S.C. Chimexim S.A. v. Velco Enterprises Ltd.
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
36 F. Supp. 2d 206 (1999)
- Written by David Bloom, JD
Facts
S.C. Chimexim S.A. (Chimexim) (plaintiff), a Romanian company, made a deal with Velco Enterprises, Ltd. (Velco) (defendant), an American corporation that had its principal place of business in New York, for the sale of chemical products. The customer purchase orders were made through Velco’s office in Romania, which was authorized to do business in that country. After the deal fell through, Velco agreed to make certain payments to Chimexim pursuant to a settlement agreement. Chimexim sued Velco in a Romanian tribunal after a dispute arose regarding the payments. Chimexim served a summons upon Velco in the Romanian action but Velco failed to appear, resulting in the entry of a monetary judgment in favor of Chimexim. Velco later appeared in the Romanian action by appealing from the judgment. The Romanian appellate court rejected Velco’s argument that the Romanian tribunal lacked personal jurisdiction, finding that Velco’s Romanian business office provided the tribunal with an adequate basis to assert personal jurisdiction over Velco, and affirmed the tribunal. Chimexim commenced an action in the federal district court in New York, seeking to enforce the Romanian judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Chin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
