The Drexel Burnham Lambert Group Inc., Cross-Appellee v. A.W. Galadari and A.W. Galadari Commodities, Cross-Appellants

How courts have described this case

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

• “We concludé that the facts relating to the Dubai proceedings and its consonance with domestic law and public policy were sufficiently in dispute to warrant further inquiry.”
• \We conclude that the facts relating to the Dubai proceedings and its consonance with domestic law and public policy were sufficiently in dispute to warrant further inquiry.\
• \We conclude that the facts relating to the Dubai proceedings and its consonance with domestic law and public policy were sufficiently in dispute to warrant further inquiry.\
• assignment 17 months before suit was evidence of valid business purpose
• “The party asserting an affirmative defense usually has the burden of proving it * * * [and] [t]his rule has particular cogency where the facts in support of the defense are peculiarly within the knowledge of the party asserting it.” (Citations omitted.)
• “The party asserting an affirmative defense usually has the burden of proving it * * * [and] [t]his rule has particular cogency where the facts in support of the defense are peculiarly within the knowledge of the party asserting it.” (Citations omitted.)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).