The Clerk of the Court is instructed to amend the caption as shown. *

1

08-1589-cv

Aguas Lenders Recovery Group LLC v. Suez, S.A. 

1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

2

3 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

4

5 August Term, 2008

6

7 (Argued: April 15, 2009 Decided: October 23, 2009)

8

9 Docket No. 08-1589-cv

10

11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

12

13 AGUAS LENDERS RECOVERY GROUP LLC,

14

15 Plaintiff-Appellant,

16

17 v.

18

19 SUEZ, S.A., SOCIEDAD GENERAL DE AGUAS DE BARCELONA, S.A.,

20

21 Defendants,

22

23 AGUA Y SANEAMIENTOS ARGENTINOS, S.A.,

24

25 Defendant-Appellee.*

26

27 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

28

29 B e f o r e: WINTER, CABRANES, and SACK, Circuit Judges.

30

31 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court

32 for the Southern District of New York (Robert L. Carter, Judge)

33 dismissing a complaint on the grounds of forum non conveniens.

34 The district court held that a non-signatory to agreements

35 containing forum selection provisions is not bound by these

36 provisions even if it is a successor in interest to a signatory

37 and otherwise bound by the agreements. We vacate the judgment.
2

1 JENNIFER R. SCULLION (Louis M.

2 Solomon, Daniella M. Rudy, on the

3 brief), Proskauer Rose LLP, New

4 York, New York, for Plaintiff5 Appellant.

6

7 JOHN J. KERR, Jr., Simpson Thatcher

8 & Bartlett LLP, New York, New York

9 for Defendant-Appellee.

10

11 WINTER, Circuit Judge:

12 Aguas Lenders Recovery Group, LLC (“ALRG”) appeals from

13 Judge Carter’s dismissal of its complaint on the ground of forum

14 non conveniens. The principal issue is whether, for the purposes

15 of the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a non-signatory to an

16 agreement may be bound by a forum selection clause and forum non

17 conveniens waiver contained in contracts entered into by an

18 entity alleged to be a predecessor in interest.

19 We hold that such a non-signatory may be so bound. We

20 therefore vacate the judgment and remand for limited discovery

21 and a hearing on whether Agua y Saneamientos Argentinos, S.A.

22 (“AySA”) is a successor in interest to Aguas Argentinas, S.A.

23 (“Aguas”).

24 BACKGROUND

25 This is an appeal from a dismissal of a complaint without a

26 factual hearing on the grounds of forum non conveniens. We

27 therefore accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true. See

28 Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 226 F.3d 88, 93 n.1 (2d Cir.
The factual recitation here, while primarily taken from the complaint, 1

is supplemented with information from affidavits. See, e.g., Alcoa S.S. Co.

v. M/V Nordic Regent, 654 F.2d 147, 149 (2d Cir. 1978) (en banc) (“The

district court took the motion to dismiss on submission, based on the

pleadings, affidavits and briefs of the parties -- a practice long recognized

as acceptable and followed from time immemorial in the busy Southern District

of New York in determining forum non conveniens motions.”); Vanity Fair Mills,

Inc. v. T. Eaton Co., 234 F.2d 633, 645 (2d Cir.) cert. denied, 352 U.S. 871

(1956) (“[I]n determination of a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens,

the court may consider affidavits submitted by the moving and opposing

parties.”). 

3

1 2000).1

2 In 1992, the Republic of Argentina solicited bids from

3 private companies for a thirty-year concession, which allowed the

4 winning bidder to modernize and operate Buenos Aires’ residential

5 water and sewer system and collect fees for its use. Until then,

6 a wholly government-owned company, Obras Sanitarias de la Nación,

7 had provided the services.

8 Aguas was the winning bidder. It consisted of a consortium

9 of seven companies that included two multinational water

10 companies, Suez, S.A., and Sociedad General de Aguas de

11 Barcelona, S.A. On April 28, 1993, Aguas entered into the

12 concession agreement with the Argentine government and was

13 thereafter incorporated under the laws of Argentina. Under the

14 terms of the concession, the Argentine government ceded to Aquas

15 the right to possess and use certain assets necessary to the

16 operation and maintenance of the water and sewer system, but

17 expressly reserved title to the assets. Aguas provided water and

18 sewer services to Buenos Aires from 1993 to 2006. 

19 The concession was expected to require $4.1 billion in
The IFA’s differ somewhat with respect to the relevant provisions. One 2

contains a New York choice of law provision, a forum selection clause

providing that “any legal action, suit or proceeding against the Company or

any Purchasing Sponsor arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the

other Transaction Documents may be brought in the courts of the State of New

York or of the United States of America for the Southern District of New

York”, a forum non conveniens waiver, and a provision binding successors. The

second IFA contains substantially similar provisions save that it does not

include a forum non conveniens waiver. 

