Source: https://casetext.com/brief/16c45522-motorola-credit-corporation-appellant-respondent-nokia-corporation-plaintiff-counter-defendant-motorola-inc-et-al-counter-defendantsvstandard-chartered-bank-respondent-appellant-murat-hakan-uzan-et-al-defendants-counter-claimants-kemal-uzan--4
Timestamp: 2020-04-02 22:35:39
Document Index: 777269574

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 441', '§ 441', '§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 9']

CTQ-2014-00001 Court of Appeals of the State of New York MOTOROLA CREDIT CORPORATION, Appellant-Respondent, – against – STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, Respondent-Appellant. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– On Question Certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (USCOA Docket Nos. 13-2535-cv(L) and 13-2639-cv(con)) BRIEF OF CENTRAL BANK OF JORDAN AS AMICUS CURIAE LEE A. ARMSTRONG SEVAN OGULLUK LEE M. POLLACK JONES DAY 222 East 41st Street New York, New York 10017 Tel.: (212) 326-3939 Fax: (212) 755-7306 Attorneys for Amicus Curiae July 24, 2014 -i - TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED ............................................................................................................ 1 INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE ....................................................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................... 3 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................. 5 I. THE SEPARATE ENTITY RULE RESPECTS THE SOVEREIGNTY OF NATIONS AND THEIR CITIZENS ............................................................... 5 A. The Separate Entity Rule Respects National Sovereignty and Preserves the Comity Based System of International Judgment Enforcement ............................................................................................... 5 B. The Separate Entity Rule Protects the Rights of Individuals and Institutions Outside New York .................................................................. 8 C. Without the Separate Entity Rule, Violations of Sovereignty and Individual Rights Will Not Only Occur, but Will Become More Frequent ................................................................................................... 10 II. THE SEPARATE ENTITY RULE DOES NOT UNDULY BURDEN THE PROCESS OF INTERNATIONAL JUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT ....... 11 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 15 -ii - TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES CIBC Mellon Trust Co. v. Mora Hotel Corp. N.V., 100 N.Y.2d 215 (2003) ......... 13 Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 16 S. Ct. 139 (1895) ................................................ 7 Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 740 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2014) .........................................1 STATUTES CPLR 5222 ................................................................................................................. 5 CPLR 5301 ............................................................................................................... 13 CPLR 5302 ............................................................................................................... 13 CPLR 5303 ............................................................................................................... 13 CPLR 5304 ................................................................................................................. 9 Foreign Judgments Law No. (8) of 1952 (Jordan) .................................................. 12 OTHER AUTHORITIES 1 Husam Hourani and Luma Saqqaf, Business Laws of Jordan (1998 ed.) ............ 12 F. A. Mann, The Doctrine of International Jurisdiction Revisited after Twenty Years, Recueil des Cours, Vol. 186 (1984) .......................................................... 6 Report of the Judicial Conference of the State of New York to the 1969 Legislature, Leg. Doc. (1970) No. 90, at A-99–A-102 ...................................... 13 Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 441.2 ..... 6 Sir Robert Jennings and Sir Arthur Watts, Oppenheim’s International Law (9th ed. 1996) ........................................................................................................ 6 -1- QUESTION PRESENTED Pursuant to Local Rule 27.2 of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (“Second Circuit”) and Rule 500.27(a) of this Court, the Second Circuit certified the following question to this Court: [W]hether the separate entity rule precludes a judgment creditor from ordering a garnishee bank operating branches in New York to restrain a debtor’s assets held in foreign branches of the bank? Amicus Curiae Central Bank of Jordan encourages this Court to answer the certified question in the affirmative. INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE The Central Bank of Jordan (the “Central Bank”) is the primary banking regulator for the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.1 In that capacity, the Central Bank oversees 16 domestic Jordanian banks, as well as 9 foreign banks with operations in Jordan. As of the end of 2013, the banks licensed and regulated by the Central Bank had collective assets of over JOD 42 billion (over USD 59 billion at current exchange rates). 