Document type: Toolkit Practice area: Litigation — International Litigation Jurisdiction: United States Last reviewed: 5 September 2026

Tool 1 — Anti-suit motion outline

MOTION FOR AN ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTION

I. Introduction. [One paragraph: what the foreign action is, why it should be restrained, and the narrow relief sought.]

II. Background. A. The parties and the agreement, including the dispute resolution clause B. Chronology — the domestic filing, the events, any adverse ruling, and the foreign filing C. The foreign action: parties, claims, relief sought, and stage

III. This Court has personal jurisdiction over [Respondent], which is what the injunction operates on. The injunction runs against the party, not the foreign court.

IV. The threshold requirements are satisfied. A. The parties are the same [or sufficiently so]. [Address any non-identity.] B. Resolution of this action will be dispositive of the foreign action. [Claim by claim: this action will decide X, Y, and Z, which are the claims asserted abroad. Address any foreign claim not covered, and explain why it is subsumed or why the amended pleading reaches it.]

V. The equities warrant an injunction. [If there is an arbitration or exclusive forum clause — lead with this:] [Respondent] agreed to resolve this dispute in [forum] and has sued elsewhere in breach. Enforcing that agreement does not offend comity; it holds a party to its bargain, and the federal policy favouring [arbitration / enforcement of forum selection clauses] is an important public policy of this forum. [Conservative circuit, no clause:] The foreign action threatens this Court's jurisdiction because [] / would evade [specific policy] because []. [Liberal circuit:] The foreign action is duplicative and vexatious in that []; it would frustrate this forum's policy of []; and the impact on comity is tolerable because [__].

VI. The ordinary injunction factors are satisfied. Likelihood of success; irreparable harm (duplicative litigation, inconsistent judgments, and the loss of the bargained-for forum are not compensable in damages); balance of equities; public interest.

VII. The relief sought is narrow. [Describe: a specific proceeding, specific conduct, a temporal limit, and carve-outs.]

Supporting materials: the agreement; the chronology exhibit; the foreign pleadings in certified translation; a declaration from foreign counsel; and the proposed order.

Annotations.

  • Section IV.B is where applications fail. Address it claim by claim and, if the domestic pleading does not reach a foreign claim, amend before moving.
  • Section V's first bracket is the strongest version of this motion. Where there is an arbitration clause or an exclusive forum clause, lead with it and frame the injunction as contract enforcement, not as a comment on the foreign court.
  • Move early. An application after the foreign action has progressed faces acquiescence and a court's reluctance to unwind months of work.

Tool 2 — Proposed order

ORDER

Upon [Movant]'s motion, and good cause appearing:

1. [Respondent], and its officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with it who receive actual notice of this Order, are ENJOINED from prosecuting, or causing to be prosecuted, the action captioned [__] pending before [the foreign court], and from commencing any other action in any forum other than this Court [or the arbitration provided for in Section [__] of the Agreement] concerning [the Dispute].

2. This Order does not enjoin [Respondent] from: (a) taking any step necessary to preserve its rights, including to prevent the expiry of any limitation period, provided it notifies this Court and [Movant] in advance; (b) complying with any order of [the foreign court] concerning the procedural conduct of that action; or (c) seeking to have that action stayed or adjourned.

3. Term. This Order remains in effect until [the entry of final judgment in this action / the tribunal renders its award / [date]], or further order of this Court.

4. [Respondent] shall, within [five] business days, file with [the foreign court] a request that the foreign action be stayed pending resolution of this action, and shall serve a copy on [Movant].

5. Bond. [Movant] shall post security in the amount of $[] [or: no bond is required because []].

6. This Court retains jurisdiction to enforce this Order.

Annotations.

  • Paragraph 1's scope is the negotiation. Ask for the least the client needs. An order restraining "any proceeding anywhere" invites the criticism that the court is arrogating global jurisdiction, and it is more likely to be narrowed on appeal.
  • Paragraph 2 is essential, and it is what makes the order defensible: the party is not being placed in contempt of the foreign court, and it may still protect a limitations position.
  • Paragraph 3's temporal limit ties the injunction to the domestic determination that justified it.
  • Paragraph 4 is worth including. An order requiring the respondent to seek a stay abroad achieves the objective more diplomatically than one requiring it simply to stop, and foreign courts respond better to a party's own application than to a foreign injunction.

