context: Even the Defendants appear to concede the existence of choice-of-law problems regardless of where the trial occurs; for instance, one defense expert explained that even though the Swiss action invokes contractual claims under Argentine law, "because [some of] the assets are located in Switzerland, Swiss law may govern certain of the legal issues in the action." (Russenberger Decl. P 13.) In sum, then, the Court believes that this trial will be difficult regardless of where it takes place, and thus the Gilbert private factors do not weigh strongly in favor of the Defendants.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 942 F.2d 168, 168-69
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that need to apply foreign law was not dispositive factor, especially where key evidence regarding production and condition of goods was located in New York
citation_a.sentence: See, e.g., Peregrine, 89 F.3d at 46-47 (denying forum non conveniens motion in part because critical documents were located in New York and witnesses would be forced to travel regardless of where trial took place); Herbstein, 743 F.Supp. at 189 (finding that existence of American defendants, who committed acts of fraud in this country, weighed heavily in favor of maintaining action in United States); see also Maganlal, 942 F.2d at 168-69 (holding that need to apply foreign law was not dispositive factor, especially where key evidence regarding production and condition of goods was located in New York).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 89 F.3d 46, 46-47
citation_b.parenthetical: denying forum non conveniens motion in part because critical documents were located in New York and witnesses would be forced to travel regardless of where trial took place
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., Peregrine, 89 F.3d at 46-47 (denying forum non conveniens motion in part because critical documents were located in New York and witnesses would be forced to travel regardless of where trial took place); Herbstein, 743 F.Supp. at 189 (finding that existence of American defendants, who committed acts of fraud in this country, weighed heavily in favor of maintaining action in United States); see also Maganlal, 942 F.2d at 168-69 (holding that need to apply foreign law was not dispositive factor, especially where key evidence regarding production and condition of goods was located in New York).