I often write on how American companies should not rush into suing Chinese companies in the United States because such lawsuits are usually of no value at all. See my posts on this here and here.

Brendan Carr over at the Korea Law Blog [site no longer exists] just did a post, entitled, “Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Korea — Tips and Traps.” The post is on enforcing foreign judgments in Korea, but it contains good advice for handling international litigation anywhere.

Brendan begins his post by referring to our posts on the phone calls we get from American companies who believe it easy to enforce U.S. judgments in China. Not surprisingly, Brendan often receives similar phone calls from American companies seeking his help in  enforcing essentially worthless US judgments in Korea:

For some reason, they [American companies] often think it’s a great idea to sue in the United States (American courts are better, after all) and are egged on by US lawyers to plow through to a default judgment when the Chinese defendant doesn’t turn up. I’m sure they think Aha! Gotcha, you bastards! when that default judgment is in their hands.

But the default judgment is basically worthless, as Dan Harris explains:

Caller: I have a two million dollar judgment against Chinese company X in China, can you help me enforce it?

Me: Is it a default judgment here in the United States?

Caller: Yes.

Me: The Chinese courts don’t enforce United States’ judgments and though they often at least look at the basis for a United States judgment on the merits, they don’t give any credence whatsoever to United States default judgments. Did you discuss this possibility with your US lawyer before you sued here [in the U.S.]?

Caller: [long silence] …. Yes. He told me getting a judgment here couldn’t hurt?

Me: Did he charge you to get it?

Caller: Yeah. I had to pay him and I had to pay all sorts of people to get that company served in China.

Me: Sorry.

I have had this exact same conversation dozens of times from my vantage point here in Seoul, including cases where the client’s US lawyer in Bakersfield or somewhere like that has persisted in US litigation despite the existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement.

Carr then explains how US judgments can have value in Korea, but service in those cases must be done pursuant to the Hague Convention, which convention both Carr and I have seen ignored far too many times:

In my experience, reciprocity between US courts and Korean courts is not a problem, and in commercial disputes public-policy considerations rarely are raised. That leaves jurisdiction (check the clauses of your agreements, and get an opinion on Korea’s Private International Law Act), and service of process. By far, the most common and tragic mistakes I see involve the US lawyer’s ignorance of the Hague Service Convention, or (worse) unwillingness to let the time required for proper service delay the commencement of proceedings.

Carr then notes there is no point in suing a company without assets and before giving the Korean company the chance to empty its corporate coffers by threatening to sue them, you should first bring a pre-judgment writ of attachment to tie up its assets. I know from experience that Korea is a particularly good jurisdiction for such actions as the courts there typically require a very low bond and the attorneys there describe these actions by saying “easy to arrest, hard to release.” Carr’s proposed solution is to “Always, always, always take reliable security in advance.”

Problem is that in China, such security is still rarely given, which makes due diligence on any Chinese company with which you plan to do business all that more important.

I would love to hear from readers regarding their experience in convincing the Chinese companies to provide any real security (letter of credit, performance bond, etc.).

  • Law Office of Todd L. Platek

    In maritime arbitrations, attachments to obtain security for satisfying eventual awards/judgments are not unusual. The attachments can be done in country A for security against a proceeding in country B. As we say, “big medicine.” The Chinese companies engaged in shipping are all-too-familiar with this.

  • Todd Platek —
    We are actually in the midst of a vessel arrest in Dalian on a prejudgment writ of attachment. I expect the arrest to go through tomorrow. I ought to blog about it.
    My favorite country for prejudgment writs of attachments has to be Korea though, whereof we lawyers say, “easy to arrest, hard to release.” I once arrested $220 million in assets in Pusan, Korea, and my clients were able to do that by expending only around $25,000 on a bond. The opposing party (a massive Greek company) had to post a cash bond for the entire amount my clients were owed, plus possible attorneys’ fees or just pay. I call that asymetrical warfare. Here’s an article on the case that eventually led to our big Korean arrest: Definitely one of the most interesting cases on which I have ever worked.

  • Law Office of Todd L. Platek

    I will look forward to reading more about that.

  • China OEM Agreements. Why Ours Are In Chinese. Flat Out.

    Had a nice conversation with a potential client last week. Company has a great new product it wants made in China. Like many companies starting out in China, this one is in the process of shopping for its China lawyers and my firm was one of four sugge…

  • Chinese Drywall Cases Makes U.S. Lawyers Angry. I Want My Lex Americana!

    I want my MTV. I will be speaking at a Chinese drywall seminar in New Orleans next month and that means I am on an email list that I think consists of others who will also be speaking at this seminar. Seeing as how this email list consists of around 10…

  • Chinese Drywall Litigation. The Half-Assed Defense. I Told You So. And Why Seizing Assets Is Very Different From Seizing Ships. With Apologies To Scott Weinstein For Something I Never Said.

    A few months ago, I spoke in New Orleans at the leading Chinese Drywall Conference. I was introduced as the person who was going to explain whether it would be possible to sue and collect from the Chinese companies involved in providing the drywall tha…