uniform foreign money claims act law 6 5 12 hdm

7/31/2019 Uniform Foreign Money Claims Act Law 6 5 12 Hdm

1/34

Uniform Foreign Money Claims Act Law & Legal Definition

The Uniform Foreign Money Claims Act (UFMCA) was created by the

National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Law (NCCUSL)

in 1989. This act simplifies international business by allowing courts in the

United States to accept or render judgments valued in foreign currency.

UFMCA allows any claimant to assert a claim in foreign money. It also

allows any opposing party to contest such a claim, and to assert and prove

that different money should be the basis for the claim. UFMCA serves the

goals of permitting claims in foreign currency and of establishing a fair

conversion to dollars. It provides for temporary valuations of foreign money

claims in dollars for taking certain provisional steps in an action, like seizing

or restraining assets pursuant to a writ of attachment, assessing costs of

litigation, or determining the amount of a surety bond. The time for making

a temporary valuation is the banking day next preceding the filing of theapplication for the specific process of the court, and the rate is the bank-

offered spot rate of exchange prevailing on that day. Many states in the U.S.

have adopted the provisions of the act.

Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act Law &

Legal Definition

The Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act was

created by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State

Law (NCCUSL) in 2005. This act provides updated rules and procedures forthe recognition of foreign judgments. It is a revision of the Uniform Foreign

Money Judgments Recognition Act of 1962, which simplified international

business by recognizing money judgments obtained in other nations for the

purpose of enforcement.

The first step towards enforcement is recognition of the foreign country

judgment. The recognition occurs in a state court when an appropriate action

is filed for the purpose. If the judgment meets the statutory standards, the

state court will recognize it. It then may be enforced as if it is a judgment of

another state of the United States. Enforcement may then proceed, which

means the judgment creditor may proceed against the property of the

judgment debtor to satisfy the judgment amount.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/uniform-foreign-money-claims-act--/http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/uniform-foreign-country-money-judgments-recognition-act/http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/uniform-foreign-country-money-judgments-recognition-act/http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/uniform-foreign-country-money-judgments-recognition-act/http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/uniform-foreign-country-money-judgments-recognition-act/http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/uniform-foreign-money-claims-act--/


2/34

Many states like California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan,

Minnesota and Montana has adopted the act. Massachusetts adopted it in

2010.

25-9-702. Definitions. In this part, the following definitions apply:

(1) "Action" means a judicial proceeding or arbitration in which a payment

in money may be awarded or enforced with respect to a foreign-moneyclaim.

(2) "Bank-offered spot rate" means the spot rate of exchange at which a bank

will sell foreign money at a spot rate.

(3) "Conversion date" means the banking day preceding the date on which

money, in accordance with this part, is:

(a) paid to a claimant in an action or distribution proceeding;

(b) paid to the official designated by law to enforce a judgment or award on

behalf of a claimant; or

(c) used to recoup, setoff, or counterclaim in different money in an action ordistribution proceeding.

(4) "Distribution proceeding" means a judicial or nonjudicial proceeding for

the distribution of a fund in which one or more foreign-money claims are

asserted and includes an accounting, an assignment for the benefit of

creditors, a foreclosure, the liquidation or rehabilitation of a corporation or

other entity, and the distribution of an estate, trust, or other fund.

(5) "Foreign money" means money other than money of the United States of

America.

(6) "Foreign-money claim" means a claim upon an obligation to pay or a

claim for recovery of a loss, expressed in or measured by a foreign money.(7) "Money" means a medium of exchange for the payment of obligations or

a store of value authorized or adopted by a government or by

intergovernmental agreement.

(8) "Money of the claim" means the money determined as proper pursuant to

25-9-705.

(9) "Person" means an individual, corporation, government or governmental
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/25/9/25-9-705.htmhttp://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca/25/9/25-9-705.htm


3/34

subdivision or agency, business trust, estate, trust, joint venture, partnership,

association, two or more persons having a joint or common interest, or any

other legal or commercial entity.

(10) "Rate of exchange" means the rate at which money of one country may

be converted into money of another country in a free financial market

convenient to or reasonably usable by a person obligated to pay or to state a

rate of conversion. If separate rates of exchange apply to different kinds of

transactions, the term means the rate applicable to the particular transaction

giving rise to the foreign-money claim.

(11) "Spot rate" means the rate of exchange at which foreign money is sold

by a bank or other dealer in foreign exchange for immediate or next day

availability or for settlement by immediate payment in cash or equivalent, by

charge to an account, or by an agreed delayed settlement not exceeding 2

days.

(12) "State" means a state of the United States, the District of Columbia, theCommonwealth of Puerto Rico, or a territory or insular possession subject to

the jurisdiction of the United States.

History: En. Sec. 2, Ch. 152, L. 1993.

SENATE BILL NO. 1022

View Daily Data Tracking History

View Bill Text

View Statement of Purpose / Fiscal Impact

Text to be added within a bill has been marked with Bold and Underline.

Text to be removed has been marked with Strikethrough and Italic. How

these codes are actually displayed will vary based on the browser software

you are using.

This sentence is marked with bold and underline to show added text.

This sentence is marked with strikethrough and italic, indicating text to beremoved.

