## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 09

- 1753 S T R OI T E L S T VO B UL GARI A L IMI TED , Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. B UL GARI AN -A MERI CAN E NTERPRI S E F UND , E TAL ., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Divisi on. No . 08 C3056

—RubenC astil lo, Judge
.
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 10, 2009

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 14, 2009

Befo re M A NI ON, S YKES, a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. T INDER, C ircu it Judge. S t r o i t el stvo Bu l g a r i a Lt d. ( “St ro i tel stvo ”) , a Bu l gar i an co nstr ucti on com pany, en te r ed i nt o a l o anc o nt r ac t wi ththe Bul g ar i an A m er i can Cre ditBank ( “Bank”)

. The Bank l ate r cl ai m ed that St ro i tel stvo br eached the co ntra ct a nd dem anded th e ful la m o untdue o n the l o an . S tr o i te l stv o de ni ed an y br ea chb ute ve ntua l l y s et tl ed bypa yinga l ar g e ch unk ofthe Bank’ s cl ai m . The exec uti on o fthe contr act,2 N o. 09

- 1753 al l ege d bre ach, and settle m ent pay m ent a l lto ok pla ce i n Bulga ri a. Then, St ro i tel stvo cam e t o U
. S. federa lco urt and sued th e Ban ka nd i ts Chi ca g o -ba se d pa r ent, th e Bul g ar i an A m erican E nt erp rise Fun d ( “B A E F”), f or the B an k’s al l ege d predator y l ending practi ces. N ow the questi on ar ise s, w h y s h ou ld a U .S. d ist ric t c ou rtd ec id e t h is d ispu te over a B ulga r ia n loan cont ract? Th e d istri ct cou rt cou ldn ’t find a good an sw era nd s o dism issed Stroi telstvo’s case on th e grou nd of f or um no n c onve ni e ns . Because w e a gr ee w i th the di str i ct c ourtthatBulg ar i a i s a bet ter f or um than th e U ni ted S tat es to re sol ve thi s di spute, we a ffi r m.

I. B a c kg r o und The f acts , as al l ege d in St ro i tel stvo ’ s co m pla i nt, descr ibe a cl ass i c pre dator y l ending schem e. In M ar ch, 20 05, S tr oitel stvo e nt er ed i nt o a l o anc o nt r ac t wi ththe Ba nk to fi nance a r esi denti al c onst ructi on proj ect i n So fi a, Bu l gar i a. The co ntra ct r equi re d th e B ank t o disb urse a tot alo fabo ut 1. 9 m i l l i on e uros to S tr oi tel stvo thr ough va r i o us s ta g es o fthe proj ec t. S ev er almonths i nt o the l o an, whenthe Ba nkha d di sb ur se d o nl y 3 61 , 00 0 o fthe tot al 1. 9 m i l l i on e ur o s , the Bank ass er ted that St ro i tel stvo br eached the loan contra ct b y, am ong othe r thi ng s, f ai l i ng to tur n ove r cer tain advance pay m ents on resid en t ia l un its. Th e B an k sus p en d ed Stroi telstvo’s cre ditand cl ai m ed a r i ght to r eco ver97 0, 438 euro s, equal to the 3 61, 000 euro s a l re ady di sburs ed plus the t ota l i nt er es t an d fee s due unde rthe l o an .N o. 09

- 1753 3 A ccor ding to St ro i tel stv o, the Bank’s cl ai m ed br each w a s p r e t e xtua la nd de s i g ne d t o p r e s s ur e S t r o i t e l stvo i nt o pa y i ngthe Ba nkm ore t han i t des er ve d unde rthe loan con tract. T he B an k w en t to th e Sofi a C ity C ou rt ex part eand ob ta ined a j ud gm ent in the am ount o f th e 97 0, 43 8 eu r os pur po r te dl y o wed, a j udg m en t th atthe Bank used to fre eze S tr oi tel stvo ’ s a sse ts. W i th i ts ass ets fro zen, S tr oi tel stvo cou l dn ’ t a ff or d to w ai t tw o or th re e y ea rs w h ile it p u rs u ed a se p ar at e a c t i o n in B ulgarian co urt to overturn the B an k’s j ud gm en t. So i nstea d, St ro i tel stvo ag re ed to pay the B ank 5 63, 000 euro s, l es s th anthe 9 70 , 438 e ur o s cl ai m ed bythe Ba nkb ut m or e than w hat S tr oi tel stvo tho ught that i t o w ed und er the c ontr act. I n Apr i l, 20 07, S tr o i te l stvo su ed th e Ban ka nd BAEF, the B an k’s Ch icago-based pa rent, i n th e U
. S. District C ou rt f orthe Dist ri ct o fCol um bi a. S tr oi tel stvo cl ai m ed that B A E F and the B an k had co n d u c t e d a sche m e to extort an d b l ac k m ai ls ev er alBul g ar i anb us i ne ss es , i nc l udi ng S tr o i te l stvo , a nd tha t th i s sc he m e was a “ r ac k et ee r i ng acti vi ty” gi vi ng r i se to a ci vi lr em edy under the Racke tee r I nfluenced and C or rupt Org an iza ti ons ( “RI CO ”) A ct. 18 U. S

