Finance One Public Company Limited v. Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that Turtur is not binding when applying New York law to determine the scope of a contractual choice-of-law clause
• concluding that an agreement “governed by and construed in accordance with” New York law does not encompass setoff claim because it is “purely incident” and “arisets] from outside the agreement”
• concluding that an agreement “governed by and construed in accordance with” New York law does not encompass setoff claim because it is “purely incident” and “arise[s] from outside the agreement”
• holding that choice of law provision in contract was not broad enough to include extra-contractual set-off rights given “New York courts’ reluctance to read choice-of-law clauses broadly” together with fact that parties could have but did not include a provision creating set-off rights
• noting that courts in the Second Circuit “determine a choice-of-law clause’s scope under the same law that governs the clause’s validity -- the law of the forum”
• noting that, under New York law, courts do “not have occasion to embark on a choice-of-law analysis in the absence of an ‘actual conflict’ between the applicable rules of two relevant jurisdictions”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).