Daily Data Tracking History

S1022................................................by JUDICIARY AND RULES

FOREIGN-MONEY CLAIMS ACT - Adds to existing law to provide for

foreign-money claims; to define terms; to provide scope and for variation

of the act by agreement; to provide for determining the money of the claim;

to provide for determining the amount of the money of certain contract

claims; to provide for the assertion and defense of a foreign-money claim;
http://legislature.idaho.gov/legislation/2001/S1022.html#daily%23dailyhttp://legislature.idaho.gov/legislation/2001/S1022.html#billtext%23billtexthttp://legislature.idaho.gov/legislation/2001/S1022.html#sop%23sophttp://legislature.idaho.gov/legislation/2001/S1022.html#daily%23dailyhttp://legislature.idaho.gov/legislation/2001/S1022.html#billtext%23billtexthttp://legislature.idaho.gov/legislation/2001/S1022.html#sop%23sop


4/34

to provide for judgments and awards on foreign-money claims; to provide

for

times of money conversion; to provide for conversions of foreign money in

distribution proceedings; to provide for prejudgment interest and judgment

interest; to provide for enforcement of foreign judgments; to provide for

determining the United States dollar value of foreign-money claims for

limited purposes; to provide for the effect of current revalorization; to

provide for supplementary general principles of law and for uniformity of

application and construction; to provide a short title; and to provide for

application.

01/18 Senate intro - 1st rdg - to printing

01/19 Rpt prt - to Com/HuRes

02/07 Rpt out - rec d/p - to 2nd rdg

02/08 2nd rdg - to 3rd rdg02/09 3rd rdg - PASSED - 33-0-1(1 vacant)

AYES -- Andreason, Boatright, Branch(Bartlett), Brandt, Bunderson,

Burtenshaw, Cameron, Danielson, Darrington, Davis, Deide, Dunklin,

Frasure, Geddes, Goedde, Hawkins, Ingram, Ipsen, King-Barrutia, Lee,

Lodge, Noh, Richardson, Risch, Sandy, Schroeder, Sorensen, Stegner,

Stennett, Thorne, Wheeler, Whitworth, Williams,

NAYS -- None

Absent and excused -- Keough

Vacant -- Dist. #4

Floor Sponsor -- Davis

Title apvd - to House

02/12 House intro - 1st rdg - to Jud

03/22 Rpt out - rec d/p - to 2nd rdg

03/23 2nd rdg - to 3rd rdg

03/28 3rd rdg - PASSED - 59-1-10

AYES -- Barraclough, Barrett, Bedke, Bieter, Black, Boe, Bolz,

Bradford, Bruneel, Callister, Campbell, Chase, Clark, Collins, Deal,

Denney, Ellis, Ellsworth, Eskridge, Field(13), Field(20), Hadley,

Harwood, Henbest(Farley), Higgins, Hornbeck, Jaquet, Jones, Kendell,Kunz, Lake, Langford, Loertscher, Mader, McKague, Meyer,

Montgomery,

Mortensen, Moss, Moyle, Pearce, Pomeroy, Raybould, Roberts,

Robison,

Sali, Schaefer, Sellman, Shepherd, Smith, Smylie, Stevenson, Stone,

Tilman, Trail, Wheeler, Wood, Young(Young), Mr. Speaker


5/34

NAYS -- Hammond

Absent and excused -- Bell, Crow, Cuddy, Gagner, Gould, Hansen,

Kellogg, Marley, Pischner, Ridinger

Floor Sponsor -- Sali

Title apvd - to Senate

03/29 To enrol

Rpt enrol - Pres signed

03/30 Sp signed - to Governor

04/04 Governor signed

Session Law Chapter 329

Effective: 07/01/01

Bill Text

|||| LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO ||||

Fifty-sixth Legislature First Regular Session - 2001

IN THE SENATE

SENATE BILL NO. 1022

BY JUDICIARY AND RULES COMMITTEE

1 AN ACT

2 RELATING TO THE UNIFORM FOREIGN-MONEY CLAIMS ACT;

AMENDING TITLE 10, IDAHO

3 CODE, BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW CHAPTER 15, TITLE 10,

IDAHO CODE, TO DEFINE

4 TERMS, TO PROVIDE SCOPE, TO PROVIDE FOR VARIATION

BY AGREEMENT, TO PROVIDE

5 FOR DETERMINING THE MONEY OF THE CLAIM, TO

PROVIDE FOR DETERMINING THE

6 AMOUNT OF THE MONEY OF CERTAIN CONTRACT

CLAIMS, TO PROVIDE FOR THE ASSER-

7 TION AND DEFENSE OF A FOREIGN-MONEY CLAIM, TO

PROVIDE FOR JUDGMENTS AND


6/34

8 AWARDS ON FOREIGN-MONEY CLAIMS, TO PROVIDE FOR

TIMES OF MONEY CONVERSION

9 AND TO PROVIDE FOR FORM OF JUDGMENT, TO PROVIDE

FOR CONVERSIONS OF FOREIGN

10 MONEY IN DISTRIBUTION PROCEEDINGS, TO PROVIDE

FOR PREJUDGMENT INTEREST AND

11 JUDGMENT INTEREST, TO PROVIDE FOR

ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS, TO

12 PROVIDE FOR DETERMINING THE UNITED STATES

DOLLAR VALUE OF FOREIGN-MONEY

13 CLAIMS FOR LIMITED PURPOSES, TO PROVIDE FOR

THE EFFECT OF CURRENT

14 REVALORIZATION, TO PROVIDE FOR SUPPLEMENTARY

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW, TO

15 PROVIDE FOR UNIFORMITY OF APPLICATION ANDCONSTRUCTION, TO PROVIDE A SHORT

16 TITLE, TO PROVIDE FOR SEVERABILITY AND TO PROVIDE

THAT THE CHAPTER APPLIES

17 TO ACTIONS AND DISTRIBUTION PROCEEDINGS

COMMENCED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE

18 DATE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

19 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho:

20 SECTION 1. That Title 10, Idaho Code, be, and the same is hereby

amended

21 by the addition thereto of a NEW CHAPTER, to be known and

designated as Chap-

22 ter 15, Title 10, Idaho Code, and to read as follows:

23 CHAPTER 15

24 UNIFORM FOREIGN-MONEY CLAIMS ACT

25 10-1501. DEFINITIONS. As used in this chapter:26 (1) "Action" means a judicial proceeding or arbitration in which a

pay-

27 ment in money may be awarded or enforced with respect to a

foreign-money

28 claim.