Tool 3 — Foreign counsel declaration

DECLARATION OF [NAME]

1. Qualifications. I am admitted to practise in [jurisdiction], where I have practised for [] years, specializing in []. My curriculum vitae is Exhibit A.

2. Instructions. I have been instructed by [firm] to describe the [foreign] proceedings and certain aspects of [foreign] procedure. My opinions are my own and are based on my professional knowledge of [foreign] law.

3. The proceedings. On [date], [Respondent] commenced proceedings before [court]. The claims are []. The relief sought is []. Exhibit B is a certified translation of the [claim form].

4. Procedure and timetable. [Describe the procedural stage, the steps remaining, and the realistic timetable to judgment, with a basis for the estimate.]

5. Relief available. [What the foreign court can and cannot grant, including any remedy unavailable in the domestic forum.]

6. Jurisdiction and any stay. [Whether jurisdiction can be contested, by when, and whether a stay is available in favour of the domestic proceeding or an arbitration.]

7. Effect of an injunction from this Court. [Whether [foreign] law recognizes anti-suit injunctions; whether a party complying with one would be exposed to sanction in [jurisdiction]; and whether an anti-anti-suit injunction is available and likely.]

8. Recognition. [Whether a judgment of this Court would be recognized in [jurisdiction], and on what conditions.]

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Annotations.

  • Paragraph 7 is the one that matters most and is the one most often omitted. A court asked to enjoin a party will want to know what that does to the party in the foreign forum, and a movant who has not addressed it looks careless.
  • Paragraph 8 informs the race analysis and belongs in the record whichever way it cuts.
  • Paragraph 4's timetable must have a basis. "Approximately two years" without explanation is not evidence.

Tool 4 — Motion for a discretionary stay

MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

I. Relief sought. A stay of this action [in whole / as to Claims [] / as to discovery] pending [the judgment of [foreign court] / the award in the [] arbitration], with a status report to be filed on [date].

II. This Court has inherent power to stay proceedings as an incident of its power to control its docket, requiring a balance of the competing interests.

III. The foreign proceeding will resolve the issues in this action. [Issue by issue, in a table: the issue; whether the foreign court will decide it; and whether that decision would be given preclusive effect here.]

IV. The foreign proceeding is substantially further advanced. [Chronology, supported by the foreign counsel declaration.]

V. The foreign forum applies the governing law [and involves parties not before this Court].

VI. A stay avoids substantial prejudice. Duplicative discovery of the same documents and witnesses; the risk of inconsistent findings; the burden on witnesses required to testify twice; and the cost, estimated at $[__].

VII. A stay causes no material prejudice to [the non-movant]. [Address: limitations tolling; the availability of the foreign forum; the proposed review date.]

VIII. Alternative relief. If a full stay is not granted, [Movant] requests a stay of [discovery / Claims [__]] until [milestone].

Annotations.

  • This motion asks for less than an injunction and is granted more often. It does not accuse the other side of anything, does not raise comity objections, does not require the dispositive threshold, and does not invite a counter-injunction. Where the objective is simply not to litigate twice, start here.
  • Section III's table is the substance. A court staying an action wants to know exactly what the foreign proceeding will resolve.
  • Section VIII matters. A court unwilling to stop entirely will frequently pause partially, and an alternative request gets that outcome rather than a denial.

Tool 5 — Comity analysis memorandum

MEMORANDUM — Comity analysis, [matter]

1. The competing interests. This forum's interests: [the parties' agreement; the governing law; the location of the conduct; the domestic policy at stake]. The foreign forum's interests: [the conduct there; the parties' establishment; its statute; any mandatory local protections].

2. What is actually at stake in each proceeding. [Claims, remedies, and what each forum can grant that the other cannot.]

3. The nature of the interference. Does the proposed relief restrain a party or purport to affect the foreign court? Does it prevent the foreign court from deciding a question only it can decide? Does it enforce an agreement, or override a legitimate exercise of foreign jurisdiction?

4. The circuit's approach. [Conservative: is there a threat to jurisdiction or an identified important public policy? Liberal: how do the equities weigh?]

5. Reciprocity and escalation. Would the foreign court grant equivalent relief? Is anti-anti-suit relief available there, and likely? What would that mean for the client's people and assets?

