Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP offers international legal services to American clients doing business abroad and multinational clients in the U.S. and around the world. Given the global nature of our clients’ activities, we have developed a broad range of expertise that crosses borders, trade barriers, cultures, and currencies. From the initial stages of a dispute to trial – and at every stage in between – DGS attorneys have the abilities to guide clients toward their international objectives. In addition, DGS has developed a network of lawyers in foreign countries to affiliate with us as appropriate.
Our multidisciplinary team of attorneys shares a distinguished record of accomplishment throughout the Americas, Europe, the Pacific Rim, Middle East and around the globe. The DGS international dispute resolution team has assisted clients in numerous countries, including Australia, Belgium, Canada, Chile, France, French Polynesia, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Russian Federation, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and Venezuela.
Our clients include international and national telecommunication firms, coal and hard rock mining companies, oil and gas companies, power projects, manufacturing companies, multinational trading companies, financial institutions, foreign governments, trade associations, and individuals.
DGS international trial lawyers specialize in unique transnational litigation issues including: service of legal process abroad; personal jurisdiction of U.S. courts over foreign parties; subject matter jurisdiction of U.S. courts over international disputes; foreign sovereign immunity; enforcement of forum selection and choice-of-law provisions; forum non conveniens (inconvenient forum) doctrine; comity among nations considerations; obtaining evidence (testimonial, documentary, and physical) abroad for use in U.S. lawsuits; enforcement of foreign judgments in the U.S.; international corruption; and international arbitration. DGS lawyers also coordinate litigation abroad for U.S. parties.
Substantively, our diverse international practice includes litigation related to: contractual and business relationships; commercial torts (fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional interference with contract, fraudulent conveyance, conversion, misrepresentation, etc.); the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; securities disputes; wrongful death and personal injury; real estate; broker-dealer liquidations; collection of judgments; employment; banking; and bankruptcy.
DGS is a member of Lex Mundi, the largest and most prominent international network of independent law firms. Our firm's membership in Lex Mundi provides the global reach and access to legal resources that enhance our ability to serve our clients’ needs around the world.
Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP was named among the 2014-2015 “Best Law Firms” by publisher Woodward/White, Inc. in their fifth edition, which published today. U.S. News and Best Lawyers® have joined forces to position more than 11,000 firms in 87 practice areas based in 178 metropolitan areas and eight states. Firms were ranked across three tiers both locally and nationally based on quantitative and qualitative data gathered from peer and client feedback.
International Senior Lawyers Project
Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Journal 48.2
Practical Law Publishing Ltd.
The doctrine of foreign sovereign immunity provides that a foreign state generally is immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of another sovereign state. State immunity developed as an "undisputed principle of customary international law" and the law of nations based on core aspects of sovereignty applicable in common law, civil law and other judicial systems (see Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, Chap. 5 at 390 (AU 1986) (Restatement Foreign Relations)). Until the mid -twentieth century, sovereign immunity from the jurisdiction of foreign courts was almost absolute. However, as governments and state enterprises became more and more active in commercial activities in the modern era, private entities interacting with foreign states attacked complete sovereign immunity as fundamentally unfair in eliminating judicial recourse and favoring state companies.
Business Law International (IBA)
The global financial crisis has spurred a substantial increase in economic intervention by industrial states and the creation of new state enterprises. Whether characterised as 'nationalisations', 'expropriations', 'bailouts', 'buyouts', 'recapitalisations', 'share purchases', 'asset protection schemes' or 'investments', in the last year, states engaged in virtually unprecedented actions to take partial or total public ownership of formerly private enterprises. Many of such interventions occurred in the financial sector. For example, the United Kingdom recently nationalised or obtained majority ownership of Northern Rock, Bradford & Bingley, Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland.
Colorado Bar Association International Law Section
The doctrine of foreign sovereign immunity provides that a foreign state generally is immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of another sovereign state. State immunity developed as an ''undisputed principle of customary international law" I and the law of nations based upon core aspects of sovereignty, applicable in common law, civil law and other judicial systems.
Butterworth's International Banking and Financial Law Journal
Union Internationale des Avocats Winter Seminar on International Civil Litigation and the United States of America
The doctrine of foreign sovereign immunity provides that a foreign state generally is immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of another sovereign state. State immunity developed as an "undisputed principle of customary internationallaw,,1 and the law of nations based upon core aspects of sovereignty applicable in common law, civil law and other judicial systems. Until the mid-Twentieth Century, sovereign immunity from the jurisdiction of foreign courts was almost absolute. However, as governments and state enterprises became more and more active in commercial activities in the modem era, private entities interacting with foreign states attacked complete sovereign immunity as fundamentally unfair in eliminating judicial recourse and favoring state companies.
Presented To: Russian-American Symposium on Private International Law
Over the last decade, the United States and the Russian Federation (“Russia”) have dramatically transformed their relationship. The two nations are now engaged in a robust partnership to their mutual benefit.1 The partnership involves a rich mosaic of issues important to modern societies.
Russian-American Symposium on Private International Law
Second Annual Florida Bar International Litigation Update Conference
Sixteen years ago, the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (“CISG” or “Convention” )1 entered into force between the United States and ten other nations. The CISG, a multilateral treaty that governs the rights and obligations of parties to international sales contracts, is the international functional equivalent of Article 2 of the Florida Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”).2
The Colorado Lawyer
Fifteen years ago, the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (“CISG” or “Convention” ) “entered into force” (became effective) between the United States and ten other nations. The CISG, a multilateral treaty that governs the rights and obligations of parties to international sales contracts, is the international functional equivalent of Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”). The Convention was designed to foster foreign trade by making it easier and more economical to buy and sell raw materials, commodities, and manufactured goods through a unified legal approach.
Almost two decades ago, Lord Denning (England) provided an insightful foreign perspective on the American legal system’s role in international litigation:
National Association of Purchasing Management Denver Affilate
A. Importance of Forum
Forum means the place where a judicial action is pursued. The selection of forum in international cases may have important, sometimes even dispositive, impact on litigation. Within the broad framework of jurisdiction and venue rules, plaintiffs initially select the locale for litigation. Where multiple potential fora exist, forum selection criteria include, among other things: (1) the residency and location of the plaintiff; (2) the residency and location of the defendant; (3) the focal point of the action; (4) contract provisions, if any; (5) the location of witnesses; (6) the location of documents and physical evidence; (7) the most favorable law; (8) the possibility of
jury adjudication; (9) the location in which judgment will be enforced; and (10) other factors.
The International Lawyer
International forum selection clauses are "an almost indispensable precondition to achievement of the orderliness and predictability essential to any international business transaction."98 Ever since the Supreme Court's seminal 1971 decision in M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.,99 U.S. courts have generally enforced such provisions based upon international comity, public policy, and contract law.100 International forum selection clauses may be challenged only on very limited grounds upon a clear showing that "enforcement would be unreasonable and unjust, or that the clause was invalid for such reasons as fraud or overreaching."101 In contrast to forum selection clauses, which are by nature contract based, the doctrine of forum non conveniens more broadly permits courts to "resist imposition upon [their] jurisdiction"102 if there is an "adequate alternative" forum103 and the balance of trial conveniences (including private and public interest factors) strongly favors the alternative forum.