7/34

29 (2) "Bank-offered spot rate" means the spot rate of exchange at

which a

30 bank will sell foreign money at a spot rate.

31 (3) "Conversion date" means the banking day next preceding the

date on

32 which money, in accordance with this chapter, is:

33 (i) Paid to a claimant in an action or distribution proceeding;

34 (ii) Paid to the official designated by law to enforce a judgment

or

35 award on behalf of a claimant; or

36 (iii) Used to recoup, set-off or counterclaim in different moneys in

an

37 action or distribution proceeding.

38 (4) "Distribution proceeding" means a judicial or nonjudicial

proceeding39 for the distribution of a fund in which one (1) or more foreign-money

claims

40 is asserted and includes an accounting, an assignment for the benefit of

cred-

41 itors, a foreclosure, the liquidation or rehabilitation of a corporation

or

42 other entity, and the distribution of an estate, trust or other fund.

2

1 (5) "Foreign money" means money other than money of the United

States of

2 America.

3 (6) "Foreign-money claim" means a claim upon an obligation to

pay, or a

4 claim for recovery of a loss, expressed in or measured by a foreign

money.

5 (7) "Money" means a medium of exchange for the payment of

obligations or6 a store of value authorized or adopted by a government or by

inter-

7 governmental agreement.

8 (8) "Money of the claim" means the money determined as proper

pursuant to

9 section 10-1504, Idaho Code.


8/34

10 (9) "Person" means an individual, a corporation, government or

governmen-

11 tal subdivision or agency, business trust, estate, trust, joint venture,

part-

12 nership, association, two (2) or more persons having a joint or common

inter-

13 est, or any other legal or commercial entity.

14 (10) "Rate of exchange" means the rate at which money of one (1)

country

15 may be converted into money of another country in a free financial

market con-

16 venient to or reasonably usable by a person obligated to pay or to

state a

17 rate of conversion. If separate rates of exchange apply to different

kinds of18 transactions, the term means the rate applicable to the particular

transaction

19 giving rise to the foreign-money claim.

20 (11) "Spot rate" means the rate of exchange at which foreign money

is sold

21 by a bank or other dealer in foreign exchange for immediate or next

day avail-

22 ability or for settlement by immediate payment in cash or

equivalent, by

23 charge to an account, or by an agreed delayed settlement not exceeding

two (2)

24 days.

25 (12) "State" means a state of the United States, the District of

Columbia,

26 the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or a territory or insular possession

subject

27 to the jurisdiction of the United States.

28 10-1502. SCOPE. (a) This chapter applies only to a foreign-moneyclaim in

29 an action or distribution proceeding.

30 (b) This chapter applies to foreign-money issues even if other law

under

31 the conflict of laws rules of this state applies to other issues in the

action


9/34

32 or distribution proceeding.

33 10-1503. VARIATION BY AGREEMENT. (a) The effect of this

chapter may be

34 varied by agreement of the parties made before or after

commencement of an

35 action or distribution proceeding or the entry of judgment.

36 (b) Parties to a transaction may agree upon the money to be used

in a

37 transaction giving rise to a foreign-money claim and may agree to use

differ-

38 ent moneys for different aspects of the transaction. Stating the price

in a

39 foreign money for one (1) aspect of a transaction does not alone

require the40 use of that money for other aspects of the transaction.

41 10-1504. DETERMINING MONEY OF THE CLAIM. (a) The

money in which the par-

42 ties to a transaction have agreed that payment is to be made is the

proper

43 money of the claim for payment.

44 (b) If the parties to a transaction have not otherwise agreed, the

proper

45 money of the claim, as in each case may be appropriate, is the money:

46 (1) Regularly used between the parties as a matter of usage or

course of

47 dealing;

48 (2) Used at the time of a transaction in international trade, by

trade

49 usage or common practice, for valuing or settling transactions in the

par-

50 ticular commodity or service involved; or

51 (3) In which the loss was ultimately felt or will be incurred bythe

52 party claimant.

3


10/34

1 10-1505. DETERMINING AMOUNT OF THE MONEY OF

CERTAIN CONTRACT CLAIMS. (a)

2 If an amount contracted to be paid in a foreign money is measured by a

speci-

3 fied amount of a different money, the amount to be paid is determined

on the

4 conversion date.

5 (b) If an amount contracted to be paid in a foreign money is to be

mea-

6 sured by a different money at the rate of exchange prevailing on a date

before

7 default, that rate of exchange applies only to payments made within a

reason-

8 able time after default, not exceeding thirty (30) days. Thereafter,

conver-9 sion is made at the bank-offered spot rate on the conversion date.

10 (c) A monetary claim is neither usurious nor unconscionable

because the

11 agreement on which it is based provides that the amount of the

debtor's obli-

12 gation to be paid in the debtor's money, when received by the creditor,

must

13 equal a specified amount of the foreign money of the country of the

creditor.

14 If, because of unexcused delay in payment of a judgment or award, the

amount

15 received by the creditor does not equal the amount of the foreign

money speci-

16 fied in the agreement, the court or arbitrator shall amend the

judgment or

17 award accordingly.

18 10-1506. ASSERTING AND DEFENDING FOREIGN-MONEY

CLAIM. (a) A person may19 assert a claim in a specified foreign money. If a foreign-money claim

is not

20 asserted, the claimant makes the claim in United States dollars.

21 (b) An opposing party may allege and prove that a claim, in whole

or in

22 part, is in a different money than that asserted by the claimant.


11/34


12/34


13/34

15 rate of exchange prevailing at or near the close of business on the day

the

16 distribution proceeding is initiated governs all exchanges of foreign

money in

17 a distribution proceeding. A foreign-money claimant in a distribution

proceed-

18 ing shall assert its claim in the named foreign money and show the

amount of

19 United States dollars resulting from a conversion as of the date the

proceed-

20 ing was initiated.

