## Facts

- Kaepa, Inc., a U.S. athletic shoe manufacturer, and Achilles Corp., a Japanese company, entered a 1993 distributorship agreement granting Achilles exclusive rights to distribute Kaepa footwear in Japan.
- The agreement provided for Texas law, enforcement in San Antonio, English-language interpretation, and Achilles’s consent to Texas jurisdiction.
- In July 1994, Kaepa sued Achilles in Texas court for fraud/negligent misrepresentation inducing the agreement and for breach of contract.
- Achilles appeared, removed the case to the Western District of Texas, and participated in extensive discovery.
- In February 1995, Achilles filed a Japanese action asserting “mirror-image” claims against Kaepa for fraud inducing the same agreement and for breach of contract.
- Kaepa moved in federal court to enjoin the Japanese action, and the district court issued an antisuit injunction barring Achilles from further prosecuting the Japanese case.
- Achilles appealed, arguing the injunction was improper in light of comity and the parallel foreign proceedings.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by enjoining Achilles from prosecuting a later-filed Japanese action that mirrored the pending federal case in Texas arising out of the same contract.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the antisuit injunction.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in barring prosecution of the Japanese case.
- The court relied on the dispute’s private commercial character, the contract’s clear indications favoring adjudication in Texas under Texas law and English language interpretation, and the duplicative and vexatious nature of the Japanese filing.

## Legal Principles

- A federal court may, in equity and in appropriate circumstances, enjoin a party from prosecuting foreign litigation to protect its jurisdiction and prevent duplicative, harassing proceedings.
- Issuance of an international antisuit injunction is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Contractual provisions selecting governing law, forum, and interpretive language are strong evidence of the parties’ expectations about where disputes should be litigated.
- A later-filed “mirror-image” foreign action, especially after substantial participation in the U.S. forum, may be treated as vexatious and properly restrained despite comity concerns.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit upheld an antisuit injunction preventing Achilles from continuing a duplicative Japanese lawsuit because the parties’ agreement pointed disputes to Texas, and the later foreign filing functioned as a mirror-image, burdensome action that threatened to interfere with the ongoing federal case.


Kaepa, Inc. v. Achilles Corp., 76 F.3d 624 (5th Cir. 1996)