1 Appellant-Respondent Motorola Credit Corporation has cast aspersions on the Kingdom of Jordan, suggesting for example that the Kingdom is “a country known to harbor and protect the Uzans.” Brief for Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant-Cross Appellee, p. 46, Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan, 740 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2014) (No. 13-2535-cv). The Kingdom of Jordan is a sovereign constitutional monarchy that has been a longtime ally of the United States, and Motorola has provided no support for these aspersions. -2- The Central Bank learned of this litigation when Respondent-Appellant Standard Chartered Bank (“Standard Chartered”)—contrary to Jordanian law— refused to honor $30 million in interbank deposits owed to one of the banks the Central Bank regulates, Jordan Dubai Islamic Bank (“JDIB”). Standard Chartered’s attempt to dishonor its obligations to JDIB in the Middle East was based on the New York restraining order at issue in this litigation. No action had been taken to domesticate that order in Jordan, even though there are simple procedures to do so. The Central Bank offers this brief to highlight the international consequences that would flow from disregarding the separate entity rule and allowing boundless enforcement of orders in cases like this. While JDIB eventually received its property, the Central Bank has grave concerns about the ramifications of treating as one all bank branches, wherever located and regardless of conflicting local laws and regulations. At the very least, a single entity rule would inject tension into the relationship between local banks and their international counterparties, as happened here. See Br. of Appellant-Respondent Standard Chartered at 9-12. At its very worst, it would render international banks with any connection to New York reluctant to partner with local financial institutions, and vice versa. -3- SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The separate entity rule is crucial to protecting international comity and to preserving the properly limited role of New York courts and litigants in regulating the worldwide conduct of banks located elsewhere. Banks that operate internationally are subject to regulation in every nation in which they operate, and the separate entity rule helps to avoid crippling conflicts among those multiple regulatory spheres. Ordinarily, the mere location of a bank branch in a jurisdiction does not give that jurisdiction authority to control the bank’s operations in other locations. If it did confer such authority, conflicting obligations would proliferate, and banks would be pressured to avoid locating branches in jurisdictions (whether New York, Jordan, or elsewhere) that might make them subject to such conflicts. Absent the separate entity rule, an international restraining order served on a bank branch in New York could, and often would, effectively obligate that bank to violate the laws of the other countries in which it operates—with New York basing this expansive exercise of authority on the location of a single branch in New York State. Principles of international comity require that judgment enforcement be harmonized with the legal systems and public policies of the places in which the sought-after assets are located. Without the separate entity rule, litigants would routinely be able to use the New York courts to issue orders that disregard the regulatory regimes and sovereignty of foreign nations. Such enforcement -4- ultimately would erode the mutual respect and comity that makes international judgment enforcement possible. Absent the separate entity rule, banks will have an incentive to reduce their exposure to such untenable conflicts. Some will choose to forgo opening branches in New York. Others will shy away from business in other jurisdictions, for fear of conflicting regimes that pose the threat of double jeopardy. Both results would disserve consumers, financial institutions and the nations’ respective economies. A judgment creditor, such as Motorola Credit Corporation (“Motorola”) here, is not without international enforcement options despite the separate entity rule. Most sovereign jurisdictions, Jordan and New York included, have well-developed and simple procedures for domesticating foreign orders. In fact, the Jordanian foreign judgment recognition process is very similar to the CPLR Article 53 process for recognition of foreign money judgments in New York. New York judgment creditors seeking enforcement in Jordan are at no disadvantage compared to judgment creditors from Jordan, or anywhere else in the world, seeking enforcement in New York. Thus the separate entity rule does not place an unfair or unreasonable burden on judgment creditors, especially compared with the difficulties that abolishing the rule would impose on governments, banks and national economies. -5- ARGUMENT I. THE SEPARATE ENTITY RULE RESPECTS THE SOVEREIGNTY OF NATIONS AND THEIR CITIZENS A. The Separate Entity Rule Respects National Sovereignty and Preserves the Comity Based System of International Judgment Enforcement The separate entity rule prevents courts from inadvertently violating the