Stop Costly Parallel Lawsuits With Lis Pendens Tools
Learn how to manage lawsuits filed in two countries at the same time using lis pendens arguments and anti-suit injunctions to cut costs, reduce risk and protect your chosen forum.
Imagine this: you start a lawsuit in Country A, only to discover that the other side has rushed to file a competing
case in Country B on the same dispute. Suddenly you are paying lawyers in two jurisdictions, facing conflicting
deadlines and worrying about inconsistent judgments. This is exactly the type of scenario where lis pendens
objections and anti-suit injunctions come into play. They are tools courts use to control parallel proceedings
and to decide which forum should actually hear the case.
Core concepts: what lis pendens and anti-suit injunctions try to solve
Lis pendens: giving priority to the first-seized court
Lis pendens literally means “a pending lawsuit.” In cross-border practice it usually refers to the idea that,
when two courts are hearing the same or closely related dispute, the court seized later should decline
jurisdiction, stay the proceedings or at least coordinate with the court first seized.
The core policy reasons are:
- Avoiding conflicting judgments on the same contract, tort or corporate dispute.
- Preventing abuse of process where one party races to a friendlier forum to gain an advantage.
- Protecting judicial efficiency by not wasting resources on duplicate litigation.
Timeline chart showing “Court A first filing → Court B later filing → lis pendens objection in Court B”.
Anti-suit injunctions: asking one court to restrain proceedings elsewhere
An anti-suit injunction is an order from a court in Country A telling a party that it cannot continue (or start)
proceedings in Country B. The injunction does not directly bind the foreign court, but it binds the parties appearing
before the issuing court, with penalties for disobedience.
These injunctions are controversial because they sit at the intersection of party autonomy and respect for foreign
courts (comity). Some legal systems use them frequently in support of arbitration agreements or exclusive jurisdiction
clauses; others are reluctant and prefer to rely purely on lis pendens rules and recognition/enforcement filters.
How courts evaluate parallel proceedings in practice
Step 1 – Are the claims and parties really parallel?
The first question is whether the two cases are sufficiently similar to justify lis pendens or an anti-suit remedy.
Courts typically look at:
- Whether the parties are identical or at least substantially the same on both sides.
- Whether the causes of action arise from the same contract, transaction or event.
- Whether the relief requested overlaps (for example, both seek damages on the same loss or declarations on the same clause).
If the overlap is partial, courts might stay only some claims or limit the scope of orders rather than shutting down
an entire foreign proceeding.
Step 2 – Which court is the natural or agreed forum?
When cases are parallel, judges ask which court is the better placed to decide the dispute. Relevant factors include:
- Existing jurisdiction or arbitration clauses designating a forum.
- The country with the closest connection to the dispute (place of performance, location of assets, governing law).
- Procedural fairness concerns, including speed, access to evidence and ability to grant effective remedies.
In some systems, the court first seized is presumptively preferred, but that presumption can be rebutted if another
forum is clearly more appropriate.
Rows = factors (forum clause, governing law, location of assets). Columns = Country A vs. Country B with checkmarks
showing the “stronger connection.”
Step 3 – Balancing comity and protection against abusive tactics
Anti-suit injunctions in particular require a careful balance. Courts commonly ask:
- Is the foreign proceeding vexatious or oppressive (for example, duplicative, designed only to harass or sabotage)?
- Is the injunction necessary to protect the court’s own jurisdiction or to give effect to a valid arbitration or
jurisdiction clause? - Will the order unduly interfere with the sovereignty of the foreign court or violate public policy?
Many decisions emphasise that anti-suit injunctions are an exceptional remedy; lis pendens, stays and the rules on
recognizing foreign judgments remain the primary tools.
Applying lis pendens and anti-suit strategies: practical examples
Example 1 – Contract dispute with an exclusive jurisdiction clause
A technology contract between a Brazilian company and a U.S. company selects the courts of New York as the exclusive
forum. When a dispute arises, the Brazilian company sues in São Paulo; the U.S. company sues in New York pursuant to
the clause.
In New York, the U.S. company may seek an anti-suit injunction to restrain proceedings in Brazil, arguing that:
- The parties freely agreed to New York jurisdiction.
