## Facts

- S.C. Chimexim S.A., a Romanian corporation, obtained a Romanian court money judgment in Bucharest against Velco Enterprises Ltd. arising from a commercial dispute.
- The Romanian judgment awarded Chimexim approximately $201,087 and was final and enforceable in Romania.
- Chimexim filed a diversity action in the Southern District of New York seeking recognition and enforcement of the Romanian judgment under New York law.
- Velco moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6), contesting jurisdiction and the sufficiency of the enforcement claim.
- Chimexim cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no genuine dispute that the judgment was recognizable and enforceable.
- Velco opposed recognition, asserting that Romania’s judicial system and the specific Bucharest proceedings failed to provide due process.

## Issues

1. Whether the federal court had subject-matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, and whether the complaint stated a viable claim to enforce the foreign judgment.
2. Whether the Romanian money judgment was recognizable and enforceable in New York under the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act as adopted in New York.
3. Whether Romania’s judicial system, and the particular Romanian proceedings, provided impartial tribunals and procedures compatible with due process so as to avoid statutory non-recognition.

## Decision

- The court denied Velco’s motion to dismiss.
- The court granted Chimexim’s cross-motion for summary judgment.
- The court held that Romania’s post-1989 judicial system provided procedures compatible with due process and that the Bucharest proceedings afforded Velco notice and an opportunity to be heard.
- The court recognized and enforced the Romanian judgment in New York, entering judgment for Chimexim in the amount of the foreign judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Under New York’s version of the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act, a foreign money judgment that is final, conclusive, and enforceable where rendered is generally entitled to recognition unless a statutory ground for non-recognition is established.
- The statute’s systemic due-process inquiry asks whether the foreign judicial system provides impartial tribunals and procedures compatible with due process; foreign procedures need not mirror U.S. practice.
- The relevant standard is basic fairness (notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard), not whether the foreign court would have reached the same result as a U.S. court.
- The party resisting recognition bears the burden to show a statutory basis for non-recognition (e.g., lack of due process, lack of jurisdiction, fraud, or other specified grounds).
- Summary judgment is appropriate in a recognition action when no genuine dispute of material fact exists as to finality, enforceability, jurisdictional predicates, and the absence of statutory non-recognition grounds.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the Romanian money judgment because the Romanian judicial system and the specific Bucharest proceedings satisfied the due process compatibility requirement of New York’s foreign judgment recognition statute, and Velco failed to establish any statutory ground for non-recognition.


S.C. Chimexim S.A. v. Velco Enters. Ltd., 36 F. Supp. 2d 206 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)