. C. § § 19 62, 19 64

. S tr o i te l stvo ’ s co m pl ainta l so c o nta in ed se ve ra l co n tr a c t a n d to rtcla im s, m os t b as ed in Am er i c a n l a w, b u to n e a l l e g i n ga v i o l a t i o n o ft he Bu l gar i an Obl i gat i ons and C ontr acts A ct. The defe nd ants succes sfully m ove d the D. C. Dist ri ct Court to tr ansferthe case to the N or ther n Distr i ct o f Illino is, a s B A E F is h ea d q u ar te re d in C h ica go . Th e N .D . I ll. dist r i c t c o ur t the n t o o k up the de fe nd a nt s ’ mot i o n to4 N o. 09

- 1753 dism i ss base d on, am ong otherthi ngs, the doctr i ne o f f or um no n c onve ni e ns , i n w hi ch the defe nd ants ar gu ed th atBul g ar i a was a mor e co nv en i en t f o rum tha n the U ni ted S tat es to re sol ve the par ti es’ d isp ute. The part i es o ffere d the t es ti m o ny o fe xpe r ts i n Bul g ar i anl aw, who a ddr e s s e d the a de qu a c y o fthe Bu l gar i an c o ur t s t o a dj ud i cate S tr oi tel stvo ’ s cl ai m s. S troitel stvo ’ s e xperts, M ar i a S l avo va a nd Vl adim i r Sk ochev, ge nera l l y doubte d th a tBu l g a r i a n l a w wo ul d p r o v i de a de qu a t e s ub s t i t utes for allof th e A m erican-law clai m s raised in Stroitelstvo’s com pla i nt. They a l so described a pu bl i c per cepti on o f cor rupti on i n the Bu l gar i an l ega l sys tem
. The defe nd ants’ expert, S i l vy Ch er n ev , tho ught that Bul gar i an l aw w oul d provi de a r em edy f oral lo fthe conduct al l ege d i n S t r o i t e l s t v o ’ s c o mpl a i nt, e v e n tho ugh no t a l l o f St ro i tel stvo ’ s Am eri can- l aw cl ai m s had exac t Bul gar i an equi val ents. Chernev al so ackno w l edged prob l em s o f j udi ci alc o r r upt i o n b utno ne th el es s i ns i st ed tha t th e Bu l gar i an co urts were gener al l y a dequ ate
. Aft erc ar eful l y c o ns i der i ngthe e xpe r t te st i m o ny a nd St ro i tel stvo ’ s a rgum ents aga i nst dism i ssa l, the dist ri ct cour t g ra nted the defe nd ants’ m oti on t o dism i ss on f orum non c onve ni e ns gr ounds. The co urt thought that re so lvin g St ro ite lst vo ’s c as e in B u lga ria , r at h er th an in the Unite d Sta tes , would bet terse rv e the co nv en i ence ofthe parti es and the ends ofj usti ce. S tr oi tel stvo appeal s, w hi ch i t m ay, since a f or um no n con ven ie ns di sm i ssa li s a fi na l, a ppea l ab l e j udg m en t ev entho ugh i t do es no t en d th e litig at ion
. Aba d v. Baye rCorp. , 56 3 F
. 3d 663, 66 5 ( 7th C ir. 2009).N o. 09

- 1753 5 II . A n alysis T h e c om m on law doc trine of f o r u m n o n c o n v e n i e ns al l ows a fed er al d i str i ct c ourtto di sm i ss a s uito ver w hi ch i t would nor m al l y hav e j uri sdic tio n in o rderto bestse rv e the co nveni ence ofthe parti es and the e nd s o f j u st ice
. Cle r i de s v. Boe i ng Co. , 534 F. 3d 623, 627-28 (7th C ir. 2008 ) ( ci ti ng In re B ridgest one/Fires tone, Inc. , 42 0 F
. 3d 702, 703 (7th C ir. 2005)). W e rev iew the d istri ct cou rt’s di smi ss alo fa c as e o n f or um no n c onve ni e ns gr ounds f or an ab u se of d isc re tio n . Abad, 56 3 F
. 3d at 665.

