Opinion ID: 2772783
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Adequacy of Hungary as an Alternative Forum

Text: A forum meets the adequate alternative forum requirement when the forum is both available and adequate. Kamel, 108 F.3d at 802. The availability requirement is satisfied here. An alternative forum is “available if all parties are amenable to process and are within the forum’s jurisdiction.” Id. at 803. The other parties that plaintiffs sought to hold jointly and severally liable with Erste Bank—including private Hungarian banks and the national Hungarian bank—are all located in Hungary. All should be subject to the jurisdiction of the Hungarian courts. Also, the Austrian party (Erste Bank) con34 Nos. 13-3073 & 14-1319 sented to jurisdiction of the Hungarian courts. EA 171–72 (declaration of Erste Bank’s chief legal officer). With all parties subject to jurisdiction in Hungary, it counts as an available forum. See Stroitelstvo Bulgaria Ltd. v. Bulgarian-American Enterprise Fund, 589 F.3d 417, 421 (7th Cir. 2009). As shown by our discussion of the domestic exhaustion issue above, the adequacy of Hungary as a forum for these claims is hotly disputed. An “alternative forum is adequate when the parties will not be deprived of all remedies or treated unfairly.” Kamel, 108 F.3d at 803. Because jurisdiction would otherwise be appropriate in the foreign forum, it is not enough to say that the transfer will “lead to a change in applicable law unfavorable to the plaintiff.” In re Factor VIII or IX Concentrate, 484 F.3d at 956, citing Piper, 454 U.S. at 247, 254. Rather, only if “‘the remedy provided by the alternative forum is so clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory that it is no remedy at all’ should the unfavorable change be given substantial—or even dispositive—weight.” Id., quoting Piper, 454 U.S. at 254. For the reasons stated above on the exhaustion issue, the district court correctly determined that the remedies provided by Hungary would not be so clearly inadequate so as to provide no remedy at all. To be sure, the burden of proof differs between the two inquiries. In the exhaustion analysis, it was up to plaintiffs to point to a legally compelling reason that the remedies might be inadequate. Here, by contrast, the burden ultimately falls on defendants to establish that the remedies are adequate. Sinochem, 549 U.S. at 430 (“A defendant invoking forum non conveniens ordinarily bears a heavy burden in opposing the plaintiff’s chosen forum.”); 14D Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Jurisdiction Nos. 13-3073 & 14-1319 35 § 3828.3 (4th ed.). Thus, it would be at least theoretically possible for a district court to find that neither side had met its burden of persuasion on the adequacy of remedies in the other forum. That theoretical possibility is not a problem on this record. Between the briefing in support of domestic exhaustion and the briefing in support of the forum non conveniens motion, Erste Bank—along with its co-defendants—presented the evidence needed to determine the adequacy of Hungary’s remedies. The district court had before it a list of the available remedies, plaintiffs’ concerns with bringing suit in Hungary, and expert testimony from both sides on whether those concerns were enough to render the forum inadequate. The court did not err by finding that “there is no evidence that the Hungarian courts do not offer an adequate alternative forum for the claims brought against Erste.” Starting from that baseline, we address plaintiffs’ remaining contentions that the adequacy of Hungarian remedies was not established. As discussed above, plaintiffs’ arguments relating to the lack of a class action procedure and the safety concerns posed by anti-Semitism are not enough to defeat adequacy. Plaintiffs also suggest that a “loser pays” fee-shifting mechanism renders any possible relief too burdensome. But that approach to attorney fees is common throughout the world. In re Factor VIII or IX Concentrate, 484 F.3d at 958 (noting that the “United States stands almost alone in its approach toward attorneys’ fees”); see also Piper, 454 U.S. at 252 n.18. That it might be more expensive for plaintiffs to litigate in the alternative forum is not a sufficient reason, standing alone, to find that forum inadequate. See In re Fac36 Nos. 13-3073 & 14-1319 tor VIII or IX Concentrate, 484 F.3d at 958; Stroitelstvo, 589 F.3d at 424 (holding that financial hardship caused by additional filing fees did not render alternative forum inadequate). We have rejected this particular difference in forum rules as a reason to find that a forum non convenience dismissal was inappropriate. In re Factor VIII or IX Concentrate, 484 F.3d at 958. The district court properly concluded there was an adequate alternative forum.