I. Legal developments -

1. Next Investments, LLC v. Bank of China, No. 20-602 (2d Cir. 2021) In 2013, Nike, Inc. ("Nike") and Converse Inc. ("Converse") brought a trademark infringement action under the Lanham Act against hundreds of participants in Chinese counterfeiting networks. The district court entered five prejudgment orders, a default judgment, and one postjudgment order against defendants, who never appeared in court. Each order enjoined defendants and all persons acting in concert or in participation with any of them from transferring, withdrawing or disposing of any money or other assets into or out of defendants' accounts regardless of whether such money or assets are held in the U.S. or abroad. In 2019, Nike's successor-in-interest, Next Investments (“Next”), moved to hold appellees—six nonparty Chinese banks—in contempt for failing to comply with the asset restraining orders, requesting $150 million in compensatory damages.

The District Court contempt motion, holding that the asset restraints did not apply to the Banks’ Chinese branches. The court relied on New York’s well-established “separate entity” doctrine, under which post-judgment asset freeze orders do not apply to foreign banks’ branches even if they operate a New York branch.