Mashreqbank v AlGosaibi - Al Sanea's Forum Non Conveniens Motion Successful

Above Main Entrance to NY Supreme Court

Looks like Mr. Al Sanea is continuing his run of victories in the NY Courts.  

As you'll recall when Mashreqbank filed suit against AHAB in the NY Supreme Court, AHAB had Mr. Al Sanea added as a third party defendant.

July 29 Judge Lowe of the NY Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr. Al Sanea's request that due to forum non conveniens he and Awal Bank be removed as third party defendants. 

While Mashreqbank is appealing, based on the pattern of judgments in the NY Supreme Court, their chances of obtaining a reversal of the ruling would appear to be somewhere between slim and none.   Wonder if AHAB will now find NY an inconvenient forum and file a motion.  There seems to be lots of precedents for this.

(As before, the email notification from the NY Supreme Court is a bit late in arriving.)

You can find earlier posts on this topic by using the label "Mashreqbank".

The NY Supreme Court Case Reference # is 601650/2009.

Al Ahli Bank of Kuwait v AlSanea & Saad Trading - NY Case Dismissed Forum Non Conveniens

A Rather Inconvenient Place After All

Judge Richard Love III of the Supreme Court of the State of New York decided last July that New York was indeed a forum non conveniens and so dismissed ABK's suit against Mr. Al Sanea and Saad Trading, Contracting and Financial Services Company.

(In case you're wondering why the delayed posting, while the judgment was electronically filed 11 August, I didn't get an email until today).

I suspect the new venue will turn out to be much much more convenient for Mr. Al Sanea.  Under AA's law of the conversation of legal energy, that may make it much much less convenient for ABK.  Such is life.

You can find the judgment as Document #28 at the NY Supreme Court's website under Case # 602487/2009.

If you use the tag "Al Ahli Bank of Kuwait" you will find earlier posts on this topic.

AlGosaibi v Maan AlSanea - More on The "Fix"

They say there is no surer proof of someone's intelligence than the fact that he or she agrees with you. (See point #3 below).

Echoing a theme raised here earlier, AlQabas has an update on the AlGosaibi and Saad debt restructurings:

1. AHAB has reportedly offered to settle with its creditors at 15 cents on the dollar, an offer that creditors are reported to have rejected as they did the earlier 9 cents offer -- absolutely.
2. Saad has offered to settle a large (but unspecified) portion of its debt to its creditors but noted that freezes on its assets in the USA and Europe resulting from AHAB lawsuits against it frustrated that desire.
3. The Saudi Government is currently undertaking intensive efforts to achieve an accommodation (or reconciliation) between the two groups so that reschedulings can move forward.

As you'll notice, Saad's offer is as well a strong tactical move to develop support for The Fix.

While the article doesn't contain proof of its assertions, nonetheless it clearly demonstrates remarkable insight -- at least using the principle stated in the first paragraph. 

The question remains will AlGosaibi itself get "fixed" in the process?

AlGosaibi v Maan AlSanea - Al Gosaibi to Get "Fixed"?

There are several meanings to the word "fix":

1. To repair something that is broken:  He "fixed" the pipe.
2. To arrange for a desired outcome:   He "fixed" the race.
3. To spay or neuter an animal:  Tom's cat was "fixed".

In previous posts on this topic we've dealt with the one or more of the first two meanings.

Now let's look at the third.

As seems likely now, the main action in the resolution of the dispute between AHAB and Mr. AlSanea over allegations  of misconduct as well as the resolution of the creditors' repayment is going to take place in the Kingdom.

In legal action outside of the Kingdom, AHAB (or its counsel) have:

1. Made rather serious allegations against Mr. Al Sanea (Allegations he continues to vigorously deny) which are not only personally damaging to him but as well to the reputation of the Kingdom.  And a bit socially discordant for folks who like to settle their disputes among themselves - quietly, by mutual consent out of the lime light.
2. Expressed a preference for NY and other foreign non Saudi jurisdictions which might be seen as spreading doubts about their ability to secure justice in the Kingdom.  And, if a family like AlGosaibi can't get justice, who then can?  This has involved some comments about the Special Saudi Commission.  As well, there have been other comments usually in response to forum non conveniens pleadings - which could be interpreted  to evidence the belief that the Saudi Courts are inferior to those of say New York.  And again very publicly made.

Will there now be a strong sentiment on the part of the authorities to send a clear message to Saudis that the patient quiet strategy that Mr. Al Sanea practiced is preferable to the more noisy one of the AlGosaibi's?  Or will all be forgiven in the reconciliation proceedings to take place in Saudi?  After all, the family is an old and important one.

In case you're wondering, AHAB's logo is in two separate "pieces" on its website.  Perhaps a symbol of things to come?

AlGosaibi v Maan AlSanea - The Financial Times "The Fix is In"

Here at Suq Al Mal some of the most vigorous exercise we get is from patting ourselves on the back. 

Before I head to the showers after this strenuous work-out, I'd just note that those who read Suq Al Mal read the main theme from today's Financial Times article starting back in June.  And most recently here.

From the FT:

The two decisions put a halt to the key cases at the heart of the scandal, and are a blow for Ahab, which has mounted an aggressive campaign against Mr Sanea, accusing him of a “massive fraud” that it claims could be as much as $10bn

Saudi officials have been tight-lipped about the dispute, and a high-level committee was set up to resolve the issue away from public glare. But it has reportedly been annoyed by the attention Ahab and its allegations have heaped on the conservative kingdom. 

And as always we close by noting that Mr. AlSanea continues to vigorously deny involvement in any fraud or other misconduct.

AlGosaibi v Maan AlSanea - Almost "Fixed"

There has been a remarkable reversal of fortune of late for AHAB.  

First was the decision by Trowers and Hamlins back in June to sue AHAB and which gave what I described as the first indication that the concerned authorities in the GCC were moving to make this messy problem "go away."   And that the Grant Thornton settlement proposal might be seen as a promising vehicle. to achieving that end.  Essentially GT's Plan involves a pooling of assets of the two companies to settle global creditor claims and the dropping of lawsuits between the two parties.  Those lawsuits have been the primary venue for the charges of fraud levied against Mr. AlSanea by AHAB.  Charges as we always note here on Suq Al Mal Mr. AlSanea continues to deny.  Ending the lawsuits probably allows "diplomatic cover" for jurisdictions to quietly let these difficult and embarrassing matters expire.

Yesterday (28 July) Asa Fitch at The National reported the Caymans Court decision to put its proceedings "on ice" to allow the special Saudi committee to make a determination.   I commented that it looked to me like the "fix" was in as this step increased the pressure on AlGosaibi to agree to the Grant Thornton settlement proposal and that:

A similar movement by the New York Supreme Court would, I think, confirm that this is what is happening. 

In what might be a remarkable judicial coincidence, but just maybe  is not,  today (29 June) NY Supreme Court Justice, the Honorable Richard Lowe III issued final disposition rulings effectively terminating the cases he was adjudicating based on "forum non conveniens".  

Frank Kane's article in The National provides some useful information.   But there's a bit more.  Judge Lowe did not just terminate the Mashreqbank cases but also that of AlAhli Bank which did not involve any countersuit by AHAB.

The three cases and their NY Supreme Court reference numbers are:

1. 601650/2009 - Mashreqbank v AHAB to which AHAB had added Mr. AlSanea and Awal Bank as a Third Party Defendants
2. 602171/2009 - Mashreqbank v the Individual Partners of AHAB
3. 602847/2009 Ahli Bank of Kuwait v Mr. AlSanea and Saad Trading Contracting and Financial Services

The decision (some 19 pages ) is Document 134 in Supreme Court Case Reference 601650/2009 which can be accessed at the NY Supreme Court Website  http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcivil/FCASMain.

What's interesting about the decision?

1. First, Judge Lowe ruled that NY courts did have jurisdiction but dismissed the cases on the grounds of forum non conveniens.  Key reasons cited were: (a) availability of other judicial venues for the cases; (b)  presence of key witnesses in the Middle East; (c) local laws govern some key documents. (d) documents in Arabic language and witnesses English language skills, etc.  From the ruling it seems he sees Dubai as the venue for Mashreq's cases (with AHAB then able to raise its claim against Mr. AlSanea in Dubai or Saudi).  And Kuwait as that for AlAhli Bank's case.
2. Second, another significant "bit" of Judge Lowe's rationale for accepting the forum non conveniens argument was that Mashreqbank stated that it was happy to litigate in either NY or Dubai.  And  that in fact Mashreqbank had commenced a lawsuit in Dubai which includes (but is not solely restricted to) the FX transactions which are the subject of NY cases.  See Page 16 of the ruling.   Now, at first blush, this seems a bit surprising.  Why would Mashreqbank incur the not inconsiderable costs of launching a case in New York and then cavalierly toss it away by telling Judge Lowe that it was indifferent to venue?  Perhaps, the answer is to be found in AHAB's defense:  that Mashreq knew the FX transactions were disguised loans and that therefore they were somehow colluding with Mr. AlSanea.  A rather messy situation.  One complicated by AHAB's motion to have the NY Supreme Court compel disclosure under the very strict requirements of NY law.   Perhaps the shift to the more "convenient" judicial venue in Dubai would allow this issue to be dealt with in a more "convenient" way (at least for Mashreq).  And then again perhaps not.  Perhaps it was just a cost cutting measure - Mashreq decided to husband cash by running one instead of two expensive litigations.  And the case in Dubai is for almost twice that in New York.  So there is more "bang" per lawyer "buck" there.  Perhaps it was a belief that justice would be more swift in Dubai.  Perhaps it was another reason entirely.
3. The dismissal of the Ahli case is a bit more concerning - or perhaps should be to BNPP and Fortis who have lawsuits against Abu Dhabi International Bank.  If the Honorable Justice Melvin Schweitzer (who is handling the Fortis and BNPP actions) takes Judge Lowe's ruling as a useful precedent - both banks might wind up  in judicial venues they'd rather not.  NY has a very  large  well reasoned body of case law on letters of credit.  Bahrain would appear to have much less.  At least this could be a conclusion drawn from the Bahraini Court's ruling in ADIB's favor in both actions.  There the Court seemed remarkably unperturbed by the fact that ADIB's case was commenced after both banks had incurred irrevocable payment obligations.  Though to be fair, as I understand it, the Bahrain judgment is not final. 

AHAB does have the right to appeal Judge Lowe's ruling.  Overturning the ruling will I think be as the Japanese say "Possible but very difficult".

AlGosaibi v Maan AlSanea - The "Fix" is In? Caymans Island Case "On Hold" Pending Determination of Saudi Panel

Asa Fitch over at The National reports that the Caymans Island Court has suspended its proceedings pending determination by the special Saudi commission set up earlier to investigate allegations of fraud against Mr. AlSanea.

I had posited a bit earlier that for a variety of reasons various jurisdictions would prefer that this  messy dispute  "go away" - especially given the nature of the claims and counterclaims raised by the two protagonists.

The Caymans Court ruling seems to be another step in that direction.  A similar movement by the New York Supreme Court would, I think, confirm that this is what is happening.  If you've been following that case, you will have noticed that on several occasions the judge has mused (signaled?) whether Saudi is after all the proper forum.

Letting the Saudis make a determination as to who is guilty, if anyone, relieves foreign courts of the burden of decision making.  It also allows these jurisdictions to avoid antagonizing the Saudi Government, which no doubt would prefer that any dirty laundry involving its nationals be washed in private. 

And, if by chance, their proceedings result instead in a compromise solution - or "fix" - a pooling of assets to settle claims with a dropping of allegations of misconduct so much the better. 

The ruling is labeled a setback for the AlGosaibis, who as I noted are probably the party whose acceptance of the Grant Thornton "settlement plan" is key to moving forward.  Indeed it is a setback.  As such then it is a powerful incentive to "make a deal".

However, pressure remains on Mr. AlSanea.  The stay on his US$9.2 billion of assets has been reaffirmed.  And the Caymans Court has said that if the Saudi proceedings prove inadequate, it will reopen its own.  So if AHAB suddenly makes a generous offer of peace, no doubt plenty of incentive for him to reply positively.

And this is the usual appropriate place to note that Mr. AlSanea continues to deny involvement in any wrongdoing.