Articles ZEK Successfully Vacates Orders Granting 1782 Applications February 18, 2026 The Southern District of New York clarifies the limits of jurisdiction in a 1782 proceeding Zeichner Ellman & Krause LLP (“ZEK”), a full-service New York-based law firm, recently secured a favorable decision in two related 28 USC § 1782 (“1782”)[1] proceedings in the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) on behalf of its client, a French national businessman, Sylvain Gehler. ZEK attorneys who handled this matter include partners Stuart Krause and Daniel Rubel, and associate Kevin Badkhshan. Zhanel Shayakhmetova, a Kazakhstan national, was a plaintiff in a high-stakes UK lawsuit against numerous defendants, including, among others, Gehler, concerning a dispute over the control of a very large titanium and magnesium business. Shayakhmetova filed two related 1782 proceedings in the SDNY to obtain information from two large third-party banks (the “Banks”) in aid of the foreign action in the UK. The SDNY issued orders granting Shayakhmetova’s ex parte 1782 applications, allowing her to issue subpoenas on the Banks for production of various bank records and documents. ZEK was retained by Gehler and swiftly filed motions to intervene on Gehler’s behalf in the 1782 proceedings, vacate the orders, and quash the associated subpoenas. In a single decision issued on December 29, 2025, the Court granted Gehler’s motions finding that Shayakhmetova failed to demonstrate that the Banks resided or were found in the SDNY, a statutory requirement under 1782, because the SDNY lacked general or specific jurisdiction over the Banks. Regarding general jurisdiction, Shayakhmetova failed to provide any indication that the Banks’ principal place of business or incorporation was in the District. Concerning specific jurisdiction, Shayakhmetova failed to show that the information she was seeking proximately resulted from the Banks’ forum contacts or that the evidence sought would not be available but for the Banks’ forum contacts. ZEK’s executive partner and co-head of the Israel practice, Stuart Krause, explains the importance of this decision: “1782 is a very powerful tool for foreign parties to utilize and take advantage of the broad rules and framework of US discovery in order to obtain valuable evidence in aid of a foreign proceeding. The US courts are given broad discretion in deciding these applications. However, there are basic statutory elements which must be satisfied,” he adds. “Shayakhmetova failed to meet these requirements in this case,” Krause continues, “when she could not sufficiently identify the Banks’ legal presence in the District or actual involvement in any relevant activities. This decision is notable because the Court did not allow Shayakhmetova to misuse and overstep the boundaries of 1782 and impermissibly obtain US discovery for use in the UK litigation.” Daniel Rubel, a litigation partner and co-head of the Israel group, adds: “Recently, in 1782 matters, the SDNY granted 1782 applications where a petitioner made minimal showings of specific jurisdiction, which is a favorable development to creditors, and we closely monitor these trends.” “For example,” Rubel explains, “the SDNY has recently held that if an applicant can demonstrate that a third-party bank has a minimal nexus to New York, such as utilizing the Clearing House Interbank Payment System (“CHIPS”) supervised by the New York Federal Reserve, and it is likely that the third-party bank had some type of involvement in a relevant global transaction, such as converting foreign currency to dollars or processing the transactions, then specific jurisdiction may be satisfied.” Rubel notes: “In this case, we were able to successfully argue, among other things, that Shayakhmetova failed to provide sufficient details of the Banks’ actual involvement in the subject transactions, and, accordingly, failed to prove that the Banks were subject to specific jurisdiction.” For more information about ZEK and its 28 USC § 1782 practice, follow these links: ZEK 28 USC § 1782, ZEK Practice Areas, and ZEK Attorneys. [1] 1782 provides a straight-forward US legal mechanism for a party who has an interest in a foreign proceeding, such as a litigation or governmental investigation, to make an application to the US federal district courts to obtain discovery from a US person or entity, which discovery will be used in the foreign proceeding.
ZEK Successfully Vacates Orders Granting 1782 Applications February 18, 2026 The Southern District of New York clarifies the limits of jurisdiction in a 1782 proceeding Zeichner Ellman & Krause LLP (“ZEK”), a full-service New York-based law firm, recently secured a favorable decision in two related 28 USC § 1782 (“1782”)[1] proceedings in the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) on behalf of its client, a French national businessman, Sylvain Gehler. ZEK attorneys who handled this matter include partners Stuart Krause and Daniel Rubel, and associate Kevin Badkhshan. Zhanel Shayakhmetova, a Kazakhstan national, was a plaintiff in a high-stakes UK lawsuit against numerous defendants, including, among others, Gehler, concerning a dispute over the control of a very large titanium and magnesium business. Shayakhmetova filed two related 1782 proceedings in the SDNY to obtain information from two large third-party banks (the “Banks”) in aid of the foreign action in the UK. The SDNY issued orders granting Shayakhmetova’s ex parte 1782 applications, allowing her to issue subpoenas on the Banks for production of various bank records and documents. ZEK was retained by Gehler and swiftly filed motions to intervene on Gehler’s behalf in the 1782 proceedings, vacate the orders, and quash the associated subpoenas. In a single decision issued on December 29, 2025, the Court granted Gehler’s motions finding that Shayakhmetova failed to demonstrate that the Banks resided or were found in the SDNY, a statutory requirement under 1782, because the SDNY lacked general or specific jurisdiction over the Banks. Regarding general jurisdiction, Shayakhmetova failed to provide any indication that the Banks’ principal place of business or incorporation was in the District. Concerning specific jurisdiction, Shayakhmetova failed to show that the information she was seeking proximately resulted from the Banks’ forum contacts or that the evidence sought would not be available but for the Banks’ forum contacts. ZEK’s executive partner and co-head of the Israel practice, Stuart Krause, explains the importance of this decision: “1782 is a very powerful tool for foreign parties to utilize and take advantage of the broad rules and framework of US discovery in order to obtain valuable evidence in aid of a foreign proceeding. The US courts are given broad discretion in deciding these applications. However, there are basic statutory elements which must be satisfied,” he adds. “Shayakhmetova failed to meet these requirements in this case,” Krause continues, “when she could not sufficiently identify the Banks’ legal presence in the District or actual involvement in any relevant activities. This decision is notable because the Court did not allow Shayakhmetova to misuse and overstep the boundaries of 1782 and impermissibly obtain US discovery for use in the UK litigation.” Daniel Rubel, a litigation partner and co-head of the Israel group, adds: “Recently, in 1782 matters, the SDNY granted 1782 applications where a petitioner made minimal showings of specific jurisdiction, which is a favorable development to creditors, and we closely monitor these trends.” “For example,” Rubel explains, “the SDNY has recently held that if an applicant can demonstrate that a third-party bank has a minimal nexus to New York, such as utilizing the Clearing House Interbank Payment System (“CHIPS”) supervised by the New York Federal Reserve, and it is likely that the third-party bank had some type of involvement in a relevant global transaction, such as converting foreign currency to dollars or processing the transactions, then specific jurisdiction may be satisfied.” Rubel notes: “In this case, we were able to successfully argue, among other things, that Shayakhmetova failed to provide sufficient details of the Banks’ actual involvement in the subject transactions, and, accordingly, failed to prove that the Banks were subject to specific jurisdiction.” For more information about ZEK and its 28 USC § 1782 practice, follow these links: ZEK 28 USC § 1782, ZEK Practice Areas, and ZEK Attorneys. [1] 1782 provides a straight-forward US legal mechanism for a party who has an interest in a foreign proceeding, such as a litigation or governmental investigation, to make an application to the US federal district courts to obtain discovery from a US person or entity, which discovery will be used in the foreign proceeding.