Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda Limited

3 Citing briefs

  1. Hamid v. Habib Bank Limited et al

    RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re: 12 Order to Show Cause,,,,. Document

    Filed June 24, 2011

    Indeed, the district court decision in Koehler explicitly noted that “the separate entity rule has no role to play in this case, [because] [h]ere, the foreign branch itself was properly served.” Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda Ltd., 2005 WL 551115, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2005) (emphasis added). The Second Circuit similarly did not mention the separate entity rule, and explicitly noted that the turnover order was authorized “because” the specific foreign entity that held the stock certificates had “consented to the personal jurisdiction” of the court.

  2. Motorola Credit Corporation, Appellant-Respondent, Nokia Corporation, Plaintiff-Counter- Defendant, Motorola, Inc., et al., Counter-Defendants,v.Standard Chartered Bank, Respondent-Appellant, Murat Hakan Uzan, et al., Defendants-Counter- Claimants, Kemal Uzan, et al., Defendants.

    Brief

    Filed September 16, 2014

    ..................................................................................... 30 Intercont’l Credit Corp. v. Roth, 152 Misc. 2d 751 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1990), rev’d on other grounds, 154 Misc. 2d 639 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1991) ....................................... 48 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Kirtsaeng, No. 08 Civ. 7834, 2009 WL 3003242 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2009) ..................................................................................... 27 JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Motorola, Inc., 47 A.D.3d 293 (1st Dep’t 2007) ..................................................................... 23, 25 K2 Inv. Grp. v. Am. Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co., 22 N.Y.3d 578 (2014) ........................ 57 Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013) ................................ 17 Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda, 12 N.Y.3d 533 (2009) ...................................... 4, 18, 56 Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda Ltd., 577 F.3d 497 (2d Cir. 2009) .............................. 57 Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda Ltd., No. M18-302, 2005 WL 551115 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2005) ......................................................................................................... 57 Landoil Resources Corp. v. Alexander & Alexander Services, Inc., 77 N.Y.2d 28 (1990) .................................................................................................................... 37 Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL, 20 N.Y.3d 327 (2012) ........................ 44, 45 Licci v. Lebanese Canadian Bank, SAL, 673 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2012) ....................... 41 Lok Prakashan Ltd. v. India Abroad Publ’s, Inc., No. 00 Civ. 5852, 2002 WL 1585820 (S.D.N.Y. July 16, 2002) ................................................................. 28, 49 McCloskey v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 11 N.Y.2d 936 (1962) ................................. 49 vii Milan Indus. v. Wilson, 2011 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 6842 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 1, 2011) ..................................................................................................................... 44 Morgenthau

  3. Gucci America, Inc. et al v. Li et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 26 MOTION to Compel Bank of China to produce confirmation and proof of the freezing of Defendants' accounts as commanded under this Court's Orders. / Supplemental Memorandum of Law of Nonparty Bank of China Concerning the Appropriateness of a Post Judgment Turnover Order. Document

    Filed January 20, 2011

    . v. Motorola, Inc., 47 A.D.3d 293, 846 N.Y.S.2d 171 (1st Dep’t 2007) ....................................................................................................................................17, 18 Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 313 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2002).............................................................................................................................14 Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda Ltd., 12 N.Y.3d 533 (2009) ...................................................... passim Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda Ltd., No. 2009-0082, 2008 WL 6191439 (N.Y. Dec. 12, 2008), 2009 WL 1615260 (N.Y. Feb. 4, 2009).....................................................................................11 Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda Ltd., No. 2009-0082, 2009 WL 1615263, at *29-30 (N.Y. Apr. 16, 2009) ....................................................................................................................................11 Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda Ltd., No. M18-302, 2005 WL 551115 (S.D.N.Y. March 9, 2005) ..........................................................................................................................................10 Kosmond v. Kosmond, 830 N.E.2d 596 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) ..........................................................19 Lok Prakashan Ltd. v. India Abroad Publ’n, Inc., No. 00 Civ. 5862 (LAP), 2002 WL 1585820 (S.D.N.Y. July 16, 2002) .................................................................................... passim Case 1:10-cv-04974-RJS Document 51 Filed 01/20/11 Page 4 of 31 NEWYORK 7981400 v6 (2K) iv Louisiana Public Service Comm’n v. F.C.C., 476 U.S. 355 (1986) ................................................22 Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Baltimore Football Club Inc., 624 F.Supp. 278 (D. Md. 1985)...................................................................................................................................15 Morrison v. Nat’l Austl. Bank, Ltd., 130 S.Ct. 2869 (U.S. 2010) ............