Originally Posted by
anacapamalibu
Even as a third party
HSBC USA NA has a duty of care towards the account party, breach of which
constitutes the tort of negligence.
Even if you choose a state where foreseeability is the only test
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care#United_States, HSBC USA NA can well argue that its "foreseeability" is limited to places which it is licenced to bank in the first instance, and that does not include China.
If you then try to argue foreseeability by virtue of being able to control HSBC Bank (China)'s activities, HSBC USA NA does not own HSBC Bank (China) - they are only under common control at the HSBC Holdings plc level.
Originally Posted by
anacapamalibu
To transfer a trial to a jurisdiction outside the U.S., courts shall grant the transfer only if it finds that a foreign court is “more appropriate” and that there may be a real opportunity to obtain justice there. - That's a pretty easy arguement on that one.
(Assuming HSBC Bank (China) is the only HSBC entity capable of being sued) "Opportunity to obtain justice" (dunno from who's POV) isn't the only factor a court (even a US court) will consider
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_n...#United_States
Actually a court does not transfer cases to overseas courts, it just decides it should not hear the case.