In the case of Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp, the plaintiff, Sinochem International took legal action against Malaysia International, filing a suit in Pennsylvania court asserting that Malaysia International had fraudulently conveyed the status and suitability of a vessel used for shipping during a suit involving the Chinese Admiralty Court. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp, the respondent, sought to have the case dismissed based on the assertion that the case should be addressed by the Chinese Admiralty Court and that the Pennsylvania District Court held no sway or jurisdiction over the respondent.
The Pennsylvania District court ruled on the case and concurred with the arguments set forth by Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp; while the District Court did not completely agree that it did not have any jurisdiction over the company and that some jurisdiction may be unveiled through the process of discovery, the Pennsylvania District Court did affirm that the Admiralty Court was a more fitting location for the parties involved in the lawsuit. Thus, the District Court dismissed the case on such grounds. The case was appealed to the Third Circuit Court. The Court of Appeals overturned the decision put forth by the District Court ruling that the District Court must irrefutably reach a verdict as to whether or not the court held sway over the respondent's company before dismissal of the case. The case was brought before the Supreme Court and Justice Ginsburg handed down a unanimous decision stating that the District Court was not required to consider whether or not the courts had jurisdiction over the respondent; thereby reversing the decision offered by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
Click here to learn more about Thomas E. Stagg of Simmons, Jannace & Stagg