A. T he Ade qua c yo fB ul g a r i a a s a n Al t e rna t i v e F o rum A thr esho l d requir em ent forany f or um no n c onve ni e ns d ism iss al is t h e e x ist en c e o fa n alt er n at ive foru m th at is both “ava i l able” and “adequate. ” Ka m el v. H ill-R o m C o ., Inc. , 10 8 F
. 3d 799, 80 2 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97)

. A n al ternati ve f or um i s “ availab le” i fal lo fthe parti es ar e a m enabl e t o p ro c es s a n d w ith inth e fo ru m ’s jur isd i c t i o n . Id. at 803. St ro i tel stvo does notdi spu te t h at Bu l gar i a i s a n a v a i l ab l e f o r um. T he Ba nk, wh i c h o pe r a t e s i n Bu l gar i a, and BA EF, wh i ch m ai ntai ns an o ffi ce in So fi a, ar e bo th am enabl e t o proce ss and w i thi n the Bu lga ria n cour ts’ j urisd iction. M oreover, BA E F has cons en ted to the B ulgari an co ur ts ’ j ur i sdi ct i o n as a co ndi ti on of f or um no n co nv enien s d ism iss al. Th e a de qu a c y o fa Bu l g a r i a n f o r um, o n the o the rh a nd , i s the ce ntra ldi spute i n thi s a pp eal

. A n al ternati ve for u m is ad eq u at e if it p ro vid es th e p lain tiff w ith a fair h e a r i n g t o ob ta inso m e re m ed y for th e a lleg ed w ro n g. Id.6 N o. 09

- 1753 I t i s no t nec ess ar y that the f or um ’ s l ega lr em ed ies be as com p rehe ns ive or as favorable as th e claim s a plaintiff m igh t b rin g in an A m er ica n co u r t. Seeid

. Instea d, the t est i s wheth er the f o r um pr o vi des s o m e po te nt i ala ve nue for red re ss for th e s u bj ec t m at te r of th e d isp u te
. Se ei d. A t l eas t s om e su bsta nti alexper t t est i m ony in thi s ca se in d ica te d t h a t Str oit els tv o c ou ld ex p ec t a fair h ea rin g in the Bu l g a r i a n c o ur t s . As the e xp e r t s r e cog ni z e d, B u lga ria ga in ed a d m iss ion to th e E u ro p ea n U n ion in 20 07, a nd o ne r equi r ementf o rEU m em be r sh i p i s th atthe na ti o n h av e a st ab l e l eg als y st em th atg uaran te es the rule ofl aw . The defendants’ exper t, Chernev, al so sta ted t h at Bulg ar i a has an ind ependent j ud i ci ar y that p ro vi des fulland f ai r consi derat i on o fco m m er ci aldi spu tes
. I ti s tr ue th a tal lo fth e ex pe r t s l a men t e d a pub l i c p e r c e pti on o fco rr up ti on in t h e Bul gar i an co urts , and Sk ochev, Stro i tel stvo ’ s e xpert, ev en cl ai m ed that the Bul gar i an l ega lsy ste m was i ncapabl e o fpro vid in g a f ai r hear i ng. Stil l, the ex p e r t s m ad e no atte m p t to qu an tify this p urport ed corr up ti on o r docum ent par ti cul arpl ai nti ff s o r c l a i ms tha twe r e t r e a t e d u nf a i r l y . T he i rg e ne r a l i z e d, an ecd otal com p lai nt s of corru p tion are not en ou gh f or a federa lco urt to decl ar e that a n EU n ati on’ s l ega lsy ste m i s s o c o r r u p tth a ti tc a n ’ ts e r v e a s a n a de qu a t e f o r u m. Se eTuazon v. R. J
. Reynol ds Toba cc o Co. , 43 3 F
. 3d 1163 , 11 79 ( 9th Ci r. 2006 ) ( fi nd i ng the pl ai nti ff’ s “ anecdota lev i dence of cor ru p tio n an d d ela y” in th e Ph ilip p in e cou r t s ins u ffic i en t t o s h ow ina d eq u ac y); In reAr b i t rat i on b e t ween M o neg a sque d e R eas s u r a nc es S.A .M . v. Na kNa fto ga z of Uk r. ,N o. 09

- 1753 7 31 1 F
. 3d 48 8, 4 99 ( 2d Ci r . 2 00 2) ( r efus i ng“ to pa ss v alue j ud gm ents on the adequacy ofj usti ce a nd the i ntegr i ty of U kr ain e’s ju d icia l s ys te m o n t h e b as is of n o m or e t h an . . . bare d en un ciation s and sw eep ing gen erali zations ”); Leon v. M il lon Air, Inc. , 251 F. 3d 1305 , 13 12 ( 11th Cir

