Batchelder v. Kawamoto Appellees' Brief - Greines, Martin, Stein ...

4. Did the trial court act within its discretion in dismissing the case
under the doctrines of forum non conveniens and international comity in light of
the following facts, among others: Japanese law governs this case; the only
properly joined defendants are all subject to the jurisdiction of the Japanese
courts; much of the evidence and all of the applicable law is written in
Japanese; Japanese law mandates that the Tokyo District Court has exclusive
jurisdiction of the matter; and the shareholder base of Honda Japan is
overwhelmingly Japanese?
5. Since Honda Japan is exempt from Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act because it is a "foreign private issuer," did the trial court
correctly dismiss plaintifrs claim arising under that statute?
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
What's wrong with this picture?
Plaintiff, a resident of New York, and his lawyers, based in San Diego,
claim the right to prosecute a derivative suit on behalf of Honda Japan in Los
Angeles. But:
Defendant Honda Japan is a Japanese corporation.