sovereignty of foreign nations. An international restraining order, unfettered by the separate entity rule, often amounts to a demand, issued by a New York court, that a bank violate (or at least try to violate) the laws of one or more foreign nations where that bank also operates. Banking is a highly regulated industry in the Kingdom of Jordan, as it is in many nations. Governments craft safeguards (i.e., exposure limits, investment restrictions, audits) to ensure that banks preserve the assets that their customers deposit, and are able to return those assets to customers in accordance with agreed- upon relationship terms. The judgment enforcement mechanisms under New York law, set out in Article 52 of the CPLR, override New York banking regulations and require banks to withhold funds they would otherwise be required to return. When a restraining order under CPLR 5222 is issued to a garnishee bank, that garnishee is prohibited from returning assets belonging to its judgment debtor customer. This exception arises from a legislative compromise; New York law allows its judicial officers, on -6- a proper finding, to interfere with the New York regulations that control the bank- customer relationship for the potential benefit of a judgment creditor. Applied internationally and without the protections afforded by the separate entity rule, however, this compromise tramples the sovereignty of any nation where such an order is applied. Without the separate entity rule, a New York judicial officer would be able to issue an order requiring a bank to withhold funds deposited in another country by a resident of that country. Such an order interferes not with New York’s regulations regarding the bank-customer relationship, but with the regulations of that other country. In essence, the New York order commands the bank to withhold funds that local law likely requires be returned. Orders of this type run contrary to the well-established principle of international law that “a state may not require a person … to do an act in another state that is prohibited by the law of that state.” Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 441.2.2 2 See also F. A. Mann, The Doctrine of International Jurisdiction Revisited after Twenty Years, Recueil des Cours, Vol. 186 at 45 (1984), (“[A]s a matter of international law derived from the practice of States and general principles of law, no State is in general entitled to require the commission of a criminal offence or an illegality within the territory of another State.”); Sir Robert Jennings and Sir Arthur Watts, Oppenheim’s International Law at 477 (9th ed. 1996) (“Even where a court has undoubted jurisdiction over a foreign defendant, . . . its orders to the defendant to pursue a certain course of conduct in a foreign state or to produce documents held there may be open to challenge if they involve an infringement of the foreign state’s jurisdictional sovereignty, including a breach of its criminal laws relating to conduct on its territory.”). -7- In addition, while many nations implement banking regulations that strike a balance between the rights of bank customers and judgment creditors, these regulations are not uniform. Every nation implements its banking regulations and consumer protections in a way that reflects the sovereign priorities and processes of that nation. There is no reason to believe that the analysis undertaken as part of issuing a New York restraining order would be the same as the analysis undertaken when seeking the same outcome in another nation. To strike a balance among competing constituencies and interests, the law of many jurisdictions provides formal mechanisms for domesticating and enforcing foreign judgments and orders. Both New York and Jordan have enacted such laws, the workings of which are discussed in Section II infra. The cornerstone of all of these mechanisms is the principle of international comity, under which nations respect foreign judgments, when properly presented for domestication, so that the judgments of the recognizing nation will, in turn, be recognized abroad. See Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 166, 16 S. Ct. 139, 144 (1895) (“The general comity, utility and convenience of nations have, however, established a usage among most civilized States, by which the final judgments of foreign courts of competent jurisdiction are reciprocally carried into execution, under certain regulations and restrictions, which differ in different countries.”) (emphasis added). -8- The balance of international judgment enforcement is regulated by these core comity principles—reciprocity and deference to local authority. The separate entity rule is an integral part of this comity based system. It allows New York judgment enforcement mechanisms to have full force within New York, but prevents overreaching, so as to allow the execution of judgments on foreign assets to be handled by the legal processes in those foreign countries. The rule’s abolition inevitably would lead to the application of New York orders in ways that offend the sovereignty of other nations, which would undermine the mutual respect that supports the comity based system of international judgment recognition. B. The Separate Entity Rule Protects the Rights of Individuals and Institutions