The New York Court of Appeals’ much commented-upon decision in Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda Limited ushered in a new era of confusion over the jurisdictional rules that apply to banks that are based in, or have branches in, New York. Narrow as it was, the holding—that a foreign bank that had submitted to New York jurisdiction may be ordered to bring a customer’s stock certificates into the state for turnover to a creditor of the customer—came as something of a surprise to many observers. But of even greater significance—and concern—was how disruptive it would be to previously settled doctrines governing New York courts’ power and discretion to adjudicate, including the separate-entity rule, the recognition of corporate separateness, and jurisdictional limits on discovery.
In the last few years, the dust has begun to settle, with banks’ darkest post-Koehler fears left mostly unrealized. New York state and federal courts have largely declined to expand on Koehler and have reasserted some territorial limits. Given New York’s status as a magnet for cross-border litigation, however, it is no surprise that courts continue to hear novel issues, and perfect uniformity remains elusive. Nonetheless, at least one more piece of the new landscape is likely to be resolved soon (like Koehler, on a question certified by the Second Circuit).
