Glencore Grain Rotterdam B v. V. Shivnath Rai Harnarain Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “[c]onsiderable authority supports [the petitioner’s] position that it can enforce the award against [the arbitral award debtor’s] property in the forum even if the property has no relationship to the underlying controversy between parties”
• holding that a defendant should not be haled into court as a result of 3 “random,” “fortuitous,” or “attenuated” contacts and declining to exercise Rule 4(k)(2) jurisdiction 4 when the defendant had made seven individual shipments to the East Coast
• “Interpreting the FAA to dispense with the jurisdictional requirements of Due Process in 19 actions to confirm arbitral awards would raise clear questions concerning the constitutionality of 20 the statutes”
• declining to exercise quasi in rem jurisdiction where “the best [petitioner] can say is that it believes in good faith that [respondent] has or will have assets located in the forum”
• “There is no evidence that Shivnath Rai owns property, keeps bank accounts, has employees, solicits business, or has designated an agent for service of process in California”
• “In suits to confirm a foreign arbitral award under the Convention, due process requires that the district court have jurisdiction over the defendant”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).