He said that the work had been performedīy “Touche Ross & Co.,” a Cayman firm of chartered account-Īnts, pursuant to a contract between that firm and the bank. Foster submitted that the evidence supporting his appli-Ĭation showed that the bank was a Cayman company and that theįlorida action related to audit work performed by charteredĪccountants in the Cayman Islands and in substance alleged pro-įessional negligence. York attorney-at-law, Richard Surgeson, a chartered accountant Man relied on affidavits sworn by Mark Edward Davidson, a New Hereafter, I call this defendant, in that context, “the defendant inįlorida.” The other defendants named were individuals, living inįlorida, Toronto, Montreal, the United Kingdom, New York andĬalgary, and all alleged to be partners in the defendant in Flor. Including the United States of America, the Dominion ofĬanada, the Bahamas and Cayman Islands with a staff ofĢ0,000. Management consulting firms operating in 87 countries “is and/or holds itself out to be ‘One Firm World-wide’Īnd of the largest multinational accounting, tax and Ross & Co.” whom, the amended complaint alleged. Of these the first was described as “Touche Revised pleading (“the first amended compiaint”) specified The original complaint was subsequently amended. United States of America and other sovereign nations.” Ida, as well as in various other cities and States located in the Offices and resident partners in Miami, Dade County, Flor. Tified public accountants and chartered accountants with The proceedings in Florida of which the plaintiff in CaymanĬomplains had been brought by the bank in July 1985, against a After hearing the inter partes summons on August 1st, Iĭischarged the injunction. That injunction was to remain in force until August 1st, or untilįurther order in the meantime and the defendant was in any eventĪt liberty to apply to discharge it on two days’ notice. Islands in respect of any professional auditing of the defendant’s Thereof” and further from making any claims outside the Cayman Plaintiff in Cayman” in the context of its role as such), I grantedĪn injunction restraining the defendant (“the bank”) from prose-Ĭuting legal proceedings commenced by it in the State of FloridaĪgainst “the plaintiff and certain partners and employees The plaintiff submitted in reply that (a) there was a choice of forum in the present case and an analysis of the relevant factors showed that the Cayman Islands were the more appropriate forum-the defendant was a Cayman bank, Cayman law was applicable to the relevant transactions, it would involve considerably less expense and inconvenience to determine the issues in the Cayman Islands, especially as the witnesses and documents were located there the defendant’s remedies were certainly justiciable in the Islands and the plaintiff was both amenable to the jurisdiction of the Cayman courts and would accept it (b) the defendant had named individual Touche Ross partners in the Florida suit merely to establish jurisdiction in Florida but the suit patently had so little connection with Florida that it would be proper to bar the defendant from continuing it and (c) even if there were juridical advantage and personal convenience in bringing the suit in Florida, which had not been argued, the public interest required it to be tried in the place which was undoubtedly the natural forum, namely the Cayman Islands.įirm constituted in the State of New York (whom I will call “the In addition, several other matters in dispute concerned property and events in the United States. held itself out as a worldwide firm, on its own case it carried on a business in the United States, and it could not therefore be unconscionable to sue it in a State of that country and (c) the first issue to be resolved in the Florida court (that court having refused a preliminary motion to dismiss the action) being that of the separate identities of the various parties called “Touche Ross & Co.” was properly one for the Florida court and not for the Cayman court. At the hearing of the application inter partes, the defendant submitted that (a) a choice of forum did not arise, for the courts of Florida were already seised of the case and on principle the Cayman court should not restrain those proceedings unless it could be shown that they had been brought unconscionably (b) the burden of establishing unconscionability lay on the defendant and it had discharged this burden, since the evidence established that Touche Ross & Co.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |