A US$3 billion suit against Bank Bumiputra Malaysia has been dismissed in the United States after it argued the case would be more appropriately heard in Hongkong.
The bank successfully moved to dismiss the case on the grounds of forum non conveniens, by arguing that the US was not an appropriate venue and holding up the territory as an alternative.
Judge Stanley Weigel told the US district court for Northern California that Hongkong was ''an adequate alternative forum'', although it was ''questionable whether the Hongkong court will assert jurisdiction to provide relief in respect to real property outside the forum''.
Property deals done in the US in 1983 are at the centre of the dispute.
Judge Weigel said Hongkong had a much greater local interest in resolving the suit.
Judge Weigel said Hongkong was an adequate alternative because the bank and its officers had consented to the case being held there and Hongkong law provided sufficient remedies to redress the plaintiff's alleged injuries.
He said Hongkong law recognised claims based on deceit or misrepresentation and the tort of conspiracy to injure by unlawful means and provided for damages remedies.