## Facts

- The Republic of Panama sued BCCI-related entities, an individual BCCI officer, and several “First American” banks, alleging a large international fraud and money-laundering scheme that induced Panama to place and lose substantial deposits.
- Panama alleged the First American banks were controlled by BCCI and functioned as BCCI’s instruments or alter egos in the alleged misconduct.
- Panama filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
- The district court dismissed claims against First American Bank, N.A. and First American Bank of New York for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The district court dismissed the remaining claims (including against BCCI entities and the California First American bank) on forum non conveniens grounds, pointing to foreign litigation and liquidation proceedings connected to BCCI.
- Panama appealed both the personal-jurisdiction and forum non conveniens rulings.

## Issues

1. Whether a Massachusetts federal court could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over First American Bank, N.A. and First American Bank of New York consistent with the Massachusetts long-arm statute and due process.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the remaining claims on forum non conveniens grounds in favor of foreign fora associated with BCCI’s liquidation and related proceedings.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed dismissal of First American Bank, N.A. and First American Bank of New York for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The court held Panama failed to show forum-directed contacts by these banks sufficient for relatedness, purposeful availment, and overall reasonableness.
- The First Circuit affirmed forum non conveniens dismissal as to the remaining defendants.
- The court held adequate alternative fora existed abroad and that private- and public-interest factors favored foreign litigation.
- The judgment of dismissal was affirmed in full.

## Legal Principles

- Specific personal jurisdiction requires (1) relatedness between the claim and the defendant’s forum contacts, (2) purposeful availment by the defendant, and (3) reasonableness under the “gestalt” factors.
- Jurisdiction must rest on the defendant’s own forum-directed conduct; a plaintiff cannot rely on unilateral activity of others to create forum contacts.
- Maintaining correspondent banking relationships in the United States, without more, does not establish personal jurisdiction in a particular state.
- Allegations that an entity is an alter ego or instrumentality of another do not, by themselves, supply forum contacts; the defendant’s own conduct must show purposeful availment.
- Forum non conveniens dismissal is reviewed for abuse of discretion and requires (1) an available and adequate alternative forum and (2) a balanced assessment of private and public interest factors.
- A forum is generally “adequate” if defendants are amenable to process there and the forum provides some remedy, even if procedures or remedies differ from those in U.S. courts.
- In international financial disputes tied to foreign insolvency or liquidation proceedings, concentration of evidence and witnesses abroad, enforceability concerns, choice-of-law complications, and strong foreign regulatory interests may justify dismissal.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit upheld dismissal of Panama’s Massachusetts action because two defendants lacked constitutionally sufficient Massachusetts contacts for personal jurisdiction, and the remaining claims were more appropriately litigated in foreign fora connected to BCCI’s collapse and liquidation given the location of evidence, witnesses, governing interests, and administrative efficiency concerns.


Republic of Panama v. BCCI Holdings (Lux.) S.A., 119 F.3d 935 (1st Cir. 1997)