Recent New York decision highlights that courts can recognize a foreign judgment even without personal jurisdiction

Case Background

In January 2021, Cargill and its related entities (the “Plaintiffs”) initiated twenty-seven separate arbitration proceedings against Ukrainian businessman Taras Barshchovskiy (the “Defendant”) under the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) Rules, alleging that the Defendant failed to pay certain debts owed under twenty-seven individual agreements. After the proceedings were consolidated into a single arbitration, the LCIA issued an arbitration award in December 2022 favoring the Plaintiffs for $123.9 million.

Thereafter, the Defendant challenged the award in the English Commercial Court under Section 68 of the English Arbitration Act, but that court dismissed his claims in May 2023. In November 2023, following Defendant’s exhaustion of all available remedies to challenge the arbitral award, the Plaintiffs applied to the High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England & Whales (the “English Court”) for enforcement of the award. In January 2024, the English Court granted Plaintiffs’ application to enforce the award and issued a judgment confirming the award. The next month, the judgment became final, conclusive, and enforceable against the Defendant under English law.

Proceedings in New York

Plaintiffs then filed an action in New York State Supreme Court, seeking recognition of the English Court’s judgment. Given the difficulties in locating the Defendant, the court approved alternative service methods, including email and social media. After service, the Defendant removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on the basis of diversity jurisdiction and then sought dismissal of the action, which the court denied.

In November 2024, Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Article 53 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”), which governs recognition of a foreign money judgment in New York courts that are deemed final, conclusive, and enforceable under the law of the foreign country where it is rendered. The Defendant opposed summary judgment on the sole ground that the New York federal court did not have personal jurisdiction over him because he purportedly maintained no property and had no contacts in New York that would subject him to personal jurisdiction. According to the Defendant, the exercise of personal jurisdiction would violate the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Summary Judgment Proceedings

The federal court granted Plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion. Importantly, the court explained that judicial recognition of a foreign money judgment under Article 53 does not require establishing personal jurisdiction over the judgment debtor. Rather, the Article requires that the foreign court that rendered the money judgment have had personal jurisdiction over the debtor. The court explained that a court charged with recognition and enforcement of a judgment is not required to grant additional protections during a ministerial enforcement proceeding because the court that confirmed the underlying judgment will have already protected the defendant’s due process rights, including by requiring the petitioner to establish any jurisdictional predicates.

However, the court did acknowledge that enforcement of a foreign money judgment in a New York court under Articles 51 and 52 of the CPLR still requires personal jurisdiction over the judgment debtor.

Implications

The Cargill decision highlights that recognition of a foreign monetary judgment under New York law does not require personal jurisdiction over a judgment debtor. However, in order to enforce a judgment in a New York court, a judgment creditor must still establish personal jurisdiction over the judgment debtor.

The decision also underscores the strategic benefits for seeking recognition of a foreign judgment in New York courts, including access to discovery tools that are more expansive than non-U.S. jurisdictions. As the court noted, recognition of a judgment by a New York court “gives the judgment creditor the right to use the tools of the court to locate the judgment creditor’s assets. And judgment enforcement is not possible until after a court grants judgment recognition.”

The decision is Cargill Financial Services International, Inc. v. Taras Barshchovskiy, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Case No. 24-cv-5751 (Feb. 18, 2025).

The authors of this alert are members of Hogan Lovells US LLP’s Global Enforcement Team, which focuses on asset tracing and enforcement of judicial and arbitral awards. The Global Enforcement Team represents liquidators, receivers, investors, hedge funds, corporates, and sovereigns in large-scale, cross-border enforcement of judgments, investigation of asset location, analysis and identification of sources of assets and funds, and the full range of enforcement tools, including worldwide freezing orders, pre- and post-judgment attachment, and execution. For questions about this case or the enforcement of foreign judgments in the U.S., please contact them by email.

Authored by Oliver (Ollie) J. Armas, Dennis H. Tracey, III William C. Winter