Legal Opinion · Dissent

International Transactions, Ltd. v. Embotelladora Agral Regiomontana, SA De CV

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Decided October 20, 2003No. 02-11280Published

1DissentJerry E. Smith, Circuit Judge

I respectfully dissent. Although this may be a fairly close question if examined de novo, by no stretch of the imagination did Chief Judge Fish abuse his discretion in granting comity to the decisions of the Mexican bankruptcy court.

The salient facts are these: In 1996, ITL had contemporaneous actual knowledge of Agral’s default and of the arbitration. In 1997, ITL had contemporaneous actual knowledge of the award, of Agral’s bankruptcy, and of Sharp’s proof of claim in the Mexican bankruptcy court. ITL chose not to reveal itself but instead to rely on Sharp as its collection agent. ITL knew…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Hilton v. GuyotSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  2. Somportex Limited v. Philadelphia Chewing Gum Corporation v. Brewster, Leeds & Co., Inc. And M. S. International, Inc., Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1972
  3. Allstate Life Insurance Co. v. Linter Group LimitedCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993
  4. Vasquez v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2003
  5. Finanz Ag Zurich v. Banco Economico S.A.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1999

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API