On September 17, 2014, in Gucci America, Inc. v. Weixing Li, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the district court's decision because the lower court did not have general jurisdiction over a foreign bank with a limited number of branch offices in the forum (Nos. 11-3934, 12-4557, (2d. Cir. Sept. 17, 2014). This decision was reached in light of the Supreme Court's recent Daimler AG v. Bauman holding (134 S.Ct. 746 (2014); see Legal Update, Supreme Court: Presence of Subsidiary in Forum State Insufficient for General Jurisdiction over Foreign Parent Corporation). The Second Circuit did, however, remand the case to the district court so that it could determine whether the bank's contacts with the forum were sufficient for specific jurisdiction.

A group of high-end luxury retailers sued Chinese companies in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for counterfeiting their brands. After obtaining a temporary restraining order (TRO), the plaintiffs gathered evidence that the defendants had wired proceeds from their counterfeit sales to accounts at the Bank of China (BOC). BOC is headquartered in China and is owned primarily by the Chinese government, though it has a global presence with branches in New York. The plaintiffs sought an asset freeze injunction applying to all BOC assets owned by the defendants. Ruling that BOC was subject to all-purpose general jurisdiction in New York, the district court ordered the injunction. BOC appealed, arguing that the district court lacked general jurisdiction. General jurisdiction permits a court to hear any claim against an entity, as opposed to specific jurisdiction, which permits authority only over issues that arise out of the entity's contacts with the forum.

While the Second Circuit found that the district court had personal jurisdiction to issue an asset freeze injunction, it reversed the portion of the order compelling BOC to comply with the injunction. The injunction had been ordered prior to the Supreme Court's Daimler ruling, which was issued after oral arguments in the appeal. Under Daimler, a corporation is only subject to general jurisdiction where its contacts are so continuous and systematic that it is essentially at home in that forum (Daimler, 134 S.Ct. at 754). Usually, this relationship with a forum is limited to the state where the company is incorporated or its principal place of business. Because BOC only has four branches in the United States and conducts little of its worldwide business in New York, its relationship with the forum falls short of what is necessary for general jurisdiction. The court remanded the case to the district court to consider whether specific jurisdiction can be established based on the nature of BOC's contacts with New York.

This case was argued before the Second Circuit in tandem with the related case, Tiffany (NJ) LLC v. China Merchants Bank. The Second Circuit issued a summary order simultaneously with the Gucci opinion, relying on the same legal analysis to reach a similar conclusion (Nos. 12-2317, 12-2330, 12-2349, (2d Cir. Sept. 17, 2014)).