable interference with the sovereign authority of other
nations”. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A., 542 U.S. 155, 164 (2004).
This Court has recognized that when considering issues that “touch[] the laws and
interests of other sovereign states”, it is important to consider potential comity
implications. Byblos Bank Europe, S.A. v. Sekerbank Turk Anonym Syrketi,
10 N.Y.3d 243, 247 (2008).4
In the view of the Government of the United Kingdom, the application
of the separate entity rule to preclude a judgment creditor from ordering a
garnishee bank operating branches in New York to restrain a debtor’s assets held in
foreign branches of the bank not only accords with, but is required by, comity.
That is because, as noted above, the separate entity rule respects, and protects, the
sovereign interests, public policy choices and laws of foreign nations, including the
United Kingdom.
The importance of comity in this context has been recognized in both
the United States and the United Kingdom. In the United States, courts in New
York have previously recognized comity as a reason to apply the separate entity
4 The continued importance of comity was also recently reiterated by the U.S. Supreme
Court in Daimler AG v. Bauman, where the Court rejected an expansive interpretation of
personal jurisdiction over foreign corporations based on concerns about the “risks to
international comity”. 134 S. Ct. 746, 763 (2014).
10
rule in an action involving a different aspect of New York’s law concerning the
enforcement of money judgments. In Ayyash v. Koleilat, the New York State
Supreme Court ruled, after applying the separate entity rule, that banks with New
York branches were not required to provide judgment creditors with account
information about accounts located outside the United States. 38 Misc. 3d 916,
925-26 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012), aff’d, 115 A.D.3d 495 (1st Dep’t 2014). In reaching
that result, the court expressly recognized that “[t]he mere fact that nonparty banks
conduct general business in the United States is insufficient to negate comity
considerations”. Id. at 927. The Government of the United Kingdom urges this
Court to reach the same conclusion here.
Courts in the United Kingdom have similarly recognized and applied,
based on comity concerns, a common law rule equivalent to New York’s separate
entity rule. In Société Eram Shipping Co. v. Cie Internationale de Navigation, the
House of Lords ruled, as regards England and Wales, that a judgment creditor
could not obtain a garnishment order against the U.K. branch of a Hong Kong bank
to restrain assets held by the judgment debtor in an account in Hong Kong.
[2003] UKHL 30, [2004] 1 A.C. 260, ¶ 27 (H.L.) (appeal taken from Eng.)
(available on Westlaw). In reaching that result, Lord Hoffman described the
important sovereign interests raised by judgment enforcement procedures
commenced against banks operating in multiple jurisdictions:
11
“The execution of a judgment is an exercise of sovereign
authority. It is the seizure by the state of an asset of the
judgment debtor to satisfy the creditor’s claim. And it is
a general principle of international law that one sovereign
state should not trespass upon the authority of another, by
attempting to seize assets situated within the jurisdiction
of the foreign state or compelling its citizens to do acts
within its boundaries.
“In the modern world, banking is perhaps the strongest
illustration of the importance of mutual respect for
national sovereignties. There are nearly 500 foreign
banks in London, to say nothing of British banks with
branches overseas. Banking is a highly regulated activity
and each head office or branch has to comply with the
laws of the jurisdiction in which it operates. If the courts
of one country in which a bank operates exercise no
restraint about using their sovereign powers of
compulsion in relation to accounts maintained with that
bank at branches in other countries, conflict and chaos is
likely to follow.”
Id. ¶¶ 54-55. Recognizing those same concerns, Lord Bingham concluded that “it
is inconsistent with the comity owed to the Hong Kong court to purport to interfere
with assets subject to its local jurisdiction”.5 Id. ¶ 26. Again, the Government of
the United Kingdom urges that this Court reach the same result, and uphold the
continued applicability of the separate entity rule under New York law on comity
grounds.
5 Their Lordships also found that it was inappropriate to permit the garnishment order
because doing so might have subjected the bank to double liability. Société Eram, [2004]
1 A.C. 260, ¶¶ 10, 25, 28. Consistent with concerns discussed above (see supra Section I.B.),
Lord Hoffmann observed that “[t]he bank produced uncontradicted evidence that by Hong Kong
law the garnishee order would not discharge the debt owing by the bank to the judgment debtor
in Hong Kong.” Id. ¶ 60.
12
II. THE SEPARATE ENTITY RULE APPROPRIATELY CONSTRAINS
THE EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF U.S. LAWS.