4

1 capital investments over its duration, but a substantial portion

2 had to be invested early for modernization and expansion of the

3 systems. Aguas secured financing, primarily by recourse to

4 international capital markets, including the United States. On

5 July 15, 2004, following a series of defaults on the loan

6 agreements, Aguas restructured a number of these loans in two

7 interim financial agreements (“IFA’s”). Pursuant to these

8 agreements, the lenders bought out some of Aguas’s debt in

9 exchange for payment of past-due interest according to a schedule

10 of installments. The IFA’s contained a New York forum selection

11 clause and a forum non conveniens waiver (collectively “forum

12 provisions”). They also contained a New York choice of law

13 provision and a provision binding “successors and assigns.”2

14 In January 2005, Aguas defaulted on the interest payments

15 owed under the IFA’s. Subsequently, in July 2005, Aquas

16 initiated a contractually established procedure for the

17 termination of the concession. Thereafter, on March 21, 2006,

18 the Argentine government terminated the concession, alleging that

19 Aguas had failed to meet its obligations under the concession, at
5

1 least in part due to toxic levels of nitrates found in various

2 water sources. The Argentine government temporarily assumed

3 operation of the water and sewer facilities pursuant to an

4 executive decree. It soon after assigned the concession to AySA,

5 the appellee here, an entity incorporated on March 3, 2006 for

6 that purpose.

7 The Argentine government currently owns ninety percent of

8 AySA’s stock while AySA’s employees, virtually all of whom are

9 former employees of Aguas, own the remaining ten percent pursuant

10 to an employee stock ownership program. The assets transferred

11 to AySA included not only the concession itself but physical

12 assets that had been built, improved, or acquired with the money

13 borrowed by Aguas. No payment was made to Aguas for the transfer

14 of the assets, or to any of its lenders on the outstanding debt.

15 After the Argentine government terminated the concession

16 with Aguas, Aguas filed for protection from its creditors on

17 April 28, 2006. At the time of the district court’s decision

18 under review, Aguas’s insolvency proceedings were pending in

19 Argentina.

20 ALRG was formed under the laws of New York. It is composed

21 of original and subsequent parties to various loan agreements

22 with Aguas between 1998 and 2004. ALRG’s constituent members

23 include entities organized under the laws of Delaware, Germany,

24 the Cayman Islands, the British Virgin Islands, and the Bahamas.
The complaint included claims against Suez, S.A., and Sociedad General 3

de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. ALRG settled its claims with these two defendants

prior to the district court order that is the subject of this appeal. 

6

1 On September 29, 2006, these various lenders assigned to ALRG

2 their claims to unpaid amounts under financing agreements with

3 Aguas. ALRG appears to hold no assets other than the claims

4 based on the loan agreements. 

5 On September 29, 2006, ALRG brought the present action

6 against AySA to recover on the defaulted loans and IFA’s.3

7 ALRG’s complaint alleged that AySA is “not entitled to step into

8 Aguas’[s] shoes, yet disclaim Aguas’[s] loans” and is liable to

9 ALRG for the full amount of Aguas’s loans, unpaid interest, and

10 other charges. Specifically, ALRG alleged that AySA: (i) as

11 successor in interest to Aguas, breached the underlying loan

12 agreements, which had been modified by the IFA’s; and (ii)

13 received a fraudulent transfer of Aguas’s assets to AySA. 

14 On March 3, 2008, the district court dismissed ALRG’s claims

15 against AySA on the ground of forum non conveniens. See Aguas

16 Lenders Recovery Group, LLC v. Suez S.A., 2008 WL 612669

17 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2008). The court reasoned that “district

18 courts need not afford great deference to waivers of forum non

19 conveniens upon non-signatories, even where the non-signatory is

20 an alleged successor to the waiver.” Id. at *4 (citing Yung v.

21 Lee, 160 F. App’x 37, 40 (2d Cir. 2005)). It concluded that

22 because neither party to the suit was a signatory to the IFA’s
7

1 and the defendant “did not even exist when the agreements were

2 created,” ALRG could not invoke the forum provisions. Id. 

3 Absent a binding contractual provision, the district court

4 declined to apply the strict, contract-based forum non conveniens

5 analysis dictated by M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S.