6. Alternatives, and whether they achieve the objective. Motion to compel; stay; forum non conveniens; racing; settlement.

7. Recommendation, with the residual risks stated.

Annotation. Section 5 is the section clients most need and most rarely receive. A client that obtains an injunction and then faces contradictory orders will ask why it was not warned, and this memorandum is the answer — provided it was written before the motion, not after.

Tool 6 — Coordination protocol

PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS COORDINATION PROTOCOL — [Matter]

1. Coordinating lead. [Name, firm, jurisdiction] is responsible for the global strategy, for consistency across forums, and for reporting to the client.

2. Forum counsel. [Firm A] conducts [Forum A]; [Firm B] conducts [Forum B]. Each advises on its own forum and does not take a position on the merits without the coordinating lead's agreement.

3. Decision authority. The client decides. The coordinating lead recommends. Forum counsel advise on their forum. No filing is made without the coordinating lead's approval.

4. Filings. Every proposed filing in either forum is circulated to the coordinating lead and to counsel in the other forum, in English, not less than [five] business days before filing, except where an emergency requires otherwise, in which case it is circulated as soon as practicable.

5. The position paper. The coordinating lead maintains a single statement of the client's position on the facts. No position inconsistent with it is taken in any forum. Any proposed departure is escalated.

6. Chronology. Maintained centrally and updated weekly.

7. Standing call. [Weekly / fortnightly], attended by the coordinating lead and forum counsel, covering developments, deadlines, decisions required, and settlement.

8. Documents. A single repository. Collection is performed once, to the standard of the most demanding forum, subject to the Evidence Conflict Matrix. Privilege review is conducted under both systems.

9. Witnesses. Prepared once, by [the coordinating lead's team], for both forums. No witness is interviewed or prepared by forum counsel alone.

10. Settlement. A single authority. No settlement discussion occurs in either forum without the coordinating lead's knowledge.

11. Reporting to the client. A single report, [monthly], covering both forums, the budget, and the strategic position.

Annotation. Paragraphs 4, 5, and 9 prevent the self-inflicted wound — inconsistent positions and inconsistent witness accounts, which the other side will find and which cannot be repaired. Everything else in this protocol is administration; those three are the substance.

Tool 7 — Position paper

CLIENT POSITION PAPER — [Matter] — version [__], [date] Privileged and confidential. Not to be departed from in any forum without escalation to [coordinating lead].

1. The transaction. [Neutral factual account, with dates and document references.]

2. Performance. [What each party did, when.]

3. The dispute. [What went wrong, on the client's account.]

4. The client's position on each contested fact.

Contested fact Client's position Supporting documents Where already stated

5. Positions taken to date. [Every pleading, statement, declaration, correspondence, and regulatory filing in which the client has stated a position, with the position and the forum.]

6. Known tensions. [Any statement that could be argued to be inconsistent with another, with the explanation. Identify these proactively.]

7. Positions not yet taken, and which forum will require them first.

Annotations.

  • Section 5 is the point. A statement in a German pleading will be translated and put to the client's witness in a US deposition, and counsel who did not know it existed cannot prepare for it.
  • Section 6 is the discipline that distinguishes good coordination. Identify the tensions yourself, decide the explanation, and use it consistently — rather than having the other side identify them.
  • Update this document every time a position is stated anywhere.

Tool 8 — Evidence conflict matrix

Category Forum A requires Forum B requires Foreign law restriction Privilege position Resolution
Internal emails, [country] custodians Production on request Limited disclosure Blocking statute — production for foreign proceedings prohibited — Raise with Forum A court early with foreign law evidence; seek a protocol
Personal data of EU employees Production Production Data protection — lawful basis, minimization, transfer mechanism required — Redact and pseudonymize; transfer mechanism documented
In-house counsel advice Privileged Not privileged — Divergent Withhold in A; assess whether production in B waives in A
Board minutes Production Not required — Partially privileged Produce redacted in A; do not volunteer in B
Third-party documents held in the US Section 1782 available to the opponent — — — Anticipate the application; monitor filings; prepare to move to quash

Annotations.

  • Build this before collecting anything. A collection performed without mapping the constraints creates a transfer that may itself breach data protection rules and a production that may lose privilege.
  • The in-house counsel row is the recurring problem. Advice privileged in the United States may not be in jurisdictions that do not extend privilege to employed lawyers, and producing it there may be argued to waive it here.
  • The section 1782 row should be completed for both sides. A client with US-resident adversaries has an opportunity; a client with a US presence has an exposure.

