Opinion ID: 602843
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Validity of Attachment Order

Text: 29 Petra Bank argues that, even if jurisdiction lies, the district court's vacatur of the attachment should be affirmed. At the time this action was commenced, A.I. Trade was not properly authorized to do business in New York under section 1312(a) of the Business Corporation Law. N.Y. Bus. Corp. Law § 1312(a) (McKinney 1992). For that reason, Petra Bank contends that A.I. Trade had no authority to commence this action, and that the attachment order was therefore void ab initio. The district court did not reach this issue, which is opened by virtue of our ruling on this appeal. 30 We have held that a state door closing statute, such as section 1312(a), may not impede a diversity action concerning interstate or foreign commerce ... brought in a federal court, In re Grand Bahama Petroleum Co. v. Asiatic Petroleum Corp., 550 F.2d 1320, 1326 (2d Cir.1977), and that an appropriate remedy for a section 1312 violation is a conditional dismissal or stay of the action pending cure of the violation. S & K Sales Co. v. Nike, Inc., 816 F.2d 843, 853 (2d Cir.1987). A.I. Trade's subsequent compliance with the statute cured--nunc pro tunc--the defect in its standing to apply for an order of attachment. On the record before us, section 1312(a) provides no basis for voiding the attachment. We do not rule on any other aspects of Petra Bank's motion to vacate the attachment, which were neither reached by the district court nor raised on appeal.