6 1, 15 (1972), which held that contractual forum selection clauses

7 should be enforced absent a showing of unreasonableness, fraud,

8 or overreaching. Instead, applying the traditional forum non

9 conveniens analysis set out by Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330

10 U.S. 501 (1947), the district court concluded dismissal was

11 appropriate. See Aguas, 2008 WL 612669 at *4, *9. ALRG then

12 brought this appeal.

13 DISCUSSION

14 A district court’s dismissal of a complaint on the ground of

15 forum non conveniens is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Norex

16 Petroleum Ltd. v. Access Indus., Inc., 416 F.3d 146, 153 (2d Cir.

17 2005). A district court abuses its discretion in dismissing on

18 the ground of forum non conveniens when its decision “(1) rests

19 either on an error of law or on a clearly erroneous finding of

20 fact, or (2) cannot be located within the range of permissible

21 decisions, or (3) fails to consider all the relevant factors or

22 unreasonably balances those factors.” Pollux Holding Ltd. v.

23 Chase Manhattan Bank, 329 F.3d 64, 70 (2d Cir. 2003) (citations

24 omitted). We disagree with the district court’s conclusion that
8

1 because AySA was a non-signatory of the contracts at issue, it

2 was per se not bound by their forum provisions for purposes of

3 applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens. 

4 The enforcement of forum selection clauses in international

5 disputes is governed by M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407

6 U.S. 1 (1972). M/S Bremen noted the important role of forum

7 selection and choice of law clauses in eliminating uncertainty in

8 international commerce and held that such clauses are entitled to

9 a presumption of enforceability, unless “enforcement would be

10 unreasonable and unjust, or . . . the clause was invalid for such

11 reasons as fraud or overreaching.” M/S Bremen, 407 U.S. at 15. 

12 Thus, where parties contract to a so-called mandatory forum

13 selection clause, in which they agree in advance on a forum that

14 is exclusive of all others, the choice of forum is accorded the

15 M/S Bremen presumption of enforceablity. Phillips v. Audio

16 Active Ltd., 494 F.3d 378, 386 (2d Cir. 2007).

17 In contrast, where parties contract to a so-called

18 permissive forum selection clause, that is, one that designates a

19 forum in advance, but does not preclude a different choice, the

20 M/S Bremen presumption of enforceability does not apply. See

21 id.; see also Blanco v. Banco Industrial de Venezuela, S.A., 997

22 F.2d 974, 979-80 (2d Cir. 1993). Instead, in such cases, the

23 traditional forum non conveniens standards articulated by the

24 Supreme Court in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947),
9

1 apply. Blanco, 997 F.2d at 980; see also Iragorri v. United

2 Techs. Corp., 274 F.3d 65, 71-74 (2d Cir. 2001) (en banc)

3 (articulating three-step forum non conveniens analysis based on

4 Gilbert).

5 We need not decide whether the forum selection clauses in

6 the present matter are, standing alone, mandatory or permissive. 

7 At least one of the contracts -- one of the IFA’s -- contains a

8 waiver of any claims of forum non conveniens in addition to a

9 forum selection clause. The combination of these clauses amounts

10 to a mandatory forum selection clause at least where the

11 plaintiff chooses the designated forum, as ALRG did here. See

12 AAR Int’l, Inc. v. Nimelia’s Enter. S.A., 250 F.3d 510, 525-26

13 (7th Cir. 2001) (“[I]n this case we have more than merely a

14 permissive forum selection clause; we have such a clause plus

15 unambiguous language providing that the lessee shall not object

16 to venue . . . on the ground . . . [of] inconvenient forum. . . .

17 [W]e conclude that the stricter standards announced in Bremen 

18 . . . should control . . . .”). On the present record, it

19 appears that litigation over that IFA involves issues, witnesses,

20 and documentary evidence that almost fully overlap with the other

21 claims. If that part of the litigation must remain in New York,

22 it would be quite inconsistent with the purposes of forum non

23 conveniens to dismiss the remaining claims under that doctrine. 

24 Therefore, we see no reason to engage in further inquiry as to
10

1 the mandatory or non-mandatory nature of the forum selection

2 clauses standing alone.

3 We thus turn to the issue of whether, even if successorship

4 doctrine binds a non-signatory to the obligations of a contract,

5 such a non-signatory/successor is not bound by a mandatory forum

6 selection clause and may freely invoke the doctrine of forum non

7 conveniens. We conclude that, if successorship is established, a

8 non-signatory is subject to the M/S Bremen presumption of the

9 enforceability of mandatory forum selection clauses. 

10 Any other conclusion would be inconsistent with the

11 rationales of both successorship doctrine and M/S Bremen. 

