Pleading Extraterritorial Claims in New York in Light of Global Re v. Equitas

by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

Courts have long grappled with how to apply state and federal laws to disputes that arise entirely outside U.S. borders, sometimes concluding that such laws should not be applied extraterritorially at all. Earlier this year, the New York Court of Appeals weighed in on this issue in an antitrust case, Global Reinsurance Corp. v. Equitas Ltd. et al., 969 N.E.2d 187 (N.Y. 2012) (“Global Re”), holding that New York law did not extend to an alleged antitrust violation involving foreign defendants and a foreign conspiracy. The case itself turned on the Court’s interpretation of the Donnelly Act, New York’s antitrust statute; but litigants may try to extend the decision to cases involving non-antitrust claims, such as securities violations and various business torts. Whether or not those efforts are successful, Global Re highlights the potential problems that can arise when state-law claims based on international conduct are asserted. Maintaining these types of claims requires careful pleading, particularly in the wake of Global Re. Litigants contemplating claims based on foreign transactions should consider the full range of available options—including not only litigation, but aggressive arbitration—a strategy the Global Re plaintiff was ultimately forced to employ.

The Global Re Decision

Global Re arose out of a retrocessionary reinsurance dispute. Retrocessionary reinsurance is global reinsurance that covers a variety of risks, including so-called “non-life” coverages for environmental, catastrophic, and asbestos-related exposures. By the early 1990s, it was clear that a number of reinsurers had issued “non-life” retrocessionary policies without appreciating the long-term liabilities that these policies could cover (e.g., significant losses from asbestos liability). As claims began to mount, some reinsurers concluded that their exposure under these policies could outstrip reserves. Global Re, 969 N.E.2d at 189.

One such group was Lloyd’s of London, a London-based insurance market comprised of competing underwriters. Lloyd’s members concluded they could not stem rising “non-life” liabilities without concerted action; if underwriters individually imposed difficult hurdles on “non-life” claims, those underwriters could no longer compete for new business against other companies that were not imposing these same hurdles. Id. Lloyd’s members therefore created a new entity, Equitas—the defendant in the Global Re case—to assume obligations under existing “non-life” retrocessional reinsurance policies. Equitas was given free rein to handle claims arising under these policies. It immediately took a “hard-nosed” approach aimed at limiting exposure, including burdensome documentation requirements that led to the denial of many claims. Id. at 189-90.

Plaintiff Global Reinsurance Corporation (“Global Re”) was the U.S. branch of a German reinsurance company that had purchased retrocessional coverage through Lloyd’s. Global Re believed Equitas’ new claim resolution procedures caused denials on claims that would have been approved by individual Lloyd’s members. Because Equitas’ procedures were only possible due to the elimination of competition among other retrocessional reinsurers in the Lloyd’s marketplace, Global Re’s New York branch filed Donnelly Act claims in New York court, alleging that the merger of individual reinsurers into Equitas suppressed competition in the retrocessional reinsurance market. The complaint alleged that while individual participants in the Lloyd’s marketplace were once “disposed to settle claims expeditiously and fairly” because they “competed with each other for new business and were thus anxious to curry favor” with potential customers, Equitas eliminated “any competitive disincentive to the adoption of sharp claims management practices.” Id. at 190-91.

The trial court dismissed the Donnelly Act claim, concluding the complaint failed to adequately allege market power. The Appellate Division reversed and reinstated, finding market power had been adequately alleged, and that Defendants’ other argument for dismissal—that a London-based conspiracy to restrain trade was not actionable under the Donnelly Act even if market power was adequately alleged—also did not warrant dismissal. Id. at 191-92.

The Court of Appeals reversed. The Court concluded that market power was not adequately alleged in the complaint; for example, coverage available from Lloyd’s participants could presumably be obtained on competitive terms elsewhere after Equitas was formed. Thus, no Donnelly Act claim was adequately alleged. Id. at 194.

But the Court’s analysis did not end there. The Court then proceeded to address a much broader question: whether, if market power had been adequately alleged, the Donnelly Act could ever extend to a claim for injury inflicted by a foreign defendant, caused by a foreign conspiracy, whose impacts were felt in New York only because a participant in the worldwide market happened to be located in New York. On that question, the Court held the complaint failed to set out a sufficient case for applying the Donnelly Act:


Injury so afflicted, attributable primarily to foreign, government approved transactions having no particular New York orientation and occasioning injury here only by reason of the circumstance that plaintiff’s purchasing branch happens to be situated here, is not redressable under New York State’s antitrust statute.