. 20 01) ( re quir i ng the p l ai nti ffto subst anti ate al l ega ti ons of ser i ous cor rupti on or del ay w i th “si gni fi cant e vidence d oc u m en tin g t h e p a rt ialit y or d ela y . . . ty p ica lly assoc iated w ith th e adj ud ication of sim il ar clai m s”). The expertte st im ony al so showed thatBulg ar i an l aw p ro vid es so m e re m ed y for th e s u bj ec t m at t e r o f th is dispute, the Ba n k’s al l ege d bre ach o fthe l oan contr act and p re dator y l ending pract i ces. Chernev ci ted se ver al provi si ons ofthe Bu l gar i an Obl i gat i ons and C ontr acts A ct that e nfo rce co ntra ctualo bl i gat i ons and p ro vi de f or d am ag es ag ain s t a co m m er c ial p ar ty w h o fa ils to ac t in goo d fa i th. A l though S tr oi tel stvo ’ s e xperts disa gr eed w ith C h er n ev on th e fu ll sc op e o frem ed ies av aila b le und erBulg ar i an l aw , i t was undisputed thatthe A ct w oul d supp or t a br each o fco ntra ct a c ti on a nd dam age s re m ed y a ga in stth e B an k for th e c on d u c t a lleg ed in St ro i tel stvo ’ s co m pla i nt. T o b e s u re , B u lga ria n law m igh t n otsu p p or t t h e fu ll ar ra y of le ga l cla im s s p elle d o u t in Str oit els tv o’s fed er alcour t co m pla i nt. In part i cul ar, the ex perts ag re ed that B u l g a r i a h a s n o e q u i v a l e n tt o S t r o i t e l s t v o ’ s R I C O c l a i m. T h at is n eit h er su rp ris in g, sin c e R IC O is a u n iqu ely A m er ic an effo rtto ta rg etorg an ize d cr im e, seeKe m pev. O ce an D r i l l i ng & Expl orat i on Co. , 876 F.2d 113 8, 1143 -44 (5th C ir. 1989 ) , norp ro b l em ati c, since federa lco urts have8 N o. 09

- 1753

ro uti nel y hel d that the l oss o fa R IC O c laim does notby i tse l fprec l ud e a fo rum no n co nv enien s d ism iss al, Yavuz v
. 61 M M, Lt d. , 57 6 F

. 3d 1 16 6, 1177n. 6 ( 10th Cir

. 20 09) (citing cases). T h e e x p er ts ba tt led o ve r w h et h er B u lga ria n law w ou ld re cogn ize Str oi tel stvo ’ s o therto rtcl ai m s, o r othe rwis e pr o vi de ade qua te s ubs ti tu te s f o rtho se c l ai m s an d the R ICO cl ai m . Chernev, the defe nd ants’ exper t, was con fident thatBulg ar i an l aw co uld add re ss i n so m e for m al lo f th e l e g a li s s u e s r a i s e d b y S t r o i t e l s t v o ’ s c o mpl a i n t
. He al so thought that the g ener alto rtpro vi si on o fthe Obli gati ons and C ontr acts A ct woul d al l ow Str oi tel stvo to se ek tor t dam age s fro m the defe nd ants. S tr oi tel stvo ’ s e xperts w er e, pre dict abl y, l ess o pti m i sti c. Sl avo va di sag re ed w i th Ch er nev’ s pre dict i on thatthe Obli gat i ons and C ontr acts A ct woul d supp or t S tr oi tel stvo ’ s t or t cl ai m s, since the A ct perm i ts tor t l i abi l i ty aga in st onl y naturalper sons, not “l eg ale nt i ti es ” l i k e t he B an ka nd BAEF. S k o ch eve ss en ti al l y a gr eed with S l avo va, te sti fyi ng th at a Bu l gar i an co m p an y m ayb e l i ab l e i n t o r t unde rthe Acto nl y i fthe p l a i n t i ffi d e n t i fi e s a s p e c i fi c , n a t ur a l p e r s o n w h o c o mm i tte d the t or t whil e work i ng f ort h e com pany. S koc hev fu rt h e r t e s tifie d th at B u lga ria n law co u ld p ro vid e o n ly parti alr em edi es f orthe com ple x com m er ci ali ssues ra i sed byS tr oi tel stvo ’ s co m pla i nt. We th i n kt h a tt h i s di s p u t e o v e rt h e r a n g e o fl e g a lc l a i ms th at Str oit els tv o c an p u rs u e in a B u lga ria n co u rtm er ely dem onst ra tes “the possibi l i ty of an unfav or abl e ch an ge i n the l aw , ” which o rdi nari l y doe s no t ca rr y s ubstanti al w ei ght i n thefo rum no n co nv enien s an aly sis
. P iperAircraft v.N o. 09

- 1753 9 Rey no , 454 U
. S. 235, 249 (1981 ). A lth o u g h Stroi telstvo’s expert s cha ra cter i zed the re l i efava i l abl e under Bu l gar i an l aw as part i al a n d i ncom ple te, thei r tes ti m ony does not show that thi s r el i efi s “ so cl ear l y inadequ ate o r unsati sfac to ry t hat i t i s no r em edy atal l