21 10-1509. PREJUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT INTEREST. (a)

With respect to a

22 foreign-money claim, recovery of prejudgment or preaward interestand the rate

23 of interest to be applied in the action or distribution proceeding,

except as

24 provided in subsection (b) of this section, are matters of the substantive

law

25 governing the right to recovery under the conflict-of-laws rules of

this

26 state.

27 (b) The court or arbitrator shall increase or decrease the amount

of

28 prejudgment or preaward interest otherwise payable in a judgment or

award in

29 foreign money to the extent required by the law of this state

governing a

30 failure to make or accept an offer of settlement or offer of judgment, or

con-

31 duct by a party or its attorney causing undue delay or expense.

32 (c) A judgment or award on a foreign-money claim bears interest

at the33 rate applicable to judgments of this state.

34 10-1510. ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS. (a) If an

action is brought to

35 enforce a judgment of another jurisdiction expressed in a foreign

money and


14/34


15/34

4 tion or other legal process, the amount of United States dollars at issue

for

5 assessing costs, or the amount of United States dollars involved for a

surety

6 bond or other court required undertaking, must be ascertained as

provided in

7 subsections (c) and (d) of this section.

8 (c) A party seeking process, costs, bond or other undertaking under

sub-

9 section (b) of this section shall compute in United States dollars the

amount

10 of the foreign money claimed from a bank-offered spot rate

prevailing at or

11 near the close of business on the banking day next preceding the filing

of a12 request or application for the issuance of process or for the

determination of

13 costs, or an application for a bond or other court required undertaking.

14 (d) A party seeking the process, costs, bond or other undertaking

under

15 subsection (b) of this section shall file with each request or application

an

16 affidavit or certificate executed in good faith by its counsel or a bank

offi-

17 cer, stating the market quotation used and how it was obtained, and

setting

18 forth the calculation. Affected court officials incur no liability, after a

19 filing of the affidavit or certificate, for acting as if the judgment were

in

20 the amount of United States dollars stated in the affidavit or certificate.

21 10-1512. EFFECT OF CURRENT REVALORIZATION. (a) If,

after an obligation is

22 expressed or a loss is incurred in a foreign money, the countryissuing or

23 adopting that money substitutes a new money in place of that money,

the obli-

24 gation or the loss is treated as if expressed or incurred in the new

money at


16/34

25 the rate of conversion the issuing country establishes for the payment

of like

26 obligations or losses denominated in the former money.

27 (b) If substitution under subsection (a) of this section occurs after a

28 judgment or award is entered on a foreign-money claim, the court or

arbitrator

29 shall amend the judgment or award by a like conversion of the former

money.

30 10-1513. SUPPLEMENTARY GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF

LAW. Unless displaced by

31 particular provisions of this chapter, the principles of law and

equity,

32 including the law merchant, and the law relative to capacity to

contract,33 principal and agent, estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation, duress,

coercion,

34 mistake, bankruptcy, or other validating or invalidating causes

supplement its

35 provisions.

36 10-1514. UNIFORMITY OF APPLICATION AND

CONSTRUCTION. This chapter shall

37 be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make

uniform the

38 law with respect to the subject of this chapter among states enacting it.

39 10-1515. SHORT TITLE. This chapter may be cited as the

"Uniform Foreign-

40 Money Claims Act."

41 10-1516. SEVERABILITY. The provisions of this chapter are

hereby declared

42 to be severable and if any provision of this chapter or the applicationof

43 such provision to any person or circumstance is declared invalid for

any rea-

44 son, such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining

portions

45 of this chapter.


17/34

46 10-1517. TRANSITIONAL PROVISION. This chapter applies to

actions and dis-

47 tribution proceedings commenced after its effective date.

48 SECTION 2. This act shall be in full force and effect on and after

July

6

1 1, 2001.

Statement of Purpose / Fiscal Impact

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

RS 10615C1

This legislation enacts the Uniform Foreign-Money Claims Act

("UFMCA"). Except for minor revisions to accommodate existing

Idaho law, UFMCA was drafted and approved by the National

Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and is

recommended by the Idaho Uniform Law Commission for adoption in

Idaho. The Act has been approved by the American Bar Association.

UFMCA is intended to facilitate determination and payment of

pecuniary claims for loss or damage properly measured in money

other than that of the United States when involved in litigation or

quasi-litigated situations. It does not apply to voluntary

payments of such obligations. Pursuant to UFMCA, courts are

authorized to appraise loss or damage in terms of the money agreed

to by the parties or in which the loss was felt.

FISCAL IMPACTThis Act will have no fiscal impact on the General Fund.

Contact

Name: Rex Blackburn

Evans, Keane LLP

Phone: (208) 384-1800


18/34


19/34


20/34


21/34

(4) The judgment conflicts with another final and conclusive

judgment;

(5) The proceeding in the foreign court was contrary to an agreement

between the parties under which the dispute in question was to be

determined otherwise than by proceedings in that foreign court;

(6) In the case of jurisdiction based only on personal service, the

foreign court was a seriously inconvenient forum for the trial of the action;

(7) The judgment was rendered in circumstances that raise

substantial doubt about the integrity of the rendering court with respect to

the judgment; or

(8) The specific proceeding in the foreign court leading to the

judgment was not compatible with the requirements of due process of law.

(d) A party resisting recognition of a foreign-country judgment has the

burden of establishing that a ground for nonrecognition stated in subsection

(b) or (c) of this section exists.

71 Del. Laws, c. 145, 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, 1; 78 Del. Laws, c. 65,

2.;

4804. Grounds for non-recognition. (71 Del. Laws, c. 145, 1; 70 Del.Laws, c. 186, 1; repealed by 78 Del. Laws, c. 65 3, eff. June 28, 2011.)

