United States: Recent Decisions Have Shed Light On General Jurisdiction, But Ambiguity Remains For Defendants That Are Members Of Affiliated Groups

Corporate and banking groups operating in multiple jurisdictions in particular should be mindful of the parameters of the current state of the law regarding personal jurisdiction. The authors of this article discuss several recent decisions addressing jurisdiction and opportunities for companies to plan activities of subsidiaries and branch offices in a manner that will not automatically subject the corporate parent to general jurisdiction in the states in which such subsidiaries or branches are organized or located.

In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court in Daimler AG v. Bauman1 clarified the parameters of general jurisdiction where a court is asked to assert personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporate parent based on the contacts of its subsidiary with the forum state. During the past two years, district courts and bankruptcy courts, including in Gucci America v. Bank of China2 and Hosking v. Hellas Telecommunications (Luxembourg) II SCA (In re Hellas Telecommunications (Luxembourg) II SCA),3 have followed or expounded upon the high court's reasoning when determining their ability to exercise jurisdiction over a defendant that is part of an affiliated group that has operations in multiple locations, including in the forum. As the principles of personal jurisdiction are clarified in these contexts, opportunities exist within corporate groups to plan and shape activities among affiliated entities and branch offices to minimize the risk of suit in an unlikely forum.


As opposed to subject matter jurisdiction, which relates to a court's authority to hear a particular type of matter, personal jurisdiction relates to a court's ability to exercise power over a defendant and generally rests upon the defendant's contacts within the forum. Personal jurisdiction, in turn, may be based on "specific jurisdiction," where the claim arises from the defendant's conduct within the forum, and "general jurisdiction," which hinges upon whether the defendant's conduct in the forum was so continuous and systematic that the defendant can be said to be "at home" in the forum.4 In instances where specific jurisdiction is lacking, plaintiffs have argued courts can exercise general jurisdiction over defendants that have a subsidiary or branch office in the forum. As explained by the Supreme Court in Daimler, specific jurisdiction has been the subject of numerous decisions over decades and progressively liberalized such that there has been less need for courts to address general jurisdiction.5


In Daimler, the plaintiff sued a foreign parent in California for tortious conduct allegedly committed by a foreign subsidiary in a foreign country. Plaintiff based jurisdiction on the presence of the parent in California and California operations of a domestic subsidiary. In declining to expand the test for general jurisdiction, the Court acknowledged the paradigm bases for general jurisdiction as the location of the defendant's principal office and its state of incorporation, neither of which existed in the forum state.6 In a footnote, it further explained that such bases were not exclusive and that general jurisdiction could be found in an "exceptional case," but did not address what type of activity would constitute such an "exceptional case."7 Although the Supreme Court left open the possibility for the presence of an affiliate of defendant acting as defendant's agent in the forum to impact the analysis, the test for whether the parent corporation was "at home" in California was determined by looking at the contacts in the forum of the parent itself, and not of its subsidiary.


Following the Daimler decision, the Second Circuit in Gucci, adhered to the high court's admonition regarding expansion of general jurisdiction where the plaintiff asserted that a New York court had general jurisdiction over a foreign bank based on its maintenance of two branches in New York. In finding general jurisdiction lacking and remanding on the question of specific jurisdiction, the court addressed the question left unanswered by the Supreme Court regarding what constitutes an "exceptional case" by analyzing the defendant's contacts with the forum in the context of its entire global activities.8 The court determined that the defendant's conduct through the two branches was a small portion of its worldwide business given that it had over 10,000 domestic branches and over 600 branches overseas in 27 countries.9 As a result, the defendant's activities in New York were not so continuous and systematic that the defendant could be said to be at home in the state.10


More recently, in Hosking, the bankruptcy court for the Southern District of New York interpreted Daimler expansively against several entities, including Deutsche Bank ("DB"), but did not refer to the Gucci decision. As an initial matter, the court noted that in litigation commenced in bankruptcy court, under existing case law, the sovereign exercising authority over the defendant is the United States, not the state in which the court is located.11 Accordingly, the test for sufficiency of the defendants' conduct with the forum required an analysis of their contacts with the United States as a whole, and not New York, specifically. Therefore, general jurisdiction existed over defendants that had their paradigm bases for jurisdiction within the United States.12

However, determining whether DB, a bank organized and headquartered in Germany, had adequate contacts in the United States in order for the court to exercise general jurisdiction over it required further analysis. Unlike in Daimler and Gucci, plaintiff did not allege that jurisdiction against DB was proper based on the contacts of DB's subsidiary or affiliate.13 Nevertheless, the court found plaintiff alleged "a substantial, longterm [sic] presence in the United States and New York" through its commitment to a long-term lease in New York.14 Although the court did not expressly find an "exceptional case" existed, it found such allegations of long-term presence by DB sufficient to establish DB "at home" in the United States for purposes of general jurisdiction.15 We note the Hosking decision has been criticized by at least one court in the Southern District of New York due to its emphasis on the magnitude of defendant's operations in the forum without any analysis of such operations relative to the size of defendant's global business.16


Based on the few cases addressing general jurisdiction, it appears likely appellate review in subsequent cases will be necessary before there is further guidance regarding what may constitute an "exceptional case" and when a defendant may be considered "at home" in the forum. Regardless of how these questions are ultimately answered, going forward, courts may be expected to continue to analyze the relative size of operations of foreign defendants in the forum compared to their global activities when determining whether they have general jurisdiction. In bankruptcy cases, the forum at issue may be more expansive than the state in which the court exists and extend to the United States, generally. However, in keeping with Daimler and Gucci, the question of contacts should generally be applied to the defendant itself, rather than its affiliates.


1. 134 S. Ct. 746, 187 L. Ed. 2d 624 (2014).

2. 768 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2014).

3. 524 B.R. 488 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2015).

4. See Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 2851 (2011).

5. Daimler, 134 S. Ct. at 754, 755.

6. Id. at 761; see also Goodyear, 131 S. Ct. at 2853–54.

7. Daimler, 134 S. Ct. at 761 n.19.

8. Gucci, 768 F.3d at 135.

9. Id.

10. Id.

11. Hosking, 524 B.R. at 506–07.

12. Id.

13. Id. at 508.

14. Id.

15. Id.

16. See In re LIBOR-Based Fin. Instruments Antitrust Litig, No. 11 MDL 2262 (NRB), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107225 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2015). In addition, the plaintiffs in the Hosking filed an amended complaint and in response DB filed another motion to dismiss arguing again, in part, that the court lacks personal jurisdiction. DB relied on recent decisions, including LIBOR, in its motion papers. As of the writing of this article, the court had not yet decided the motion to dismiss.

Originally published by Pratt's Journal of Bankruptcy Law.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions