§Why CasetextPricing

Mashreqbank PSC, Appellant,v.Ahmed Hamad A1 Gosaibi & Brothers Company, Respondent.---------------------------------Ahmed Hamad Al Gosaibi & Brothers Company, Third-Party Respondent, v. Maan Abdul Waheed Al Sanea, Third-Party Appellant, Awal Bank BSC, Third-Party Defendant.

Brief

8 Cited authorities

  1. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno

    454 U.S. 235 (1981)   Cited 4,729 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that potential change in law cannot, by itself, fend off dismissal under forum non conveniens absent showing that new law is "clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory"

  2. Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert

    330 U.S. 501 (1947)   Cited 5,597 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that private interest factors include the "availability of compulsory process for attendance of un-willing, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses"

  3. Islamic Republic v. Pahlavi

    62 N.Y.2d 474 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 706 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Diverging from federal doctrine on whether alternative forum must be available to consider forum non conveniens claims

  4. Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 7854 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 258 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a foreign bank's repeated use of a correspondent account in New York on behalf of a client ... show purposeful availment" sufficient to meet the transacting-business prong of New York's long-arm statute

  5. Ehrlich-Bober v. University

    49 N.Y.2d 574 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 138 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Upholding personal jurisdiction over defendant public university located in Texas based upon use of a correspondent bank in New York to carry out a transaction with plaintiff New York securities dealer where other contacts existed—i.e., the disputed “reverse repurchase” agreements involved phone calls and visits to plaintiff's office in New York, and the placing of a securities order and delivery and payment in that office

  6. Zeevi v. Grindlays Bank

    37 N.Y.2d 220 (N.Y. 1975)   Cited 111 times
    Holding that New York law governed where payment was to be rendered in New York and New York was locus of repudiation

  7. Amigo v. Marine Midland

    39 N.Y.2d 391 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 105 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Finding no personal jurisdiction where there was only a single fund transfer through correspondent account that the defendant bank rejected at target account holder's direction

  8. Ancile Investment Co. Ltd. v. Archer Dan. Midland Co.

    08 Civ. 9492 (PAC) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 23, 2009)   Cited 11 times
    Stating that the defendant, a multinational corporation, could not plausibly argue it is not amenable to suit in the forum district in which it is headquartered