4805. Personal jurisdiction.

(a) A foreign-country judgment may not be refused recognition for lack of

personal jurisdiction if:

(1) The defendant was served with process personally in the foreign

country;

(2) The defendant voluntarily appeared in the proceedings other than

for the purpose of protecting property seized or threatened with seizure in

the proceedings or of contesting the jurisdiction of the court over the

defendant;
http://delcode.delaware.gov/sessionlaws/ga139/chp145.shtmlhttp://delcode.delaware.gov/sessionlaws/ga138/chp186.shtmlhttp://delcode.delaware.gov/sessionlaws/ga146/chp065.shtmlhttp://delcode.delaware.gov/sessionlaws/ga146/chp065.shtmlhttp://delcode.delaware.gov/sessionlaws/ga139/chp145.shtmlhttp://delcode.delaware.gov/sessionlaws/ga138/chp186.shtmlhttp://delcode.delaware.gov/sessionlaws/ga146/chp065.shtmlhttp://delcode.delaware.gov/sessionlaws/ga146/chp065.shtml


22/34

(3) The defendant, prior to the commencement of the proceedings,

had agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the foreign court with respect to

the subject matter involved;

(4) The defendant was domiciled in the foreign country when the

proceeding was instituted or was a corporation or other form of business

organization that had its principal place of business in, or was organized

under the laws of, the foreign country;

(5) The defendant had a business office in the foreign country and

the proceedings in the foreign court involved a cause of action arising out of

business done by the defendant through that office in the foreign country; or

(6) The defendant operated a motor vehicle or airplane in the foreign

country and the proceedings involved a cause of action arising out of suchoperation.

(b) The list of bases for personal jurisdiction in subsection (a) of this

section is not exclusive. The courts of this State may recognize bases of

personal jurisdiction other than those listed in subsection (a) of this section

as sufficient to support a foreign-country judgment.


4-9.;

4806. Stay of proceedings pending appeal of foreign-country judgment.

If a party establishes that an appeal from a foreign-country judgment is

pending or will be taken, the court may stay any proceedings with regard to

the foreign-country judgment until the appeal is concluded, the time for

appeal expires, or the appellant has had sufficient time to prosecute the

appeal and has failed to do so.


10.;

4807. Savings clause.

This chapter does not prevent the recognition under principles of comity

or otherwise of a foreign-country judgment not within the scope of this

chapter.
http://delcode.delaware.gov/sessionlaws/ga139/chp145.shtmlhttp://delcode.delaware.gov/sessionlaws/ga138/chp186.shtmlhttp://delcode.delaware.gov/sessionlaws/ga146/chp065.shtmlhttp://delcode.delaware.gov/sessionlaws/ga146/chp065.shtmlhttp://delcode.delaware.gov/sessionlaws/ga139/chp145.shtmlhttp://delcode.delaware.gov/sessionlaws/ga138/chp186.shtmlhttp://delcode.delaware.gov/sessionlaws/ga146/chp065.shtmlhttp://delcode.delaware.gov/sessionlaws/ga146/chp065.shtmlhttp://delcode.delaware.gov/sessionlaws/ga139/chp145.shtmlhttp://delcode.delaware.gov/sessionlaws/ga138/chp186.shtmlhttp://delcode.delaware.gov/sessionlaws/ga146/chp065.shtmlhttp://delcode.delaware.gov/sessionlaws/ga146/chp065.shtmlhttp://delcode.delaware.gov/sessionlaws/ga139/chp145.shtmlhttp://delcode.delaware.gov/sessionlaws/ga138/chp186.shtmlhttp://delcode.delaware.gov/sessionlaws/ga146/chp065.shtmlhttp://delcode.delaware.gov/sessionlaws/ga146/chp065.shtml


23/34


24/34

effective in the foreign country or 15 years from the date that the foreign-

country judgment became effective in the foreign country.

78 Del. Laws, c. 65, 13.;

4812. Effective date.

(a) This chapter takes effect on June 28, 2011.

(b) This chapter applies to all actions commenced on or after June 28,

2011, in which the issue of recognition of a foreign-country judgment is

raised.

78 Del. Laws, c. 65, 13.;

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

SECTION 1713-1724

1713. This chapter may be cited as the Uniform Foreign-Country

Money Judgments Recognition Act.

1714. As used in this chapter:

(a) "Foreign country" means a government other than any of the

following:

(1) The United States.

(2) A state, district, commonwealth, territory, or insular

possession of the United States.

(3) Any other government with regard to which the decision in this

state as to whether to recognize a judgment of that government's

courts is initially subject to determination under the Full Faith and

Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.

(b) "Foreign-country judgment" means a judgment of a court of a

foreign country. "Foreign-country judgment" includes a judgment by

any Indian tribe recognized by the government of the United States.
http://delcode.delaware.gov/sessionlaws/ga146/chp065.shtmlhttp://delcode.delaware.gov/sessionlaws/ga146/chp065.shtmlhttp://delcode.delaware.gov/sessionlaws/ga146/chp065.shtmlhttp://delcode.delaware.gov/sessionlaws/ga146/chp065.shtml


25/34

1715. (a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b), this

chapter applies to a foreign-country judgment to the extent that the

judgment both:

(1) Grants or denies recovery of a sum of money.

(2) Under the law of the foreign country where rendered, is final,

conclusive, and enforceable.

(b) This chapter does not apply to a foreign-country judgment,

even if the judgment grants or denies recovery of a sum of money, to

the extent that the judgment is any of the following:

(1) A judgment for taxes.

(2) A fine or other penalty.

