source: Bankruptcy Decisions, January 18, 2005

Dan Harris, International law attorney with Harris Moure PLLC in Seattle who has handled similar cases involving the Russian government, says that he wouldn't be surprised if Yukos stayed in Houston. Harris says he's noticed that U.S. courts are increasingly willing to accept jurisdiction over what were previously viewed as foreign matters. As a result, he says, "more and more, the U.S. is being viewed as the international court to the world."

That's driven partly by judges' willingness to accept the cases, but also by foreign clients' eagerness to file their cases in U.S. courts. His clients, particularly those in Russia, view the federal U.S. courts as incorruptible, and the U.S. court system as effective and therefore they will go to great lengths to justify a U.S. filing.

But U.S. judges aren't simply hijacking any foreign case that lands in their courts, Harris says. There has to be something in it for them. With the increase in multi-national corporations, courts are most often asserting jurisdiction when they feel the issue is of relevance to their citizens. In fact, Yukos' attorneys argue that that's a big reason why the bankruptcy court should keep the case in the states-to protect American Yukos investors who may be adversely affected by the Russian government's actions.

It's Yukos' eagerness to file here and the judge's willingness to let them file here, combined with the high profile and political nature of the case that has pulled a veil over the real issue of whether Yukos' case should be here, some say.