Croesus EMTR Master Fund L.P. v. Federative Republic of Brazil

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• dismissing case in part because “[t]he marginal nature of the United States’ interest stands in stark contrast to the magnitude of Brazil’s interest”
• rejecting direct effect where plaintiffs conceded that express terms of Brazilian bonds gave holders “no right to designate a place of payment in the United States”
• “Litigating a case on these grounds will require a heavy emphasis on [foreign] sources of proof (and law), and thus seems likely to be expensive, cumbersome and time-consuming if conducted here.”
• rejecting direct effect where the party demanded payment of bonds in the United States but it is “mere conjecture” that the party would have designated the United States as the place of payment and Brazil would have accepted the designation
• rejecting direct effect when plaintiff demanded payment in the United States after bonds matured, nothing in bonds allowed such a designation, and there was ho “firm basis to believe that such a designation would have been accepted by Brazil and proper as a matter of Brazilian law”
• necessity of translating “an abundance of materials from Portugese into English” weighed against proceeding in the U.S.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).