. ” Id. a t2 5 4
. As f o rthe possibl e los s o fS tr oi tel stvo ’ s t or t cl ai m s a gainst these cor pora te defe nd ants, i t i s un d isp uted that St ro i tel stvo woul d r et ain a cl ai m f o rc o nt r ac t damag es unde rthe Obli gat i ons and C ontra cts A ct. In that sense , thi s ca se i s l i ke Ka m el , i n w hi ch w e co ncl ud ed that the a vai l abi l i ty ofa bre ach o fco ntra ct act ion m ade the f or um adequa te, de spi te the pl aint i ff’ s ar g um en t th atthe f o r um wo ul d n o tr e c o g ni z e hi s t o r tc l a i ms. 1 0 8 F
. 3 d a t8 0 3
. Of co ur se , e ac h f

or um no n c onve ni e ns c as e i s f ac t- spe ci fi c, a nd w e d o n o t s ay th at an alt er n at ive foru m is n ec es sa rily ad eq u at e t o re so lve a to rtp lain tiff’s cla i m s s im p ly b ec au se th e d efe n d an t c an p oin t t o s om e c on c eiv ab le contr act re m edy. H er e, tho ugh, the contr actualr em edi es av aila b le u n d er B u lga r i a n l a w go t o th e h ea rtof th is dispute, a l oan contr act between S tr oi tel stvo and the Bank. I n an at tem pt to pro ve that i ts expert s are c or re ct that the Bul gar i an co urts cannotadj ud i cate i ts cl ai m s, S tr o i te l stvo ha s a l r ea dy fi l ed a co m pl ainti den ti ca lt o the one that i t fi l ed i n federa lco urt i n a Bul gar i an di str i ct cour t. S ure enough, the Bu l gar i an co urt dism i sse d St ro i tel stvo ’ s co m pla i nt f orpre senting a com bi nati on o f co nt ractua la nd t o r t cl ai m s i n a manne ri nc o ns i st en t wi thBul g ar i anl aw. S ti l l, thi s di smi ss alha r dl y de m onstr ate s t h at t he Bulg ar i an co urt i s inadequ ate to r eso l ve St ro i tel stvo ’ s di spute, f or the cour t s i m plyo rder ed St ro i tel stvo to re
- prepar e i ts com pla i nt i n acco rdance10 N o. 09

- 1753

w i th Bulg ar i an, notA m er i can, law

. I t would be r em arkab le i f an y forei gn cou rt w ere to accep t Stroitel stvo’s Am er i ca n- l aw c om p l ai nt wi th o ut c ha ng e, a nd St ro i tel stvo ’ s a rgum ent that the B ulg ar i an co urt’ s r efusal to do so m ake s i t inadequ ate i s unpers uasi ve. Sl i ghtl y m or e per suasi ve i s S tr oi tel stvo ’ s ar gum ent that Bu l gar i an l aw i s incapabl e o fpro vi ding re l i efag ai nst on e o f tw o p ar t i e s i n t h is c as e, B A E F. W ith res p ec t t o th is defe nd ant, S tr oit el stvo r ai ses o nl y t or t cl ai m s, not contr act cl ai m s. S o i fS tr oi tel stvo ’ s e xperts ar e co rr ect that Bu l gar i an l aw w il lnotsupport tor t cl ai m s a gainst c or pora te de fe nd a nt s l i k e BAEF , di s mi s s i ng thi s c a s e to B u l g a r i a w i l lc a u s e S t r o i t e l s t v o t o l o s e a l lo fi t s c l a i ms agains t B A E F. Stroitel stvo su bm its that th is l oss of a defe nd ant fro m it s ca se, as o pp ose d to the m er e l oss o f parti cul arleg alcl ai m s, i s s o si gni fi cant a s t o l eave St ro ite lst vo w ith n o re m ed y a t a ll. I ni ti al l y, we re i ter ate that i t i s no t be yond di spute that St ro i tel stvo would b e u nabl e t o sue BA EF i n to rtunder Bul g ar i anl aw. Che r ne v th o ught tha t pr o vi si o ns o fthe O b l i g a t i o n s a nd C o n t r a c t s A c tw o u l d s u p p o r tt o r tc l a i ms aga i nst a co rpor ate defendant l i ke BA EF, al though S l a v o v a a n d S k o c h e v d i s a g r e e d

. Mo r e i mpo r t a n t l y, we thi nk tha t S tr oitel stvo ’ s a rgum ent about l osing a defen dan t i s m o r e o rl es s th e sa m e as i ts argum en t ab o ut l o s i ngi t s p r e fe r r e d Ame r i c a n- l a w t o r tc l a i ms. I ti s an overs tat em ent t o saythata f o r u m n o n c o n v e ni e ns dism iss al wil lcause S tr oi tel stvo to “l ose ” BA EF as a defe nd ant; BA EF is a defe nd ant i n thi s case that has c on se n te d to t h e ju ris d ict ion of th e B u lga ria n co u rt s. InN o. 09

- 1753 11

o urv i ew, S tr o i te l stvo ’ s r ea lc o nc ern i s th ata ny Bul g ar i an l aw subst i tutes thati t m i ght c om e up w i th f ori ts c om p lex A m er ica n -law cla im s a g ain stB A E F w ill ult im ate l y f ai l

