Plaintiff commenced the original action in 1999 in New York, claiming the defendant, acting in concert with the State Bank of India, pushed the plaintiffs' company into involuntary bankruptcy and took over much of its assets in the resulting auction. The court originally dismissed the case based on lack of jurisdiction. The plaintiff appealed to the Second Circuit, which reversed and remanded. In 2011, on remand, the court dismissed the case on the grounds of forum non conveniens, with the condition that the defendant submit to Indian court's jurisdiction and comply with the court order there. The plaintiff then sued in India, obtained a judgment, but the defendant refused to comply with the judgment. The plaintiff re-opened the case in New York, then petitioned for a default judgment when the defendant failed to respond.
The magistrate judge recommended denying the default judgment based on the lack of standing. Because the plaintiff could not demonstrate an injury separate from the injury to his company (which was an Indian corporation,) the court had no subject matter jurisdiction over the matter.
This claim is an adventure, and no one comes out looking good from the decision. The plaintiff relied on a tenuous argument that likely would have lost, and spent two decades litigating the matter. The court could have spotted this issue two decades ago and finished off the matter before it came to this point.