Article

Note: Haitian public health officials determined that from 1995 through 1997, more than 70 children died and many others were rendered seriously ill due to a batch of fever medicine that was tainted with a chemical used in antifreeze and lacquer that was sold to a Haitian company by VOS, BV (VOS), a Netherlands corporation. The personal representatives of the deceased children and parents of the survivors sued VOS in the Florida state courts for damages. VOS' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was denied by the trial court. On appeal, the District Court of Appeal if Florida, Third Circuit, Cope, Gersten, and Rothenberg, JJ., in an opinion by Rothenberg, reversed.

The compliant alleged that "Vos purchased seventy-two drums of glycerin from China, tested samples, found them to be impure and tainted with diethelyne glycol, but nevertheless, proceeded to sell the glycerin to one of its customers in Haiti after affixing false labels to the drums. The tainted glycerin was incorporated into a children's fever medicine, and the injuries and deaths followed."

Because VOS' actions in relationship to the sale of the drug to Haiti had no connection with Florida, the basis for the exercise of personal jurisdiction was its general business contacts with Florida. The trial court assessed these contacts, deciding that the most serious one was VOS' use of the Florida banking system in unrelated dealings with A&V Industries, Inc. (Florida Company). In relation to the transactions with Florida Company, "CommerzBank Nederland sent shipping documents to SunBank, SunBank notified [Florida Company] of the documents' arrival, [Florida Company] signed the trade acceptance forms and submitted payment to SunBank. SunBank then transferred the funds paid under letters of credit and paperwork to CommerzBank. Vos' involvement in the process was virtually non-existent, and SunBank merely operated to facilitate the international transfer of money under a letter of credit."

The appellate opinion concluded that these contracts did not meet the minimum US constitutional standard for the exercise of personal jurisdiction in that they were neither continuous nor systematic.

[JEB]

COPYRIGHT OF THE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL BANKING LAW & PRACTICE

The views expressed in this Case Summary are those of the Institute of International Banking Law and Practice and not necessarily those of ICC or the other partners in DC-PRO.