Tool 9 — Recognition opinion request

[To local counsel in the jurisdiction where the counterparty's assets are]

Re: Enforceability of a judgment / award — [matter]

We act for [client] in a dispute with [counterparty], which has assets in [jurisdiction]. Proceedings are pending in [Forum A] and [Forum B]. Before deciding whether to pursue judgment in [Forum A], we need your written opinion on the following.

1. Would a final money judgment of [Forum A] be recognized and enforceable in [jurisdiction]? On what statutory or treaty basis, or on what principle if none?

2. What is the procedure, how long does it take, and what does it cost?

3. Is there any substantive review of the merits, or is recognition largely formal?

4. On what grounds could recognition be refused? Please address specifically: jurisdiction of the rendering court as assessed by [jurisdiction]'s rules; service; public policy; punitive or multiple damages; conflict with a local judgment; and any reciprocity requirement.

5. Would the position differ for an arbitral award under the New York Convention?

6. Would a judgment of [Forum B] be recognized, and would it be given preclusive effect against our client?

7. Is pre-judgment or post-judgment attachment available, on what showing, and how quickly?

8. Are there assets we should be aware of, and any local register we should search?

Please respond in writing, with citations, within [ten] business days.

Annotation. This opinion should be obtained before deciding to race, and it frequently changes the strategy entirely — because a judgment that cannot be enforced where the assets are is not worth the cost of obtaining it, and an arbitral award frequently can be where a judgment cannot.

Tool 10 — Preventive clauses and simultaneous settlement

Preventive dispute resolution clause:

Dispute Resolution. Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, including any question regarding its existence, validity, or termination, shall be finally resolved by arbitration under the [] Rules. The seat shall be []; the language English; the number of arbitrators [__]. The emergency arbitrator provisions shall apply.

Covenant. Each party irrevocably agrees not to commence or prosecute any proceeding concerning any Dispute in any court or other forum, and acknowledges that damages would be an inadequate remedy for breach of this Section and that injunctive relief is appropriate.

No anti-suit. Neither party shall seek, in any forum, any order restraining the other from commencing, prosecuting, or enforcing any proceeding permitted by this Section, or from seeking or enforcing any relief in the arbitration or before the courts of the seat.

Interim relief preserved. Either party may seek interim or conservatory relief from any court of competent jurisdiction, and such application shall not be inconsistent with this Section or a waiver of the right to arbitrate.

Service. Each party irrevocably appoints [agent] as its agent for service of process in [jurisdiction].

Simultaneous settlement mechanics:

1. Conditions. This Settlement is conditional on, and shall take effect simultaneously upon: (a) payment of the Settlement Sum; (b) filing of the Notice of Discontinuance in [Forum A]; and (c) filing of the [equivalent] in [Forum B].

2. Escrow. The parties shall deposit with [escrow agent], in advance: the executed discontinuance documents for each forum; the executed releases; and the applications to discharge [the injunction / the attachment / the arrest]. The escrow agent shall release all documents simultaneously upon confirmation of payment.

3. Interim relief. Each party shall, within [three] business days of release, apply to discharge every interim order it has obtained and to release every bond and security.

4. Releases. Mutual, covering all claims in both proceedings and all claims that could have been brought arising from [the subject matter], excluding claims for breach of this Settlement and claims of fraud.

5. Costs. Each party bears its own costs in each forum; any costs orders are vacated by consent.

6. This Settlement is governed by [law] and any dispute concerning it shall be resolved by arbitration under Section [__] — a single forum, so that a dispute about the settlement does not restart parallel litigation.

7. Confirmation. Within [thirty] days, each party shall confirm in writing that each proceeding is closed of record.

Annotations.

  • The simultaneous escrow in paragraph 2 solves the sequencing problem: neither party discontinues first and remains exposed in the other forum.
  • Paragraph 3 is routinely forgotten, and an attachment or arrest left in place after settlement causes a second dispute.
  • Paragraph 6 is essential. A settlement of parallel proceedings that itself has no agreed forum invites the parties to start again in two courts.
  • Paragraph 7's confirmation step matters, because dockets do not always reflect what the parties intended and a proceeding believed closed can resurface.

Related documents