Article

InVadino,the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint on forum non conveniens (inconvenient place for trial) grounds. The court noted that for dismissal on these grounds the defendant must show that an adequate alternative forum exists and that the balance of public and private interests favors dismissal. InVadino,the beneficiary/plaintiff argued that a suit currently underway in Argentina and the instant action were not duplicative because one would determine who had rights under the L/C and the other would allow him to recover under the L/C. The appellate court found this argument to be "a distinction without a difference", noting that both actions necessarily involved the same issues. The court further found that Argentina provided an adequate forum.

The beneficiary also argued that the testimony of most of the witnesses in Argentina would not be admissible because the credit was subject to the UCP (exactly why it would be inadmissible is unclear). The court rejected this argument by noting that, even if it was correct, these witnesses would still be needed to testify that the L/C was authorized and would be able to offer admissible testimony on the bank's fraud defense.

©1997 INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL BANKING LAW & PRACTICE

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.