Frontera Resources Azerbaijan Corp. v. State Oil Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court did 6 See Base Metal Trading Ltd. v. OJSC “Novokuznetsky Aluminum Factory”, 47 F. App’x 73, 77–78 (3d Cir. 2002
• noting that it is unclear whether a foreign corporation that is owned, but not controlled, by a foreign state, has due process rights
• noting that the Second Circuit's \decisions are binding until overruled by [the Second Circuit] sitting en banc or by the Supreme Court\
• “[Hjolding that a sovereign state does not enjoy due process protections does not decide the precise question in this case, because SOCAR is not a sovereign state, but rather an instrumentality or agency of one.”
• noting that a district court possesses \wide latitude\ and \typically [acts] within its discretion to deny jurisdictional discovery when the plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case for jurisdiction\
• noting that “it would be premature for us to address” whether “a corporation owned by a foreign state but not the state’s agent [under Bancec] was entitled to the Due Process Clause’s protections”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).