In re Application of Antonio del Valle Ruiz

939 F.3d 520 (2019)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re Application of Antonio del Valle Ruiz

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
939 F.3d 520 (2019)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

Banco Popular Español (BPE), formerly Spain’s sixth-largest bank, failed. Before the failure, Banco Santander S.A. (Santander) (defendant) conducted extensive due-diligence research into BPE in preparation for a buyout offer. After the failure, the Spanish government conducted a forced sale and, because Santander was the only bidder, sold BPE to Santander for €1. A group of Mexican investors, led by Antonio del Valle Ruiz, and a group of United States investment-management firms (collectively, the BPE investors) suffered significant losses because of the government-forced sale. The BPE investors sued Santander and Santander’s New York-based subsidiary, Santander Investment Securities, Inc. (SIS), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The BPE investors filed a 28 U.S.C. § 1782 application for discovery production of all documents related to Santander’s due-diligence investigations into BPE, most of which were extraterritorial, meaning located outside of the United States. Santander and SIS challenged, arguing that (1) because Santander had not been served with process in New York, the district court did not have personal jurisdiction over Santander and § 1782 did not apply, and (2) § 1782 did not allow the district court to demand production of extraterritorial documents. The district court held that it had personal jurisdiction over SIS but not Santander and that § 1782 allowed the court to demand production of SIS’s extraterritorial documents. SIS and Santander appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Hall, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 736,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 736,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 736,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership