You searched for: "Choice of Law"
Search Results
June 26, 2024
Internal-Affairs Doctrine Presumptively Applies, But Presumption Rebutted When New York Has Dominant Interest in Applying Its Own Law
On May 23, 2024, the Court of Appeals issued a decision in Eccles v. Shamrock Capital Advisors, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02841, holding that, while the substantive law of a company's place of incorporation presumptively applies to causes of action arising from its internal affairs, this presumption can be rebutted when (i) the interest of the place of incorporation is minimal, and (ii) New York has a "dominant interest" in applying its own substantive law, explaining: Read More
May 12, 2023
Motion to Dismiss Improperly Granted Where New York and Colombian Law Differ
In a decision dated April 27, 2023, in ROAM Capital, Inc. v. Asia Alternative Management, LLC, Index No. 651728/2019, First Department Case No. 2022-01318, the First Department unanimously reversed, on the law, the decision of the Motion Court (Jennifer Schecter, J.), which dismissed the supplemental amended complaint (SAC) with prejudice pursuant to CPLR 3211. In reversing the Motion Court’s decision as to the SAC’s claim for breach of contract and other arising out of a “right of first refusal” provision in the applicable agreement, the First Department explained: Read More
April 14, 2023
Where Foreign Law Applies, Court Must Apply Limitations Period of Foreign Cause of Action Most Closely Analogous to the New York Causes of Action
On March 28, 2023, Justice Joel. M. Cohen of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Andes Petroleum Ecuador Ltd. v. Occidential Petroleum Corp, 2023 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1385. In this action, where the claims accrued in Ecuador and thus the Ecuador statute of limitations applied, the Court had previously denied defendant’s motion to dismiss, “finding that [defendant] failed to meet its burden of showing that [plaintiff’s] claims were time-barred under Ecuadorian law.” The First Department reversed and remanded with the instruction that “the Court consider ‘the expert evidence provided by each side concerning what Ecuadorian causes of action are most closely analogous to the New York causes of action’ for fraudulent conveyance.” On remand, the Court held that the most closely analogous Ecuadorian cause of action had a four-year statute of limitations, and that because the claims had been filed more than four years after they accrued, the Court granted the motion to dismiss. The Court explained: Read More