Outside New York The separate entity rule also provides important protection for the rights of individuals located outside of New York. Just as nations implement their own banking regulations based on national values, policies and legal structures, nations also promise citizens different sets of essential rights and legal protections. To ensure that these rights and protections are respected, the international judgment enforcement process in many jurisdictions requires a review to make sure that both -9- the judgment’s content and the manner in which it was rendered do not violate the public policies of the enforcing nation.3 As the facts underlying this appeal make clear, without the separate entity rule, a person with no contact to New York whatsoever can have his or her assets seized globally without any judicial body ever considering whether such a seizure is appropriate where implemented. JDIB is a duly incorporated Jordanian bank, traded on the Amman Stock Exchange, and regulated by, among others, the Central Bank. It has no operations in New York or anywhere else in the United States. The specific JDIB funds at issue were held with a branch of Standard Chartered in the United Arab Emirates. Despite the lack of any connection between New York and either the funds being restrained or JDIB, the trial court in this case restrained all funds belonging to JDIB, among others. Once that order was served on a New York branch of Standard Chartered, Standard Chartered restrained JDIB’s funds in the United Arab Emirates, in violation of Jordanian and Emirati law. As outlined in greater detail in the briefs of the parties, the Emirati Central Bank and the Central Bank of Jordan were obliged to take action to protect the integrity of their laws and the rights of businesses operating within their borders. 3 For example, New York allows its courts to reject foreign judgments not only where “the cause of action on which the judgment is based is repugnant to the public policy of this state” (CPLR 5304(b)(4)), but also specifically bars recognition of foreign defamation judgments that violate the core public policy of this State in favor of free speech. CPLR 5304(b)(8). -10- Had the separate entity rule been applied, as it should have been, the New York restraining order would still have taken effect—any JDIB assets located in New York would have been restrained. Importantly, however, in order to restrain funds in Jordan or the United Arab Emirates, Motorola would have needed to domesticate its New York judgment in those nations. At that time a Jordanian or Emirati court would have undertaken the analysis, essential for the protection of people and assets in those sovereign nations, as to whether the judgment could be enforced in those countries in light of local laws, regulations, and public policies. The fall of the separate entity rule could also significantly jeopardize the economies of many nations that rely on transacting business with international companies and banks. Without the protection afforded by the rule, counterparties, understandably, may fear the potential double liability that Standard Chartered faces here. Without a framework to reconcile conflicts and provide respect for other sovereigns, Standard Chartered and others may eschew business with local banking institutions. C. Without the Separate Entity Rule, Violations of Sovereignty and Individual Rights Will Not Only Occur, but Will Become More Frequent Violations of foreign sovereignty are likely to occur much more often if the separate entity rule falls. New York is a world financial hub, and most major international financial institutions have a presence in the state. Abolishing the -11- separate entity rule would effectively extend the reach of New York’s judgment enforcement power to touch any asset, held in any branch, of any institution, anywhere in the world, so long as that institution had a minimal New York jurisdictional contact. New York would become a worldwide judgment enforcement clearinghouse and every judgment creditor would have an incentive to come to New York to seek enforcement, regardless of whether the creditor, debtor, judgment or assets at issue bore any relationship to New York. This would not only burden the courts of this state, but dramatically increase the frequency with which orders will issue directing enforcement against assets held abroad, amplifying all of the negative repercussions addressed above. II. THE SEPARATE ENTITY RULE DOES NOT UNDULY BURDEN THE PROCESS OF INTERNATIONAL JUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT The international judgment enforcement scheme outlined above, which relies on the separate entity rule, does not unduly burden judgment creditors. As noted above, most jurisdictions, Jordan and New York included, have formal statutory processes that allow foreign judgment creditors to domesticate their judgments. Once a judgment has been domesticated in a particular jurisdiction, all of the enforcement devices available to local judgment creditors become available, including restraint and seizure mechanisms as appropriate. -12- In Jordan, the process for domesticating foreign judgments is codified as the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law No. (8) of 1952 (Jordan) (the “Jordanian Recognition Law”).4 Under this law, any foreign judgment that calls for payment of money or transfer of movable property may be brought to the courts of Jordan for recognition. Id. at § 2. The recognition process merely requires the judgment creditor to bring an application in a Court of First Instance in Jordan, attaching a certified copy of the foreign judgment. Id. at §§ 3, 6. A court may refuse such an application for only two reasons. First, the court may refuse the application where the judgment is flawed in some way, such as if rendered without jurisdiction, obtained by fraud, not final, or contrary to Jordanian public order or morality. Id. at § 7(1). Second, an application for recognition may be denied where the judgment was issued from a country that does not allow for the recognition of Jordanian judgments. Id. at § 7(2). Once the application for Jordanian recognition has been granted, the foreign judgment can be executed in Jordan in the same manner as a judgment initially issued by a court in Jordan. Id. at § 9. This procedure closely tracks the New York enactment for the Recognition of Foreign Country Money Judgments, CPLR Article 53.5 Any foreign money 4 An English translation of this law is published in 1 Husam Hourani and Luma Saqqaf, Business Laws of Jordan, EFJ Law No. 8 (1998 ed.), and is attached hereto as Appendix A. 5 This similarity is unsurprising. The legislative history of CPLR Article 53 makes clear that the law was written so as to provide a statutory framework for the domestication of judgments in New York that would be recognizable to foreign, particularly civil law, -13- judgment may be brought to a New York court for recognition by, among other things, filing an action. CPLR 5301, 5303. The New York court may decline to recognize a foreign judgment only if it is flawed in some way: if it was rendered without jurisdiction, was obtained by fraud, is not final, or is repugnant to the public policy of New York State. CPLR 5302, 5304. Once a judgment has been recognized it is “convert[ed] into a New York judgment” and can be enforced as such. CIBC Mellon Trust Co. v. Mora Hotel Corp. N.V., 100 N.Y.2d 215, 222 (2003). The substantial similarity between the New York and Jordanian procedures for recognizing foreign judgments and making them locally enforceable undermines any claim that the procedure for domesticating a New York judgment in Jordan is improperly burdensome. It is unquestionably fair to ask New York judgment creditors seeking enforcement in Jordan to take the same steps that would be required of a Jordanian judgment creditor seeking enforcement in New York. While every jurisdiction will have its own particular approach to the judgment recognition process, because international judgment enforcement ultimately flows from mutual respect and comity, there is a strong incentive for nations to implement processes that allow for liberal enforcement of incoming (continued…) jurisdictions which had trouble accepting decisional law as evidence that New York provided reciprocal recognition of judgments. See Report of the Judicial Conference of the State of New York to the 1969 Legislature, Leg. Doc. (1970) No. 90, at A-99–A-102. -14- judgments, within the limits of national policies and fundamental fairness, so as to obtain reciprocal treatment of outgoing judgments. As a result, the benefit that would accrue to judgment creditors from abolishing the separate entity rule, namely the ability to circumvent this relatively simple process, cannot be compared with the problems, outlined above, that would result for governments, for banks and ultimately for national economies, if the separate entity rule were to be overturned. CONCLUSION The Central Bank of Jordan strongly believes that the separate entity rule provides an important mechanism for ensuring that New York court orders respect the sovereignty of nations and the rights of individuals internationally. The Central Bank therefore encourages this Court to answer the certified question in the affirmative. Dated: New York, New York July 24, 2014 Respectfully submitted, Lee A. Armstrong Sevan Ogulluk Lee M. Pollack JONES DAY 222 East 41st Street New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 326-3939 Fax: (212) 755-7306 Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Central Bank of Jordan APPENDIX A ( Business Laws of Jordan -Volume I Edited and translated from Arabic into English by Husam Hourani LumaSaqqaf Series Editor: Richard Meese, Avocat a La Cour de Paris Volume I (1998 edition) KLUWER LAW .... ~~~INTERNATIONAL LONDON- THE HAGUE-BOSTON Business Laws of Jordan Suppl. 1 (May 2000) Prelims- 3 Published by Kluwer Law International P.O. Box 85889 Sold and distributed in the USA and Canada by Kluwer Law International 675 Massachusetts Avenue 2508 CN The Hague, The Netherlands Tel.: +31 70 308 1560 Cambridge, MA 02139, USA Fax: +31 70 308 1515 Sold and distributed in all other countries by Kluwer Law International Libresso Distribution Centre P.O.Box23 7400 GA Deventer, The Netherlands Tel.: +31570 647324 Fax: +31570 633834 Tel.: +1617 345 0140 Fax: +1617 354 8595 DISCLAIMER: The material in this volume is in the nature of general comment only. It is not offered as advice on any particular matter and should not be taken as such. The editors expressly disclaim all liability to any person with regard to anything done or omitted to be done, and with respect to the consequences of anything done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the contents of this volume. No reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any matter contained in this volume without first obtaining professional advice regarding the particular facts and circumstances at issue. Any and all opinions expressed herein are those of the particular author and are not necessarily those of the editor or publisher of this volume. