In continuation with Part – 1 & 2
Westinghouse retaliated against the defaulters and successfully obtained interlocutory orders in the US against the defaulting defendants, which severely constrained the ability of those companies to conduct business in the US and with US companies. These orders placed the flow of funds into and out of the US based entities, and the disposal of assets, under the control of US courts. Some of the defaulting defendants continued to flagrantly ignore those orders and attempted to transfer funds out of the US resulting in further orders being successfully sought by Westinghouse (in Re Uranium Antitrust Litigation, 617 F. 2d 1248 (7th Cir.1980)). These orders were very stringent. For example, Westinghouse successfully enjoined RTZ subsidiary, Rio Algom Corporation, from making deposits in bank accounts outside the United States; from making any transfers out of the United States without twenty days' prior notice to the Court; requiring Rio Algom to deposit the revenues of its Utah mining operation in United States banks; and enjoining the officers, directors and employees of the defaulting Rio Algom Limited from making withdrawals from bank accounts of Rio Algom Corporation (in Re Westinghouse Electric Corporation Uranium Contracts Litigation (in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia) Ancillary Proceedings in the Matter of Subpoenas Duces Tecum Addressed To Rio Algom Corporation By George R. Albino and Mervyn Lawton., 563 F.2d 992 (10th Cir. 1977). The defaulting defendants refused to appear and address the issues relating to the interlocutory orders and subject matter jurisdiction and, instead, the Governments of Australia, Canada, South Africa and the United Kingdom filed briefs as amici curiae to challenge subject matter jurisdiction. The US Federal Court rejected the amici curiae arguments and, in so doing, scathingly criticized the defendants and the foreign governments. The Court referred to the “defaulters contumaciously [having] refused to come into court and present evidence as to why the District Court should not exercise its jurisdiction”. But, the Court was particularly damning of the relationship between the defaulters and the foreign governments involved and commented that the defaulters “have chosen instead to present their entire case through surrogates. Wholly owned subsidiaries of several defaulters have challenged the appropriateness of the injunctions, and shockingly to us, the governments of the defaulters have subserviently presented for them their case against the exercise of jurisdiction.” (Re Uranium Antitrust Litigation, 480 F Supp 1138, 1148 (9th Cir, 1979); Re Uranium Antitrust Litigation, 617 F 2d 1248, 1255 (7th Cir, 1980). The Court’s frustration at the contempt shown by the defaulters, and the US judicial attack on the apparent complicity of sovereign governments, caused an international sensation.
To know more about ROHAN SKEA , please visit the site http://rohanskea.net

Article Source: http://www.articleset.com