## Facts

- China Trade contracted with Ssangyong Shipping Co., Ltd. to carry 25,000 metric tons of soybeans from the United States to the Republic of China.
- The M/V Choong Yong ran aground, and the soybeans were allegedly contaminated by seawater and rendered nearly worthless.
- China Trade initially attached another Ssangyong vessel in California; to obtain release, Ssangyong provided $1.8 million security and agreed to appear in a Southern District of New York action and waive forum non conveniens dismissal.
- China Trade filed suit in the Southern District of New York; discovery proceeded and trial was approaching.
- Nearly two years later, Ssangyong filed a Korean declaratory-judgment action seeking a ruling of no liability for the same loss.
- The Korean action did not seek to stay, enjoin, or otherwise interfere with the New York proceedings.
- The district court permanently enjoined Ssangyong from pursuing the Korean action, citing identical parties and issues, vexation, and risk of a race to judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by issuing an antisuit injunction barring Ssangyong from pursuing a parallel Korean action involving the same parties and liability issue.
2. Whether duplication, inconvenience, or a potential race to judgment can justify an antisuit injunction when the foreign proceeding does not threaten the U.S. court’s jurisdiction or frustrate an important forum policy.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed and vacated the permanent antisuit injunction.
- The court held the district court abused its discretion because comity concerns were not outweighed by equitable factors supporting injunctive relief.
- The court found no threat to the district court’s jurisdiction because the Korean proceeding did not attempt to halt or undermine the New York case.
- The court found no important policy of the forum that would be frustrated by allowing the Korean declaratory action to proceed.
- The court rejected vexation, duplication, identical parties/issues, and a potential race to judgment as insufficient grounds, standing alone, to restrain foreign litigation.

## Legal Principles

- Foreign antisuit injunctions are an extraordinary remedy and require careful consideration of international comity.
- Parallel foreign proceedings involving the same parties and issues, without more, do not warrant an antisuit injunction.
- An antisuit injunction is generally justified only when necessary to protect the forum court’s jurisdiction or to prevent frustration of an important public policy of the forum.
- Litigation burdens such as duplicative expense, inconvenience, and competing timelines ordinarily do not outweigh comity where the foreign court is not interfering with the domestic action.
- A waiver of forum non conveniens and an agreement to appear in a U.S. action do not, without an exclusivity commitment, bar a party from initiating proceedings in another competent forum.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit vacated the antisuit injunction because the Korean declaratory action did not threaten the New York court’s jurisdiction or undermine an important forum policy, and ordinary concerns about duplicative litigation and timing were insufficient to overcome comity.


China Trade & Dev. Corp. v. M/V Choong Yong, 837 F.2d 33 (2d Cir. 1987)