. I t i s pos sibl e that Stroi tel stvo ’ s pre dict i on w il l p r o ve t r ue a nd BAEF wi l lwi n a di smi ss al, c au sing St ro i t e l s t v o t o e ffec tiv ely “los e” B A E F fro m th e c as e. It is al so po ss ibl e th at th e Bul g ar i anc o ur ts wi l li nt er pr etthe Obli gat i ons and C ontr acts A ct t o ex te n d tor t l i abi l i ty to BA EF und erthese ci rcum sta nces, o r that St ro i tel stvo w i l li de nt i fy a n a t ur a lp e r s o n who s e t o r t i o us a c t s m ay be i m pu ted to BA EF, o r th at Str oi tel stvo wil las ser t a contr actual cl ai m co gni zabl e a gai nst a co rpor ate defe nd an t like BA EF. W e nee d not be cer tain that St ro ite lst vo w ou ld su c c ee d in it s c laim s a ga in stB A E F in or d er to find B u lga ria an ad eq u at e fo ru m . See In re Fa cto rVIIIorIX Conce nt rat eBlo od Prods

. Li t ig. , 4 8 4 F
. 3d 951, 95 7- 58 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( noting tha t the U

. K
. approa ch to the plai nt i ff’ s cl ai m was unc er ta i n b utfi ndi ngthe f or um adeq u at e)

. I t i s e nough to co ncl ud e that, wh ate ver th e ch an ce s o fa ny pa r ti cul arc l ai m a g ains t ei the rde fen d a n ti n th i s c a s e , B u l g a r i a n l a w g i v e s S t r o i t e l s t v o s o me potenti alave nue f orr edres s. In ad dit i on t o an ar guabl y l ess f avo rabl e s ubstanti ve l aw , the Bu l gar i an l ega l s ystem has cer tain proc edural re q u ire m en ts th at Str oit els tv o w ou ld p re fer to av o id . In or der t o fi l e a l aw sui t in Bulga ri a, a p l ai nti ffm ust pay a fi l i ng fee equalto 4% o fthe d am age s cl ai m ed, a fee that is re c ov er ab le if th e p lain tiff p r e v a i ls. Fo r th e (s tr ikin gly large) $30 m il li on d am ages d em an d e d i n Stroitelstvo’s co m pl aint, th e fee woul d be $1

. 2 m i l l i o n, m uch m ore th an w h at Str oit els tv o’s d ire c to r sa id t h e c om p an y c ou ld a ff o r d.12 N o. 09

- 1753 A lthou gh the finan cial ha rd sh ip of r e q u iring a p lai nt iff to su e o ut si de o f th e ch o se n f o r um i s r el ev an t to the f or um no n c onve ni e ns an aly sis , s e eM ac e do v. Boe i ng Co. , 69 3 F.2d 683 , 690 (7th C ir. 1982), w e con clud e tha t B ulgaria’s fi lin g fee does not precl ud e di sm i ssa l

. Fe deralco urts have decl i ned to fi nd f or ei gn f or u m s inadequ ate bas ed on filing fee s s im ilar to th e 4 % fee r eq u ire d h er e. See A lt m ann v. R epubl ic of Austr ia , 3 17 F.3d 954, 972-73 (9th C ir. 2002 ) ( concl ud i ng tha t Au str i a’ s 1

. 2% co urt fee w as not op p re ss ive in t h e c on te x t of th e p lain tiff’s res ou rc es ); Satz v. M cDonne l l D ougl a s Corp. , 244 F.3d 127 9, 1283 ( 11th Cir. 20 01 ) ( perc ur i am) ( “T he pl aint i ff s’ c o nc erns abo utArg en ti ne fi l i ng fees . . . do n ot re nd erA rg enti na an in ad eq u at e fo ru m .”); M er cie r v. Sheraton Int’ l, Inc. , 981 F. 2d 13 45 , 1 35 3 & n. 7 ( 1s t C ir. 19 92 ) ( ch ar ac te r i zingthe T urkish cou rts’ cost bon d of up to 15% of th e recovery sou gh t as non -exc essive un d er th e circum stan ces). M ore i m port antl y, the dist ri ct c ourti n thi s ca se d i d not sim p ly ignore th e im p act of th e fil ing fee on Stroitel stvo’s ab ility to su e in B u lga ria
. Cf. M ac e do , 69 3 F
. 2d at 690 ( re ver si ng a f

or um no n c onve ni e ns dism issal bas ed i n p art on the di str i ct c ourt ’ s f ai l ure to co nsi der the financi al h ar d sh ip to th e pla in tiffs of l itig at in g in P or tu ga l); Le hm an v. H um phrey Cayman, Lt d. , 7 13 F
. 2d 33 9, 3 45

- 47( 8th Ci r. 1983 ) ( fi nd i ng tha t the d ist ri ct c ourtf ai l ed to co nsi der th e plai nt i ff’ s pr ac ti ca labi l i tyt o l i ti g at e cl ai m s i n the Cay m an I sl an ds, wher e l awy er s di d no t ta k e ca se s o n a contingent- fee basi s a nd f or ei gn l i ti gants had to pay a cos t bo nd )

. The co urt note d tha t the l ar ge $1. 2 m i l l i on fi l i ng fee w as d riv en byS tr oi tel stvo ’ s $ 30 m i l l i on d am ages cl aim , w hich in tu rn resu lted from Stroi telstvo’sN o. 09

- 1753 13 d em an d for t re b le d am ag es u n d er R IC O

. See1 8 U. S

. C. § 1 9 6 4 ( c )

. S i nc e Bu l g a r i a h a s n o e qu i v a l e ntt o R I CO, St ro i tel stvo ’ s d am ages cl ai m , and hence the fi l i ng fee, w ou ld p robab ly be low er up on con verting Stroitelstvo’s c o mpl a i n t t o c l a i ms c o g n i z ab l e u n d e r B u l g a r i a n l a w. The di st r ict c o ur t di d no t ab us e i ts di sc r et i o n in c o nc l udi ng that Bu l gar i a’ s filin g fe e, ty pica lf ora ci vi ll aw co untry, Alt m ann , 31 7 F .3d at97 2, an d d riv en in s ize on ly by St r o i t e l s t v o ’ s c o mpl a i nt, di d n o tma k e Bu l g a r i a an i n a d e q u a t e f o r u m.

B. The Bal ance ofPri vat e a nd Pu bli c I nter estFact or s I f an ad eq ua te alternat ive forum ex ists, th e d istri ct cou rt shoul d consi der whet h er a fo rum no n co nv enien s dism i ssa l woul d s er ve the pr i va te i nt er es ts o fthe pa r ti es a nd the p u b lic in te re st s of th e alte rn at iv e fo r u m s. Ka m el , 10 8 F
. 3d at 803. The S up rem e C ou rthas i denti fi ed sev er alpri vate and pu bl i c inter estf acto rs thatgui de thi s a nal ysi s: The pr i va te i nt er es t f ac to r s th ata c o ur t m ayc o nsi der incl ud e “ the r el ati ve eas e ofacc ess to so urces ofpro of; ava i l abi l i ty of c om pu l sory pr oce ss f or at te nda nc e o funwi l l i ng, an d th e co sto fo bt aini ng att e nd a nc e o fwi l l ing, witnes ses ; poss ibi l i ty ofvi ew o fpr emi se s, i fv i ew wou l d b e a p pr o pr i at e to the actio n; and al lo therprac ti calpro bl em s that m ake tr i alo fa c as e ea sy, e xpe di ti o us a nd ine xpe nsi ve. ”
. . . The pub l i c int er es t f ac to r s i nc l ude the ad m inistrative d iffi cu lti es stem m ing from cou rt conge sti on; the l oca li nter esti n havi ng l oca l i zed di spu te s dec i ded atho m e; the i nt eresti n h av i ng14 N o. 09

- 1753 the t ri alo fa dive rs i ty case i n a for um that i s a t ho m e wi ththe l aw tha t m us t g o ve r n th e ac ti o n; the avo i dance of unnecessa ryp robl em s in confl i cts of l aws o ri n the a ppl i ca ti o n o ff o r eign law ; a nd the unfai rnes s o fburdeni ng ci ti zens i n an unre l ate d f or um with j ury du ty. Cle r ides , 53 4 F
. 3d at 628 ( ci ting G ulf O il C o rp. v. G ilbert, 330 U
. S. 501, 508-09 (1947 ))

. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtac te d w e l l w ith inits d isc re tio n in concl ud i ng thatthe re l evantpri vate and publi c inter est f acto rs f avo re d di sm i ssa l

. A s forthe pri vate i nter est f ac to r s, the c o ur t det er m i ne d tha t th e wi tn es se s an d d oc u m e n t s p er ta in in g t o th e loa n co n tr ac t a re loc at ed in B u lga ria
. It follo w s th at m os t of th e d isc ov er y i n t h is ca se w i l lta k e pl ac e i n Bul g ar i a, and t r an spo r tinga l lo fthe evi dence and w i tness es to C hi cago would be unnecessa rily e x p en siv e. Se eU
. S. O
. Corp. v. M izuho Hol di ng Co. , 54 7 F. 3d 749, 75 1 ( 7t h Ci r. 20 08) ( describi ng the burden o f d ra gg in g w itn es se s a n d d oc u m en ts from Jap an to C h ic ag o); C lerides , 5 34 F
. 3d at6 29 ( noti ngtha t m o sto fthe evi dence and w itn es ses were l oca ted i n the f or ei gn f o r um )

. Tr an sl at i ng al l o f th e Bul g ar i an di sc o ve r y d ocum ents i nto En gl i sh f ora U .S. co urt w oul d al so be c ost l y. Se eU
. S. O
. Corp. , 547 F. 3d at 751 ( citin g th e un ne cess ary tr ansl ati on co sts thatwould r esul t fro m tr yi ng the case in C hicag o rathe r than i n Jap an ). Regar ding the publ i c inter estf acto rs , the dist ri ct cour t found that co urt conge sti on was es sentiall y a w ash ; the 3 0- m o nth a ve r ag e ti m e to t r i ali n the Nor thern D istri ct of I ll ino is i s com p arable to the tw o to three yearsN o. 09