12 Successorship doctrine prevents parties to contracts from using

13 evasive, formalistic means lacking economic substance to escape

14 contractual obligations. See United States v. Mexico Feed and

15 Seed Co., Inc., 980 F.2d 478, 487 (8th Cir. 1992); Anspec Co. v.

16 Johnson Controls, Inc., 922 F.2d 1240, 1246 (6th Cir. 1991). We

17 see no reason to treat forum selection provisions differently

18 from other contractual obligations. As M/S Bremen explained, a

19 forum selection clause involving sophisticated parties to an

20 international transaction is an obligation that is calculated by

21 parties into the cost of a contract. See M/S Bremen, 407 U.S. at

22 14 (“[I]t would be unrealistic to think that the parties did not

23 conduct their negotiations, including fixing the monetary terms,

24 with the consequences of the forum clause figuring prominently in
11

1 their calculations.”). Consequently, a forum selection clause is

2 integral to the obligations of the overall contract, and a

3 successor in interest should no more be able to evade it than any

4 other obligation under the agreement.

5 We find ample support for the conclusion that the fact a

6 party is a non-signatory to an agreement is insufficient,

7 standing alone, to preclude enforcement of a forum selection

8 clause. See, e.g., Holland Am. Line Inc. v. Wärtsilä N. Am.,

9 Inc., 485 F.3d 450, 456-57 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that forum

10 selection clauses applied to non-signatories because larger

11 contract involved transactions that included non-signatories);

12 Coastal Steel Corp. v. Tilghman Wheelabrator Ltd., 709 F.2d 190,

13 202-04 (3d Cir. 1983) (binding a non-signatory third-party

14 beneficiary to a forum selection clause), overruled on other

15 grounds by Lauro Lines S.R.L. v. Chasser, 490 U.S. 495 (1989);

16 TAAG Linhas Aereas de Angola v. Transam. Airlines, Inc., 915 F.2d

17 1351, 1354-55 (9th Cir. 1990) (applying M/S Bremen to enforce

18 forum selection clause against non-signatory plaintiff); Marano

19 Enters. of Kansas v. Z-Teca Rests., L.P., 254 F.3d 753, 757-58

20 (8th Cir. 2001) (holding non-signatories were bound by forum

21 selection clause because non-signatories were “closely related”

22 to the signatory or had acquiesced to clause by voluntarily

23 bringing suit with signatories); Lipcon v. Underwriters at

24 Lloyd’s, London, 148 F.3d 1285, 1299 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding
In arguing to the contrary, defendants rely on two summary orders, Yung 4

v. Lee, 160 F. App’x 37 (2d Cir. 2005), and Acosta v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.,

219 F. App’x 83 (2d Cir. 2007), which, of course, do not provide binding

authority. See Silivanch v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 333 F.3d 355, 370 n.11

(2d Cir. 2003) (noting that summary order disposition is not precedential). 

Even if they were binding authority, however, neither decision would be

dispositive of the present appeal. In Yung, the district court accorded a

“strong favorable presumption” to the plaintiffs’ choice of a New York forum

to resolve a dispute. See Yung, 160 F. App’x at 40. While Yung cautioned

against applying forum selection clauses to non-signatories, it did not

involve a claim that the non-signatory defendants were successors in interest

to a party to the contract. The appellants in Yung disputed only the level of

deference accorded their choice under the traditional forum non conveniens

analysis. Id. 

Nor does Acosta lend support to AySA’s claims. In that case, the

successorship issue was never reached. The court concluded instead that the

12

1 non-signatories bound to forum selection clause on grounds that

2 the non-signatories, who had provided letters of credit to

3 signatories, had interests in the litigation that were “directly

4 related to, if not predicated upon” those of the signatories

5 (citation omitted)); see also Hugel v. Corp. of Lloyd’s, 999 F.2d

6 206, 209 (7th Cir. 1993) (“In order to bind a non-party to a

7 forum selection clause, the party must be ‘closely related’ to

8 the dispute such that it becomes ‘foreseeable’ that it will be

9 bound.” (citations omitted)); Bonny v. Soc’y of Lloyd’s, 3 F.3d

10 156, 162-63 (7th Cir. 1993) (subjecting non-contracting

11 defendants to forum selection clause because integrally related

12 to contracting defendants such that suit should be kept in a

13 single forum). Cf. Dayhoff Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 86 F.3d 1287,

14 1297 & n.8 (3d Cir. 1996) (reversing district court’s dismissal,

15 on ground of forum selection clause, of all of plaintiff’s claims

16 as to non-signatories to those agreements, except for one Italian

17 corporation who plaintiff alleged was successor to signatory).4
plaintiffs’ claims did not arise out of the contract containing the relevant

forum provision. Acosta, 219 F. App’x at 86 n.2.