(3) (A) A judgment for divorce, support, or maintenance, or other

judgment rendered in connection with domestic relations.(B) A judgment for divorce, support, or maintenance, or other

judgment rendered in connection with domestic relations may be

recognized by a court of this state pursuant to Section 1723.

(c) A party seeking recognition of a foreign-country judgment has

the burden of establishing that the foreign-country judgment is

entitled to recognition under this chapter.

1716. (a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivisions (b) and (c),

a court of this state shall recognize a foreign-country judgment to

which this chapter applies.

(b) A court of this state shall not recognize a foreign-country

judgment if any of the following apply:

(1) The judgment was rendered under a judicial system that does

not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the

requirements of due process of law.

(2) The foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over thedefendant.

(3) The foreign court did not have jurisdiction over the subject

matter.

(c) A court of this state is not required to recognize a

foreign-country judgment if any of the following apply:

(1) The defendant in the proceeding in the foreign court did not


26/34

receive notice of the proceeding in sufficient time to enable the

defendant to defend.

(2) The judgment was obtained by fraud that deprived the losing

party of an adequate opportunity to present its case.

(3) The judgment or the cause of action or claim for relief on

which the judgment is based is repugnant to the public policy of this

state or of the United States.

(4) The judgment conflicts with another final and conclusive

judgment.

(5) The proceeding in the foreign court was contrary to an

agreement between the parties under which the dispute in question was

to be determined otherwise than by proceedings in that foreign

court.

(6) In the case of jurisdiction based only on personal service,

the foreign court was a seriously inconvenient forum for the trial ofthe action.

(7) The judgment was rendered in circumstances that raise

substantial doubt about the integrity of the rendering court with

respect to the judgment.

(8) The specific proceeding in the foreign court leading to the

judgment was not compatible with the requirements of due process of

law.

(9) The judgment includes recovery for a claim of defamation

unless the court determines that the defamation law applied by the

foreign court provided at least as much protection for freedom of

speech and the press as provided by both the United States and

California Constitutions.

(d) If the party seeking recognition of a foreign-country judgment

has met its burden of establishing recognition of the

foreign-country judgment pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 1715,

a party resisting recognition of a foreign-country judgment has the

burden of establishing that a ground for nonrecognition stated in

subdivision (b) or (c) exists.

1717. (a) A foreign-country judgment shall not be refused

recognition for lack of personal jurisdiction if any of the following

apply:

(1) The defendant was served with process personally in the


27/34

foreign country.

(2) The defendant voluntarily appeared in the proceeding, other

than for the purpose of protecting property seized or threatened with

seizure in the proceeding or of contesting the jurisdiction of the

court over the defendant.

(3) The defendant, before the commencement of the proceeding, had

agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the foreign court with

respect to the subject matter involved.

(4) The defendant was domiciled in the foreign country when the

proceeding was instituted or was a corporation or other form of

business organization that had its principal place of business in, or

was organized under the laws of, the foreign country.

(5) The defendant had a business office in the foreign country and

the proceeding in the foreign court involved a cause of action or

claim for relief arising out of business done by the defendantthrough that office in the foreign country.

(6) The defendant operated a motor vehicle or airplane in the

foreign country and the proceeding involved a cause of action or

claim for relief arising out of that operation.

(b) The list of bases for personal jurisdiction in subdivision (a)

is not exclusive. The courts of this state may recognize bases of

personal jurisdiction other than those listed in subdivision (a) as

sufficient to support a foreign-country judgment.

(c) If a judgment was rendered in an action for defamation in a

foreign country against a person who is a resident of California or a

person or entity amenable to jurisdiction in California, and

declaratory relief with respect to liability for the judgment or a

determination that the judgment is not recognizable in California

under Section 1716 is sought, a court has jurisdiction to determine

the declaratory relief action as well as personal jurisdiction over

the person or entity who obtained the foreign-country judgment if

both of the following apply:

(1) The publication at issue was published in California.

(2) The person who is a resident, or the person or entity who isamenable to jurisdiction in California, either (A) has assets in

California that might be subject to an enforcement proceeding to

satisfy the foreign-country defamation judgment, or (B) may have to

take actions in California to comply with the foreign-country

defamation judgment.

This subdivision shall apply to persons who obtained judgments in


28/34


29/34


30/34

By CSG Committee on Suggested State Legislation| Friday, January 28, 2011 at 3:40 pm

Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act SSL Draft

Summary:

International trade creates litigation between countries and judgments that must be enforcedfrom country to country. There is a strong need for uniformity between states with respect tothe law governing foreign country money-judgments. If foreign country judgments are notenforced appropriately and uniformly, it may make enforcement of the judgments of Americancourts more difficult in foreign country courts.

The first step towards enforcement is recognition of the foreign country judgment. Therecognition occurs in a state court when an appropriate action is filed for the purpose. If thejudgment meets the statutory standards, the state court will recognize it. It then may be

enforced as if it is a judgment of another state of the United States. Enforcement may thenproceed, which means the judgment creditor may proceed against the property of thejudgment debtor to satisfy the judgment amount. First, it must be shown that the judgment isconclusive, final and enforceable in the country of origin. Certain money judgments areexcluded, such as judgments on taxes, fines or criminal-like penalties and judgments relatingto domestic relations. Domestic relations judgments are enforced under other statutes, alreadyexisting in every state. A foreign-country judgment must not be recognized if it comes from acourt system that is not impartial or that dishonors due process, or there is no personaljurisdiction over the defendant or over the subject matter of the litigation. There are a numberof grounds that may make a U.S. court deny recognition, i.e., the defendant did not receivenotice of the proceeding or the claim is repugnant to American public policy. A final, conclusivejudgment enforceable in the country of origin, if it is not excluded for one of the enumeratedreasons, must be recognized and enforced.