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Saqqaf, Luma Mohammad. Business laws of Jordan I by Lorna Mohammad Saqqaf, and Husam Mohammad-Khair Hourani. p. em.- (Business laws of the Middle East: vol.l) Includes index. ISBN 9041102892 (alk. paper) 1. Commercial law-Jordan. 2. Business law-Jordan. 3. Business enterprises-Taxation-Law and legislation-Jordan. I. Hourani, Husam Mohammad-Khair. II. Title. ill. Series. KMM97.A28 1998 346.569507-dc21 98-17444 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Printed on acid-free paper ISBN 90-411-0289-2 The Volume Business Laws of Jordan is an integral part of in the Business Laws of the Middle East series © 2000 Kluwer Law International Kluwer Law International incorporates the publishing programmes of Graham & Trotman Ltd, Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers and Martinus NijhoffPublishers. This publication is protected by international copyright law. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior pennission of the publisher. Typeset by Selwood Systems, Midsomer Norton Printed and bound in The Netherlands 4-Prelims Business Laws of Jordan Suppl. 1 (May 2000) ( ( ARTS. 1-5 THE LAW OF ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS NO.SOF1952 Article 1 This Law shall be cited as 'the Law of Enforcement of Foreign Judgments', and shall come into force after thirty days from its publication in the Official Gazette have elapsed. Article 2 The phrase 'Foreign Judgment' referred to in this Law means: every judgment passed by a court outside the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (including religious courts) concerning civil procedures and entailing the payment of a sum of money, entitlement to movable property or settlement of account and also including the arbitrators' award if the award is, by force of law, capable of being enforced as a court's judgment in the country where the arbitration occurred. Article 3 A Foreign Judgment may be enforced in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan by filing an application for its enforcement before a Court of First Instance. Article 4 An application requesting the enforcement of a Foreign Judgment is filed by means of a petition to the Court of First Instance, where the judgment debtor resides within its jurisdiction or to the court which has jurisdiction over the property belonging to the judgment debtor, which he prefers to enforce the judg- ment against, if the latter does not reside in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Article 5 The Court shall notify the persons residing outside its jurisdiction according to the conditions laid down by the Court and in accordance with the Law of Civil Procedures. Business Laws of Jordan (February 1998} EFJ Law No. 8 (1952)- I ARTS. 6-9 ENFORCEMENTS OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS LAW NO.8 OF 1952 Article 6 The judgment creditor must provide the Court with a certified copy of the judg- ment, whose enforcement is requested, and a certified copy of its translation if it was not in Arabic and another copy for serving on the judgment debtor. Article 7 I. The Court may dismiss a petition requesting the enforcement of a Foreign Judgment in the following cases: (a) If the court which has passed the judgment was not the competent court; (b) If the judgment debtor has not conducted any business within the jur- isdiction of the court which rendered the judgment or if he has not been residing within its jurisdiction and has not voluntarily appeared before the Court and has not recognized it authority; (c) If the judgment debtor was not served with a notice to appear before the Court which issued the judgment and he did not appear before the Court in spite of the fact that he is residing within the jurisdiction of the Court or is conducting his business there; (d) If the judgment has been obtained by fraud; (e) If the judgment debtor proves to the Court that the judgment is not final; or (f) If the cause of action may not be heard by the Courts of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan because it is contrary to public policy or public morals. 2. The Court may also dismiss a petition requesting the enforcement of a Foreign Judgment passed by a court of any country whose laws prohibit the enforce- ment of judgments passed by the Courts of the Hashemite Kingdom ofJordan. Article 8 The provisions of the Law of Civil Procedures shall apply to the cases filed in accordance with this Law. Article 9 Judgment passed in accordance with this Law is enforceable in the same manner as those judgments passed by the Courts of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan." 2- EFJ Law No. 8 (1952) Business Laws of Jordan (February 1998)