- The Brazilian suit is a breach of that agreement and is therefore abusive.
- Proceeding in Brazil risks inconsistent judgments and undermines contractual certainty.
Meanwhile, in Brazil, the defendant might raise a jurisdiction objection based on the forum clause, requesting
dismissal or a stay of the local case. The interaction of those decisions will determine where the dispute ultimately
continues.
Example 2 – Parallel tort claims with no prior agreement
A major accident occurs involving parties and assets in multiple jurisdictions. Victims file suits in both Country A
and Country B, and defendants are dragged into both courts. There is no forum-selection clause.
Here, lis pendens arguments focus on:
- Which court was first seized and how far each case has progressed.
- Which forum has a stronger interest in regulating the conduct (for example, where the accident occurred).
- Whether the foreign parallel action is truly duplicative or addresses different victims, laws or damages.
An anti-suit injunction may be harder to obtain, because there is no contract to enforce and each state may feel a
legitimate interest in hearing claims related to harm within its territory.
Common mistakes when handling parallel proceedings
- Ignoring the risk of parallel litigation when drafting contracts and failing to include a clear forum clause.
- Rushing to file in multiple courts without assessing which forum is strategically strongest.
- Assuming the first court seized will always prevail, regardless of connections or fairness concerns.
- Requesting anti-suit injunctions without evidence that the foreign action is genuinely oppressive or abusive.
- Overlooking how an aggressive injunction might damage relationships with foreign courts and regulators.
- Failing to coordinate counsel across jurisdictions, leading to inconsistent arguments about forum and applicable law.
Conclusion: planning, coordination and careful use of cross-border tools
Parallel proceedings in two countries are expensive, stressful and risky. Tools like lis pendens objections and
anti-suit injunctions exist precisely to reduce that chaos, but they must be used carefully. The most effective
strategies start long before any dispute: drafting solid jurisdiction and arbitration clauses, assessing cross-border
risk and preparing a clear litigation plan.
When conflicts do break out in multiple courts, parties who act early, coordinate their legal teams and present
coherent arguments about the natural forum are far more likely to obtain stays, dismissals or targeted injunctions
that bring the fight back to one main battlefield instead of two.
Quick guide: parallel proceedings, lis pendens and anti-suit injunctions
Use this left-aligned quick guide as a checklist when you face lawsuits in two countries at the same time and need to manage forum conflicts strategically.
- 1. Map all proceedings early: list every case filed, in which court, by which party, with claim values, key dates and requested relief.
- 2. Check for jurisdiction or arbitration clauses: identify any exclusive forum clauses or arbitration agreements that may support lis pendens objections or anti-suit relief.
- 3. Assess whether the disputes are truly parallel: compare parties, causes of action and remedies to see if the cases are substantially the same or only partially overlapping.
- 4. Identify the “natural” forum: weigh connections such as governing law, place of performance, location of assets, and where evidence and witnesses are concentrated.
- 5. Consider lis pendens tools first: in the later-seized court, explore objections asking for a stay or dismissal based on prior proceedings abroad.
- 6. Reserve anti-suit injunctions for exceptional situations: only when the foreign case is clearly vexatious or in breach of a forum/arbitration clause and an injunction is needed to protect the chosen forum.
- 7. Coordinate cross-border strategy: ensure counsel in each jurisdiction share documents, align arguments on forum issues and avoid contradictory positions before different courts.
FAQ – Parallel proceedings in two countries: lis pendens and anti-suit injunctions
What does “lis pendens” mean in cross-border litigation?
In cross-border litigation, lis pendens refers to situations where two courts are handling the same or closely
related dispute at the same time. The doctrine is used to argue that the court seized later should stay, dismiss or
limit its proceedings to avoid conflicting judgments and unnecessary duplication.
How is an anti-suit injunction different from lis pendens?
A lis pendens objection asks the court itself to step back. An anti-suit injunction, by contrast, is an order
from one court telling a party not to start or continue proceedings in another jurisdiction. It does not bind the
foreign court directly, but it can penalize the party if they ignore the injunction.
When do courts usually grant anti-suit injunctions?