In 1962, the Uniform Law Commission (ULC) promulgated its Uniform Act Foreign-CountryMoney Judgments Recognition Act, which codified the most prevalent common law rules withregard to the recognition and enforcement of money judgments rendered in other countries.Under the 1962 Act, a state was required to recognize a foreign-country money judgment if thejudgment satisfied the standards for recognition set out in the Act. Since its promulgation morethan 40 years ago, the 1962 Act has been adopted in a majority of the states and has been inlarge part successful in carrying out its purpose of establishing clear and uniform standardsunder which state courts will enforce the foreign-country money judgments that come withinits scope.

New Mexico HB 690 enacts a revised version of the Uniform Foreign Money JudgmentsRecognition Act of 1962. The revised version, which was first promulgated by the ULC in 2005,generally provides simple court procedures for the enforcement of foreign-country moneyjudgments. It corrects and clarifies gaps in the 1962 Act revealed in the case law over the last40 years. The revision addresses burdens of proof for the first time, providing that a petitionerfor recognition has the burden of proving a judgment is entitled to recognition under thestandards of the Act, and that any respondent resisting recognition and enforcement has theburden of proof respecting denial of recognition. It revises the grounds for denying recognitionof foreign-country money judgments and establishes a statute of limitations for recognitionactions. Finally, the revised Act generally updates and clarifies both the definitions and thescope section of the 1962 edition.

Specifically, the 2005 revised Act makes it clear that a judgment entitled to full faith and creditunder the U.S. Constitution is not enforceable under this Act. This clarifies the relationshipbetween the ULCs Foreign-Country Money Judgments Act and the Enforcement of Foreign
http://knowledgecenter.csg.org/drupal/users/csg-committee-suggested-state-legislationhttp://knowledgecenter.csg.org/drupal/users/csg-committee-suggested-state-legislationhttp://knowledgecenter.csg.org/drupal/system/files/foreigncountrymoneyjudgements2011.pdfhttp://knowledgecenter.csg.org/drupal/system/files/SSL_Thumbnail_17.jpghttp://knowledgecenter.csg.org/drupal/users/csg-committee-suggested-state-legislationhttp://knowledgecenter.csg.org/drupal/system/files/foreigncountrymoneyjudgements2011.pdf


31/34

Judgments Act. Recognition by a court is a different procedure than enforcement of a sisterstate judgment from within the United States.

The 2005 revision expressly provides that a party seeking recognition of a foreign judgmenthas the burden to prove that the judgment is subject to the Uniform Act. Burden of proof wasnot addressed in the 1962 Act.

Conversely, the 2005 Act imposes the burden of proof for establishing a specific ground fornon-recognition upon the party raising it. Again, burden of proof is not addressed in the 1962Act.

The 2005 Act addresses the specific procedure for seeking enforcement. If recognition issought as an original matter, the party seeking recognition must file an action in the court toobtain recognition. If recognition is sought in a pending action, it may be filed as a counter-claim, cross-claim or affirmative defense in the pending action. The 1962 Act does not addressthe procedure to obtain recognition at all, leaving that to other state law.

The 2005 Act provides a statute of limitations on enforcement of a foreign-country judgment. Ifthe judgment cannot be enforced any longer in the country of origin, it may not be enforced ina court of an enacting state. If there is no limitation on enforcement in the country of origin,

the judgment becomes unenforceable in an enacting state after 15 years from the time thejudgment is effective in the country of origin.

Thirteen states had enacted the revised Uniform Foreign-Country Money JudgmentsRecognition Act as of June 2010: California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota,Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Washington. Interestedreaders can download the approved text of the Uniform Foreign-Country Money JudgmentsRecognition Act at www.nccusl.org .

Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act - Second Circuitdismisses injunction proceedings based on New York's Uniform ForeignCountry Money-Judgments Recognition Act

Baker & McKenzie

Ecuador, USA

March 27 2012

Chevron Corp. v. Naranjo, No. 11-1150, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1463 (2nd Cir. Jan. 26, 2012)[click foropinion ]

Citizens of Ecuador residing in the Lago Agrio region ("Lago Agrio Plaintiffs") filed a lawsuit in Ecuadorwhich claimed that the predecessor of Chevron damaged the environment in which they lived from 1964

through 1992. On February 14, 2011, after seven years of litigation, the Ecuadorian trial court issued adecision against Chevron for $8.6 billion in damages, with $8.6 billion in punitive damages to be awardedunless Chevron apologized within 14 days of the opinion's issuance. Chevron did not apologize, and thepending judgment was thus for $17.2 billion ("Ecuadorian Judgment").

On February 1, 2011, Chevron filed an action in the Southern District of New York in part under New York'sUniform Foreign Country Money-Judgments Recognition Act (the "Recognition Act"), New York CivilPractice Law and Rules ("CPLR") 5301-5309, which allows judgment-creditors to enforce foreignjudgments in New York courts, subject to several exceptions. One of the mandatory exceptions requires thata court not enforce a judgment if "the judgment was rendered under a system which does not provide
http://www.nccusl.org/http://www.lexology.com/firms/detail.aspx?f=665http://bakerxchange.com/ve/L31M83Maa60F61db/VT=0/stype=dload/OID=612320184935493http://bakerxchange.com/ve/L31M83Maa60F61db/VT=0/stype=dload/OID=612320184935493http://bakerxchange.com/ve/L31M83Maa60F61db/VT=0/stype=dload/OID=612320184935493http://bakerxchange.com/ve/L31M83Maa60F61db/stype=click/OID=31232220380599/VT=0http://bakerxchange.com/ve/L31M83Maa60F61db/stype=click/OID=31232220380599/VT=0http://www.bakermckenzie.com/http://www.nccusl.org/http://www.lexology.com/firms/detail.aspx?f=665http://bakerxchange.com/ve/L31M83Maa60F61db/VT=0/stype=dload/OID=612320184935493http://bakerxchange.com/ve/L31M83Maa60F61db/VT=0/stype=dload/OID=612320184935493http://bakerxchange.com/ve/L31M83Maa60F61db/stype=click/OID=31232220380599/VT=0


32/34

impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law." Chevron claimedthat the decision by the Ecuadorian court was tainted by fraud, and also alleged that Plaintiffs' Americanattorney, Steven Donziger, wrested control of the Ecuadorian judicial process through political pressure thatresulted in a judgment based on political manipulation rather than the rule of law.