In reaching that conclusion, the Court noted the presumption against applying New York statutes extraterritorially, observing that this presumption is especially strong where corresponding federal law was expressly limited so as not to apply extraterritorially: “The established presumption is, of course, against the extraterritorial operation of New York law, and we do not see how it could be overcome in a situation where the analogue federal claim would be barred by congressional enactment.” Id. The Court acknowledged, however, that extraterritorial application of the Donnelly Act might be warranted in some circumstances:


For a Donnelly Act claim to reach a purely extraterritorial conspiracy, there would, we think, have to be a very close nexus between the conspiracy and injury to competition in this state. That additional element is not discernable form the pleadings before us.


Id. at 196. Plaintiff failed to establish any nexus to New York, much less a “very close nexus”: it did not allege injury to competition in New York, focusing instead on constrained competition in a London-based market (Lloyd’s) that allegedly caused worldwide injuries—not injuries with any particular and special connection to New York. Id. Thus, the court concluded that even if market power had been adequately alleged, and even if a Sherman Act claim had been stated, no Donnelly Act claim was possible based on the complaint.

The Potential Impact of Global Re on New York Litigants

In the wake of the Global Re decision, commentators have suggested that defense counsel might use Global Re to limit the territorial reach of New York law generally. Global Re specifically held only that antitrust plaintiffs cannot avoid the Sherman Act’s territorial limitations by bringing claims under the Donnelly Act, but some commentators suggest that defendants should argue that claims of any sort under New York law are barred by Global Re when they would apply New York law extraterritorially.

Those sorts of arguments seem likely in securities-related litigation, where federal claims arising out of foreign conduct have been limited in recent years. The Supreme Court’s decision in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 130 S.Ct. 2869 (2010), limited claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 to those involving securities listed on American exchanges or securities purchased or sold in the United States. Morrison dismissed so-called “F-cubed” claims that involved (1) foreign investors, (2) a foreign defendant, and (3) a foreign securities transaction. The Court broadly rejected the “F-cubed” claims under federal law, on the rationale that extraterritorial application of federal laws should not be presumed absent an express congressional statement to that effect:


It is a “longstanding principle of American law ‘that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.’” … Thus, “unless there is the affirmative intention of the Congress clearly expressed” to give a statute extraterritorial effect, “we must presume it is primarily concerned with domestic conditions.” … When a statute gives no clear indication of an extraterritorial application, it has none.


Morrison, 130 S.Ct. at 2877-78 (citations omitted).

In the wake of Morrison, plaintiffs in securities-related cases used state statutory and common-law claims to address injuries where no federal causes of action existed. In Terra Sec. ASA Konkursbo v. Citigroup, Inc., 740 F. Supp. 2d 441 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), for example, the court dismissed foreign plaintiffs’ federal securities law claims against Citigroup under Morrison because the transactions at issue took place on a foreign exchange. Id. at 447. But the court denied a motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ common-law fraud claims, finding that plaintiffs adequately alleged reliance and causation. Id. at 454-55.

Before Global Re, efforts to use state law as a substitute for federal securities laws were on the rise. Those efforts received a boost from a recent New York Court of Appeals decision, Assured Guaranty (UK) Ltd. v. J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc., 962 N.E.2d 765 (N.Y. Dec. 20, 2011), which held that the Martin Act (a New York securities fraud and enforcement statute) does not preempt claims under New York common law in securities-related cases. Plaintiff Assured Guaranty sued J.P. Morgan for breach of fiduciary duty, gross negligence, and breach of contract based on mismanagement of a portfolio that was insured by Assured Guaranty. J.P. Morgan moved to dismiss, arguing that plaintiff’s claims were preempted by the Martin Act because they involved allegations of securities and investment fraud that were the exclusive purview of the New York Attorney General under the Martin Act. The Court rejected that argument, finding nothing in the legislative history of the Martin Act expressly indicating that it was meant to preempt common-law claims by civil plaintiffs. Id. at *6 -7. This decision rebuffed a line of cases finding common-law claims preempted under New York law. See, e.g., Horvath v. Banco Comercial Portuges, S.A., 2011 WL 666410, at *7-8 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2011) (in case involving foreign transaction, dismissing federal securities claims under Morrison and also dismissing common-law claims for aiding and abetting and negligent misrepresentation as precluded by the Martin Act).

In future suits involving foreign transactions, defendants may try to use Global Re to stem the tide of state-law claims authorized by Assured. Defendants are likely to argue that even where New York common law claims are not preempted by the Martin Act, they are precluded by Global Re if they would apply New York law extraterritorially and regulate international conduct.

Plaintiffs may face similar arguments based on Global Re when bringing claims under New York’s Organized Crime Control Act (“OCCA”), the state analogue to the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) Act. In recent years, some courts have refused to apply RICO to conduct occurring entirely abroad, citing Morrison as a general limitation on extraterritorial application of federal law. See, e.g., Cedeño v. Castillo, No. 10-cv-3861, 2012 WL 205960, at *37 (2d Cir. Jan. 25, 2012). Defendants may similarly argue that cases barred by territorial limits on RICO should not be authorized under OCCA.

Indeed, defendants may try to use Global Re to limit the scope of nearly any state-law action involving foreign acts, including claims relating to intellectual property rights. For example, a New York fashion designer recently sued Japanese companies in New York for merchandise sales in Japan that allegedly violated the designer’s trademarks and trade dress rights. The suit involved claims under the Lanham Act, claims under the New York General Business Law, and claims for common-law trade dress infringement, all arising out of these foreign sales. Defendants moved to dismiss the Lanham Act claims based on Morrison, and similarly cited Global Re to argue for a general presumption against extraterritorial application of New York law. See Jill Stuart (Asia) LLC v. Sanei Int’l Co., Ltd., 2012 WL 3601203 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2012). Similar arguments could be made in essentially any substantive area of law where New York plaintiffs seek to recover for wrongs committed abroad.

Avoiding the Pitfalls of Global Re Going Forward

Defendants’ efforts to convert Global Re into a general prohibition on state-law claims may be legally misguided. Global Re involved the extraterritorial scope of a New York statute—not claims under New York common law. The authority cited by the Court of Appeals for a presumption against the extraterritorial application of that statute was a treatise on New York statutory law—McKinney’s Consolidated Law of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 149—which states that “every statute in general terms is construed as having no extraterritorial effect” (emphasis added). Global Re’s emphasis on legislative history and congressional intent regarding territorial scope does not speak common law claims. Plaintiffs seeking to recover losses stemming from foreign transactions may argue that common-law claims simply are not implicated by the statutory presumptions discussed in Global Re or Morrison.

Moreover, plaintiffs can and should anticipate Global Re-style arguments in future cases involving foreign transactions, and avoid the pleading pitfalls that ensnared the Global Re plaintiff. In Global Re, the Court’s opinion repeatedly emphasized that the complaint alleged “a purely extraterritorial conspiracy,” where “[t]he only harm to competition alleged is within a particular London reinsurance marketplace” and that “only incidentally affected commerce in this country” through “transactions having no particular New York orientation and occasioning injury here only by reason of the circumstance that plaintiff’s purchasing branch happens to be located [in New York].” Global Re, 969 N.E.2d at 194-95 (emphases added).

To head off Global Re arguments, Plaintiffs should make efforts to avoid pleading purely foreign transactions with local injuries that are incidental. For example, to the extent possible, plaintiffs should set forth some acts underlying the transaction that occurred in or were specifically directed at New York—such as pre-transaction correspondence directed to New York, meetings in New York, and the like. Plaintiffs should also highlight the predictability of injuries suffered in New York—for example, identifying evidence that defendants actually knew New York residents would be harmed by their conduct. With careful analysis and thorough pre-filing investigations, plaintiffs may be able to satisfy the “very close nexus” standard Global Re articulated.

Arbitration the Answer?

Whatever the impact of Global Re on state-law claims, the outcome of that case highlights another issue: as New York courts, federal courts, or other courts restrict the availability of litigation to redress harms from foreign transactions, international arbitration will become increasingly important. For example, after Global Re’s claims under New York law were all dismissed, Global Re’s only hope of recovery was arbitration—specifically, an international arbitration proceeding against underwriters, seeking damages for alleged abuses under insurance treaties. Id. at 194 (noting plaintiffs were “pursuing contract claims against Lloyd’s underwriters in arbitration based on the same claims handling practices presently alleged”). Plaintiffs in future cases involving foreign defendants and foreign transactions need to carefully consider their opportunities for arbitration, and aggressively pursue arbitral awards as part of their global litigation strategy. A litigation-only approach would have left Global Re without avenues for recovery after its state-law claims were dismissed. Plaintiffs considering whether to assert U.S. claims in future cases involving foreign transactions should not overlook the importance of instituting arbitrations, and making forceful efforts to maximize recoveries in those arbitrations.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.