13

1 The successorship issue must, therefore, be resolved for

2 purposes of applying forum non conveniens. As a threshold

3 matter, the parties dispute whether the question is governed by

4 the law of New York or of Argentina. ALRG urges that New York

5 law applies but argues that its complaint contains factual

6 allegations sufficient to support a theory of successorship under

7 either New York or Argentine law. In response, AySA contends

8 that Argentine law applies, but that, in any event, no

9 successorship finding is possible under the law of either

10 Argentina or New York. 

11 We intimate no view as to, inter alia, whether New York or

12 Argentine law applies or whether the outcome on the merits

13 depends upon the choice of law. For the reasons stated below, we

14 believe that the present record is not sufficient to allow us to

15 dispose of this case without factual findings by the district

16 court, and it would be unwise for us to resolve legal issues

17 that, after factual findings are made, may drop from the case. 

18 Under New York law, the general rule is that an asset

19 purchaser is not liable for the seller’s debts. New York

20 recognizes four common-law exceptions to this rule: “(1) a buyer

21 who formally assumes a seller’s debts; (2) transactions

22 undertaken to defraud creditors; (3) a buyer who de facto merged
14

1 with a seller; and (4) a buyer that is a mere continuation of a

2 seller.” Cargo Partner AG v. Albatrans, Inc., 352 F.3d 41, 45

3 (2d Cir. 2003). Thus, for example, “when a successor firm

4 acquires substantially all of the predecessor’s assets and

5 carries on substantially all of the predecessor’s operations, the

6 successor may be held to have assumed its predecessor’s . . .

7 liabilities, notwithstanding the traditional rule.” Nettis v.

8 Levitt, 241 F.3d 186, 193 (2d Cir. 2001), overruled on other

9 grounds by Slayton v. Am. Express Co., 460 F.3d 215 (2d Cir.

10 2006). Similarly, ALRG has submitted affidavits stating that

11 under Argentine law, the transfer of a going concern to another

12 commercial entity that provides the same “commercial activities 

13 . . . in the same building . . . [with] identical merchandise 

14 . . . directed to the same clients” may subject that entity to

15 the liabilities of the predecessor.

16 ALRG argues that it has alleged a prima facie claim that

17 AySA was a successor in interest to Aguas. Specifically, ALRG

18 claims that Aguas’s revenues were directly linked to Aguas’s

19 development of infrastructure and the expansion of the existing

20 municipal water and sewer system in Buenos Aires, that the loans

21 on which ALRG now seeks to recover were made to Aguas for this

22 purpose, that infrastructure improvements were made for which

23 Aguas was entitled to compensation under the terms of the

24 concession, and that the Argentine government terminated the
15

1 concession, Aguas’s principal asset, and assumed control of Aguas

2 under the name of AySA, in which it maintained a ninety percent

3 ownership interest. In so doing, ALRG alleges that AySA assumed

4 operating control of the facilities and infrastructure

5 improvements, as well as business channels, to deliver, without

6 interruption, the same services to Buenos Aires as Aguas. ALRG

7 finds further support for its theory in an alleged continuity of

8 both employees and management, of ten percent equity ownership

9 through an employee stock ownership program, of assets, including

10 customer lists and accounts receivable, and of contracts. 

11 Finally, ALRG notes that the agreements at issue expressly bind

12 Aguas’s “successors and assigns.”

13 Under both New York and what little we know of Argentine

14 law, the successor issue is highly fact-specific and, given the

15 present record, cannot be resolved with assurance in favor of one

16 party or the other. ALRG’s complaint does allege facts that, if

17 proven, might support a successorship finding. The district

18 court’s conclusion that a non-signatory per se could not be bound

19 by the forum provisions obviated the need to resolve the various

20 issues of law and fact relevant to the successorship question. 

21 Because these issues are better left to resolution by the

22 district court in the first instance, we remand for discovery and

23 a hearing to ascertain, for the purposes of the claim of forum
Given the disputed issue of governing law and the fact-intensive nature 5

of the successorship inquiry, the district court should make findings under

both New York and Argentine law to facilitate appellate review and avoid

another remand.

16

1 non conveniens, whether Argentine or New York law applies, and 5

2 whether Aguas is a successor in interest to AySA bound to the

3 IFA’s and loan agreements. In light of our disposition of this

4 appeal, we do not reach the parties’ additional arguments

5 regarding whether ALRG’s claims are nonetheless barred under the

6 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the act-of-state doctrine.

7 CONCLUSION

8 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is vacated and the

9 case remanded for further proceedings.