The district court granted the injunction, confirming Chevron's theory of the judgment's invalidity and heldthat Chevron was, at a subsequent trial, either likely to prevail on the merits or at least show that the

Ecuadorian court system is incapable of producing a judgment that New York courts would enforce underthe Recognition Act, reasoning that the Ecuadorian judicial system "has been plagued by corruption andpolitical interference for decades, that the situation has worsened since President Correa's election," andthat there was "ample evidence of fraud in the Ecuadorian proceedings." The injunction enjoined the LagoAgrio Plaintiffs from commencing any action for the recognition or enforcement of the Ecuadorian Judgmentby any court outside the Republic of Ecuador.

The Second Circuit reversed and remanded to the district court with the instruction to dismiss Chevron'sclaim for injunctive and declaratory relief under the Recognition Act, holding that the Recognition Act did notpermit a potential judgment-debtor, like Chevron, to preemptively seek a global anti-enforcement injunction.The court stated that the Recognition Act does not create an affirmative cause of action to declare foreignjudgments void and unenforceable rather, the sections on which Chevron relies are exceptions from thecircumstances in which a holder of a foreign judgment can obtain enforcement of that judgment in New York.According to CPLR 5303, challenges to the validity of foreign judgments under the Recognition Act can

occur only after a judgment-creditor seeks enforcement in an "action on the judgment, a motion for summaryjudgment in lieu of complaint, or in a pending action by counterclaim, cross-claim or affirmative defense,"and not before.

The court also considered international comity concerns as additional reasons to conclude that theRecognition Act could not support the broad injunctive remedy granted by the district court. By enacting theRecognition Act, which provides a ready means for foreign judgment-creditors to enforce their rights in NewYork courts while reserving New York's right to decline to participate in the enforcement of judgmentsprocured by fraud, New York "undertook to act as a responsible participant in the international system ofjustice not to set up its courts as a transnational arbiter to dictate to the entire world which judgments areentitled to respect and which countries' courts are to be treated as international pariahs."

Foreign-Country Money Judgments

Recognition Act Summary

In 1962, the Uniform Law Commissioners promulgated the Uniform Foreign Money-

Judgments Recognition Act. It is a companion to the 1948 (amended in 1962) Uniform

Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. In spite of the similarities in titles, these acts deal

with quite different problems of judgment enforcement. The Enforcement of ForeignJudgments Act provides for enforcement of a state court judgment in another state to

implement the Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Foreign Money-

Judgments Recognition Act provided for enforcement of foreign country judgments in a
http://bakerxchange.com/ve/L31M83Maa60F61db/stype=click/OID=51232220380586/VT=0http://bakerxchange.com/ve/L31M83Maa60F61db/stype=click/OID=51232220380586/VT=0http://bakerxchange.com/ve/L31M83Maa60F61db/stype=click/OID=51232220380586/VT=0


33/34

state court in the United States. The 1962 Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition

act has been enacted in 32 states.

The increase in international trade in the United States has also meant more litigation in theinterstate context. This means more judgments to be enforced from country to country.

There is a strong need for uniformity between states with respect to the law governingforeign country money-judgments. If foreign country judgments are not enforced

appropriately and uniformly, it may make enforcement of the judgments of Americancourts more difficult in foreign country courts. To meet the increased needs for

enforcement of foreign country money-judgments, the Uniform Law Commissioners have

promulgated a revision of the 1962 Uniform Act with the 2005 Uniform Foreign-Country

Money Judgments Recognition Act (UFCMJRA).

The first step towards enforcement is recognition of the foreign country judgment. The

recognition occurs in a state court when an appropriate action is filed for the purpose. If the

judgment meets the statutory standards, the state court will recognize it. It then may be

enforced as if it is a judgment of another state of the United States. Enforcement may thenproceed, which means the judgment creditor may proceed against the property of the

judgment debtor to satisfy the judgment amount.

First, it must be shown that the judgment is conclusive, final and enforceable in the countryof origin. Certain money judgments are excluded, such as judgments on taxes, fines or

criminal-like penalties and judgments relating to domestic relations. Domestic relations

judgments are enforced under other statutes, already existing in every state. A foreign-country judgment must not be recognized if it comes from a court system that is not

impartial or that dishonors due process, or there is no personal jurisdiction over the

defendant or over the subject matter of the litigation. There are a number of grounds that

may make a U.S. court deny recognition, i.e., the defendant did not receive notice of theproceeding or the claim is repugnant to American public policy. A final, conclusive

judgment enforceable in the country of origin, if it is not excluded for one of theenumerated reasons, must be recognized and enforced. The 1962 Act and the 2005 Act

generally operate the same.

The primary differences between the 1962 and the 2005 Uniform Acts are as follows:

1. The 2005 Act makes it clear that a judgment entitled to full faith and credit under

the U.S. Constitution is not enforceable under this Act. This clarifies the relationshipbetween the Foreign-Country Money Judgments Act and the Enforcement of Foreign

Judgments Act. Recognition by a court is a different procedure than enforcement of a sister

state judgment from within the United States.

2. The 2005 Act expressly provides that a party seeking recognition of a foreign

judgment has the burden to prove that the judgment is subject to the Uniform Act.

Burden of proof was not addressed in the 1962 Act.


34/34

uniform foreign money claims act law 6 5 12 hdm

Documents