Many courts reserve anti-suit injunctions for exceptional circumstances, such as enforcing an exclusive
jurisdiction or arbitration clause, or stopping clearly vexatious parallel proceedings. Judges often weigh comity,
party autonomy and the need to protect their own jurisdiction before granting this remedy.
Do parallel claims need to be identical for lis pendens to apply?
Not always. Courts usually ask whether the parties, underlying events and requested relief are substantially the
same. Even if the legal labels differ, a strong overlap in facts and outcomes may be enough for a lis pendens
argument. If overlap is only partial, the court might stay or manage just those overlapping issues.
How do forum-selection clauses affect lis pendens and anti-suit analysis?
A clear forum-selection or arbitration clause is often a powerful anchor. Courts in the chosen forum may rely on it
to refuse stays and may issue anti-suit injunctions to stop foreign litigation brought in breach of the clause. Other
courts may decline jurisdiction or stay actions to respect the parties’ agreement, depending on local law.
Can parallel proceedings ever be helpful instead of harmful?
In some complex disputes, parallel proceedings might be used to secure assets in different countries or address
distinct defendants and local law issues. However, this must be handled carefully; excessive duplication can be
viewed as abusive and may backfire in costs or comity analysis.
What practical steps should parties take when they discover a second proceeding abroad?
As soon as a second case is identified, parties should gather full pleadings from both courts, analyze jurisdiction
agreements, evaluate connections to each forum, and obtain early advice on whether to pursue lis pendens objections,
stays, or anti-suit relief. Coordinated communication between legal teams is essential.
Legal framework and key reference points
Parallel proceedings, lis pendens and anti-suit injunctions are grounded in a mix of domestic procedural law,
international instruments and judicial practice. While details vary by jurisdiction, several reference points are
commonly considered by courts and practitioners.
-
Domestic civil procedure and private international law rules:
national statutes and procedural codes typically define when courts may decline jurisdiction, stay cases for
foreign proceedings, or issue injunctions affecting litigation abroad. -
International and regional jurisdiction instruments:
treaties and regional regulations (for example, those governing jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in
certain economic areas) often contain structured lis pendens rules, first-seised court principles and
mechanisms for coordinating related actions. -
Arbitration legislation and conventions:
national arbitration laws and international conventions provide tools for courts to support or protect arbitral
tribunals, sometimes justifying anti-suit injunctions against court proceedings filed in breach of arbitration
agreements. -
Case law on comity and abuse of process:
judicial decisions clarify when foreign proceedings are considered vexatious or oppressive, how much weight to
give to comity and when it is acceptable to restrain parties from litigating abroad. -
Recognition and enforcement standards for foreign judgments:
rules on recognizing and enforcing foreign judgments influence how serious the risk of conflicting decisions is,
and may affect whether a court feels compelled to act aggressively with anti-suit relief or can rely on
enforcement filters later. -
Forum non conveniens and related doctrines:
in some jurisdictions, courts use discretionary doctrines to decline jurisdiction in favor of a more appropriate
forum, reducing the need for anti-suit injunctions and emphasizing case-by-case balancing. -
Soft law, practice guides and institutional reports:
publications by professional associations and international bodies often provide non-binding guidance on best
practices for managing parallel proceedings and encouraging judicial cooperation.
These reference points help structure arguments about which forum should proceed, what level of deference is owed to
foreign courts and when extraordinary remedies like anti-suit injunctions are justified.
Final considerations
Parallel proceedings are one of the most complex aspects of cross-border litigation. Tools such as lis pendens and
anti-suit injunctions can reduce duplication, protect contractual forum choices and limit inconsistent judgments,
but they operate within sensitive boundaries of international comity and domestic sovereignty.
Effective management of these situations usually depends on early analysis, realistic assessment of each forum’s
strengths, and tight coordination between legal teams in different countries. A reactive, unplanned approach often
leads to higher costs and weaker bargaining power when courts finally address jurisdictional conflicts.
This material is provided for general informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal
advice. Questions about specific parallel proceedings, lis pendens objections or anti-suit injunction strategies
should be discussed directly with qualified counsel admitted in the relevant jurisdictions, who can review the
facts, the contracts and the applicable procedural rules in detail.