In Maritime Attachment action, district court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over defendant’s bank account in Paris, France because the “separate entity rule” foreclosed plaintiff from attaching an account at a bank in Paris by serving a branch of that bank in New York.
ALLIED MARITIME, INC., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant, v. DESCATRADE SA, also known as DESCA TRADE SA, Defendant-Counter-Claimaint-Appellee
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
620 F.3d 70; 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 18430
September 3, 2010, Decided
Plaintiff appealed from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, vacating the process of maritime attachment and garnishment attaching defendant’s assets to secure a putative foreign arbitral award, and dismissing the complaint for want of jurisdiction.
The district court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over defendant’s bank account in Paris, France because the “separate entity rule” foreclosed plaintiff from attaching an account at a bank in Paris by serving a branch of that bank in New York. Also, the district court properly concluded that whether the suspense account was created in Paris or New York, the district court lacked jurisdiction over the suspense account and any interest arising from the money-back guarantee provision of N.Y. U.C.C. § 4-A-402(3)-(4), because both the account and the derivative rights created therein could not be attached where the district court lacked jurisdiction over the electronic funds transfers that the suspense account was created to hold. It was not error for the district court to decline to design an equitable remedy in favor of plaintiff, as plaintiff sought to continue to attach funds that were improperly attached under a now-abrogated legal theory.
The order of the district court was affirmed.