- 1753 15 th at Stroitelstvo’s com p lai nt all eged i t w ou ld take to try a ca se aga i nst the Bank in Bulga ri an co urt. M or e s tr on glyf avo ring di sm i ssa li s the l oca li nter est f acto r. The N or ther n Dis tr i ct o fI l l i noi s has l i ttl e inter est i n the Bu l gar i an l oan contr act at the he ar t ofthi s di spu te. T he A m er i can defendant, BA EF, i s a per i pheral pla y e rwh o di dn ’ te v e n k no w ab o utthe u nd e r l y i ngl o an tr ansact i on p rior to S tr oi tel stvo ’ s l aw sui t. S i nce thi s l oan i s s o u nr e l a t e d t o the l o c a lf o r um, c a l l i ngCh i c a g o - ar ea ci ti zens f or j ury du ty on thi s case w oul d b e as kin g a l ot. See id

. at 755 ( “[ T]o burden Am ericans w i th j ury du ty to r es o l ve a n int r amur alJ apa ne se di spu te woul d b e g r atuitous.”). S t r o i t e l s t v o po i nt s o uttha tBAE F r e c e i v e s fe de r a lfun ds und erthe Support f or East Euro pean Dem ocr acy ( “SEED ”) Act, 2 2 U. S

. C. § § 54 01

- 95 , whi ch i t us es t o s uppo r t th e B an k’s activities. A ccord ing to Stroitel stvo, U
. S. taxp ayers have a n i nt e r e s ti n e ns ur i ngtha tBAE F u s e s i ts S EE D A ctfundi ngf o rthe pr o perpur po se o fpr o m o ting entr eprene urshi p i n Bulga ri a, notf orthe i m proper pur po se o fe xt o r tingBul g ar i anb us i ne ss es . Pe r ha ps, b ut w e thi nk that Bu l gar i a has an equal i f n ot gre ate r i n t e r e s ti n g u a r d i n ga g a i n s tth e e x t o r t i o n o fi t s o wn b u sin es se s. Se eAba d, 56 3 F .3d at66 8 ( obs er vi ng no re al “nati onali nter est ” in ei therr egul ating Am eri can co m panies or res olvi ng the tort claim s of A rgen tine citizens); C l e rides , 53 4 F
. 3d at 630 ( fi nd ing tha t the U

. S. i nter estin re gul ating a dom est i c ai rl i ne co m pany w as m atched by the inter est s o fGree ce a nd Cyprus in re gul ating the use of al leged ly d efective p lanes w ithin th eir bord ers).16 N o. 09

- 1753 T he ap p li cation of forei g n law also sli gh tly f avors dism i ssa lto Bulg ar i a. The l oan contr act has a Bulg ar ian ch o i ce - o f

- l aw pro vi si o n, a nd the Bul g ar i anOb l i g at i o ns and C ontr acts A ct woul d gove rn a t l east on e of St ro i tel stvo ’ s cl ai m s i f the case w er e tr i ed i n th e U ni ted St at es . Se eAba d, 56 3 F .3d at 670 ( noting the superi or c o mp e t e n c e o fth e A r g e n t i n e c o u r t s t o de c i d e c l a i ms go ve rn ed by A rg en tin e la w ); U. S
. O. C o rp. , 5 47 F. 3d at 751 (“[T ]h e la w ap p lica b le t o th e is su es in t h e c as e is al m ostcer tainl y J apanese l aw , with which Am er i can j ud ges h ave li ttle f am il iari ty.”). I n sum , we agr ee w i th the di str i ct c ou rt t hat the cr ux of th is case is tw o Bu lgari an com p an ies’ d ispu te over a Bul g ar i anl o anc o nt r ac t, s o th e b al an ce o fpr i va te a nd pu bl i c inter estf acto rs f avo r re sol vi ng the case in Bulga ri a.

I I I . Concl usio n A ftercar efully c onsi deri ng Str oi tel stvo ’ s a rgum ents co nc erni ng th e ade qua cy o f th e Bul g ar i anl eg als y st em, the dist ri ct c ourtco ncl ud ed that Bu l gar i a was an a vai l abl e, adequate for u m to r eso l ve thi s di spute o vera Bu l gar i an l o anc o nt r ac t. The c o ur t th enb al an ce d a l lo fthe r el ev an t pri vate and pu bl i c inte re st f acto rs , wh i ch st ro ngl y f avo re d Bu l gar i a as the m or e co nveni ent for um . The deci si on t o di smi ss the c as e o n f or um no n c onv enien s g r o un ds w as not onl y wel lwithi n the cour t’ s di scr eti on, but al so, w e thi nk, co rr ect as a m att ero fco m m on s ense. A FFI RMED .
12- 14- 09