The Government of the United Kingdom views the separate entity rule
as a very important constraint on the extraterritorial application of U.S. law – in
this case, N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5222. Such constraints are necessary to prevent the
improperly extraterritorial application of this statute in a manner that interferes
with the ability of the United Kingdom and other nations to regulate banks,
banking activities and the enforcement of judgments within their borders.
A. The United Kingdom Has a Longstanding and Legitimate Interest
in Limiting the Extraterritorial Application of U.S. Laws.
Given the importance to the United Kingdom of applying its own laws
and policies within its borders, the overly broad extraterritorial application of U.S.
law substantially implicates the Government of the United Kingdom’s legitimate
sovereign interests. Consequently, and as noted above, the Government of the
United Kingdom has repeatedly appeared as amicus curiae in United States courts
to express its concerns about extraterritorial applications of United States laws, and
has succeeded in convincing courts to limit the reach of those laws. See supra
note 2.
The certified question before this Court raises extraterritoriality
concerns on the part of the Government of the United Kingdom because declining
to apply the separate entity rule would effectively permit the application of
13
New York law on the collection of judgments, set forth in N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5222,
all over the world, as long as the bank in question has a branch in New York. Such
an extraterritorial application of New York law would impact enforcement of the
U.K. laws that regulate banking activities within the United Kingdom and, as the
Government of the United Kingdom understands it, would have similar effects in
other nations around the world.
B. Courts in the United States Have Recognized a Presumption
Against the Extraterritorial Application of Federal and State
Laws.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed – in cases where the
Government of the United Kingdom filed amicus curiae briefs urging such a result
– “[i]t is a longstanding principle of American law that legislation of Congress,
unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial
jurisdiction of the United States.” Morrison, 561 U.S. at 255 (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). “When a statute gives no clear indication of an
extraterritorial application, it has none.” Id.; see F. Hoffmann-La Roche, 542 U.S.
at 165 (explaining concerns about the extraterritorial application of U.S. antitrust
laws, which “when applied to foreign conduct, can interfere with a foreign nation’s
ability independently to regulate its own commercial affairs”). Indeed, as this
Court has recognized, “[t]he established presumption is, of course, against the
14
extraterritorial operation of New York law”. Global Reinsurance Corp. v. Equitas
Ltd., 18 N.Y.3d 722, 735 (2012).
In the view of the Government of the United Kingdom, those
principles are directly relevant to this Court’s consideration of the certified
question. Consistent with those principles, the Government of the United
Kingdom respectfully submits that N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5222 should not be permitted
to apply extraterritorially, particularly where, as here, extraterritorial application of
that statute will interfere with the ability of foreign nations to regulate conduct
within their borders and to ensure compliance with their own laws.
C. The Separate Entity Rule Appropriately Constrains the
Extraterritorial Application of N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5222.
In the view of the Government of the United Kingdom, the separate
entity rule imposes sensible geographic limits on the reach of N.Y. C.P.L.R.
§ 5222, and avoids situations in which New York court orders could cause
interference with the legitimate sovereign interests and policy choices that the
United Kingdom and other nations have made in the areas of bank regulation and
enforcement of judgments.
The extraterritorial application of this statute is of great concern to the
Government of the United Kingdom. Such extraterritorial application could
significantly impact banking activities and the enforcement of judgments within
the U.K. and could have similar and far-reaching effects worldwide. In light of the
15
fact that banks headquartered in the United Kingdom, Europe, Asia and South
America all have branches in New York, in the absence of the separate entity rule,
New York courts would effectively be able to order the garnishment of assets
being held not just in accounts at those banks’ overseas headquarters, but also,
potentially, at any other branch location, anywhere in the world. Such sprawling
extraterritorial effects are inconsistent with the presumption that New York law
does not apply extraterritorially. See Global Reinsurance Corp., 18 N.Y.3d at 735.
Consequently, it is the Government of the United Kingdom’s view that this Court
should continue to apply the separate entity rule to prevent the extraterritorial
application of N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5222 and to respect and protect the sovereign
interests of the United Kingdom and other nations in regulating banks, banking
activities and the procedure for enforcing judgments against assets within their
borders.
CONCLUSION
The Government of the United Kingdom hopes that its views and
perspectives on these issues will be of benefit to the Court. For the foregoing
reasons, it is the Government of the United Kingdom’s respectful opinion that the
Court should answer the question certified by the Second Circuit in the affirmative,
and hold that the separate entity rule precludes a judgment creditor from ordering a
garnishee bank operating branches in New York to restrain a debtor's assets held in
foreign branches of the bank.
Dated: August 29, 2014
16
, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Timothy G. Cameron
A member of the Firm
Worldwide Plaza
825 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10019
(212) 474-1000
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae the
Government of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland