Rigroup LLC v. Trefonisco Management Ltd.
949 F. Supp. 2d 546
S.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Plaintiffs Bullock and RIGroup USA sue Defendants in New York for misappropriation, conversion, fraud, conspiracy, and breach of fiduciary duty.
- Defendants Esin, Sirotkin, and Gorsoan move to dismiss under forum non conveniens seeking Russia as an alternate forum.
- Bullock is a Russian national turned U.S. citizen; RIGroup USA is a Delaware LLC with Bullock as sole member, previously controlling RIGroup Russia.
- RIGroup Russia owned substantial assets in Russia and purportedly was looted by Defendants through a corporate raiding scheme and falsified disclosures.
- Plaintiffs allege a Cyprus action against RIGroup USA and others (resolved/dismissed), and Plaintiffs filed suit in New York in March 2012.
- Court applies the three-step forum non conveniens test and grants the dismissal, finding Russia an adequate forum and the balance favoring dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs’ forum choice deserves deference. | Bullock/RIGroup USA claim substantial U.S. nexus and convenience. | Defendants argue limited deference due to shell status and foreign focus. | Deference to plaintiffs’ forum choice is limited; not strongly favored. |
| Whether Russia is an adequate alternative forum. | Russia is inadequate due to corruption and threats. | Russia is an adequate forum; defendants amenable to service there. | Russia is an adequate alternative forum. |
| Whether the private and public factors favor dismissal. | U.S. forum best for access to evidence and witnesses; local interest in U.S. | Most evidence/witnesses located in Russia; foreign law appropriate; Russia has strong local interest. | Private and public factors favor dismissal to Russia. |
Key Cases Cited
- Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Access Indus., Inc., 416 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2005) (three-step forum non conveniens framework; burden on defendant)
- Iragorri v. United Techs. Corp., 274 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2001) (en banc; deference scale for forum choice; several considerations)
- Abdullahi v. Pfizer, Inc., 562 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2009) (burden-shifting for adequacy of alternative forum; heavy tilt required)
- Pollux Holding Ltd. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 329 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2003) (adequacy of an alternative forum; service and subject matter eligibility)
- Base Metal Trading SA v. Russian Aluminum, 253 F.Supp.2d 681 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (Russia as adequate forum despite concerns; shell companies; evidentiary issues)