Well, it all hinges on jurisdiciton. If there are assets in the US, then no problems with jurisdiction. If the deal is to be done in the US, then no problems here again. Again, if the proposed deal is to be substantially performed in the US, the US Courts have jurisdiction to stop it.

The government can stop American companies from taking part in any action they choose. Just like how America can prevent companies from doing business with a nation like Iran.

America doesn't like what's happening with Yukos. If American companies are giving a loan to another company that may take part in it, we can stop it. If that company taking part has assets in America, we have authority over them.

Originally posted by Disturbed DelivererIf that company taking part has assets in America, we have authority over them.

Doesn't that means that the Saudis and the French can intervene in US business mergers or purchases by claiming jurisdiction?

I don't think this is a good idea.

Jurisdictional issues are always touchy. They almost invalriably involve the prioritisation of sovereign rights.

Take for example, China just passed the Anti Secession Law, which outlaws and prohibits Taiwan from claiming independence. From the Taiwanese point of view, that law is pure BS. From the Chinese point of view, it is perfectly legal to pass whatever laws they wish to pass and no one can tell them not to.

America has its own laws governing trade and business with countries deemed as "enemies" or "undesirables".

It can be perfectly allright for someone in let's say the Counrty of Malawi to trade with Bin Ladin. If the US Attorney General knows of this, then he would file a complaint in the American Courts and thereafter Interol would get involved. If there are extradition treaties, then hey, Mr Malawi citizen is in real trouble.

Take the ridiculous case of Bobby Fischer. He's still stuck in Japan, on an Interpol warrant. issued at the request of the US Attorney General and awaiting extradition proceedings.

But, jurisdiction is only the 1st layer.

There is another layer which the Courts look at "forum non conveniens" ; this means even if the Courts have jurisdiction, it would not be a convenient forum to hear the dispute.

Here, we then go into issues of locality of witnesses, governing laws, costs, time and expense ; ie. is another jurisdiction better suited, in the interests of justice, to hear the matter ?

So, in this case, the injunction is purely a temporary order. The issue of "forum non conveniens" has not been argued and decided on.

But, hey, as it appears, the Russians have told the American Court to put it where the sun don't shine. So, till the next time.....

The Yukos thing with the dubious US court ruling and the VERY dubious RUSSIAN Baikalinvest is a perfect example of how big money leads to dirty politics all the way to the top.

At times like that you really get to see the meaning of the word "demockcracy"

[edit on 20-12-2004 by Countermeasures]

Hey the US owns the planet, see? Its their turf, see? They can do what the @!$% they like, see?

This is just another example of the US overstepping their mark, and no one willing/able to put them in their place.

15% is enough for jurisdiction, eh? Methinks the court would make the same choice at 0.00001 %.

Doesn't that means that the Saudis and the French can intervene in US business mergers or purchases by claiming jurisdiction?

They probably could if they had reason. It might not be such a good idea for them to piss off America, though.

Disturbed Deliverer,

You would be surprised at the cases before the European Court in Brussels.

In the late 80s and early 90s, American and Japanese companies were penalised in Europe for "anti-competitive" practices, which was perfectly lawful in America (at that time) but in contravention of the law of the European Community (many observers protested that it was motivated by protectionism on a European scale).

So, looks like everyone is quite guilty of trying to use localised legal mechanisms to affect foreign interests.