Vera v. Republic of Cuba (Second Circuit Court of Appeals) (August 2016)

SUMMARY

The Banking Law Committee (Mark Zingale, Chair) submitted an amicus brief in Vera v.  Republic of Cuba (16-1227-cv) in which it urges the court to reverse the district court’s decision to enforce a subpoena that would compel Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. (“BBVA”) to submit to offshore discovery of the property of Cuba and seventy-three of its agencies and instrumentalities even though that property is unrelated to any transaction with BBVA’s New York branch.  The district court held that BBVA’s operation of a branch office in New York was sufficient to subject it to general jurisdiction in the State, thus rejecting the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Daimler v. Bauman, 134 S.Ct. 746 (2014), in which the Supreme Court dismantled the concept of “doing business” as a legitimate predicate for personal jurisdiction, and held that a party defendant could be hauled into court only in a jurisdiction in which it was organized or maintained its principal place of business and could be said to be “at home.” The Committee argues that BBVA’s acts of operating a branch office in New York and appointing a New York agent for service of process in connection with any action brought against it “arising out of any transaction with its New York […] branch” pursuant to Section 200(3) of the New York Banking Law do not amount to consent to general jurisdiction in New York.