Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments and Awards: What Hath Daimler Wrought?

In Daimler AG v. Bauman, the Supreme Court confirmed what it had only hinted at previously — that general jurisdiction over a corporation was limited to a state that could be regarded as its “home.” In doing so, the Court brought the United States closer to the rest of the world in its approach to general jurisdiction. What may have been overlooked, however, is the impact of Daimler on actions brought to recognize and enforce foreign country judgments and foreign arbitral awards if the Daimler standard is applied in that context. Some courts have already done so. Professors Silberman and Simowitz offer an overview of the present jurisdictional regimes for recognition and enforcement actions with respect to both foreign judgments and arbitral awards. Their own analysis concludes that a jurisdictional nexus should be required for recognition and enforcement but that the context of recognition and enforcement presents unique differences from a plenary action. Thus, they argue that Daimler needs to be tailored to fit such actions. Professors Silberman and Simowitz also examine various alternative bases of jurisdiction — property-based jurisdiction, specific jurisdiction, and consent — that may be pressed into service if Daimler is extended to recognition and enforcement actions and find both promise as well as limits in those alternatives.