Hanil Bank v. Pt. Bank Negara Indonesia, (Persero)

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the United States “need not be the location where the most direct effect is felt, simply a direct effect”
• stating that the state must act “like a private player in the marketplace” in order to be deemed to have engaged in commercial activity
• noting that the United States “need not be the 15 location where the most direct effect is felt, simply a direct effect”
• stating that the test was “not directly applicable to the contract at issue,” but nevertheless finding that “the most legally significant act — the breach of contract — occurred in the United States”
• noting that given FSIA’s purpose of providing foreign litigants access to United States courts, foreign state defendant should reasonably have expected to be sued here for failure to make payment in New York on foreign contract
• finding personal jurisdiction over foreign state defendant based on transaction at issue as well as other similar transactions employing New York banks

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).