Reminiscent of Saturday, March 8th, 2014 when the news of MH370’s disappearance pierced the morning at home, I woke up today to news that the US Court has dismissed our MH370 lawsuits and ruled Malaysian courts to be the right forum to litigate the cases. The ruling came in nearly a year after the arguments concluded. I doubt that the families had an inkling that this was coming.

According to Press reports, the ruling was handed down last night. We don’t yet have access to the 62-page judgment and so are left to guess what the Court’s detailed reasons were. Since the weekend is here, there is little one can do except try and suspend speculations about the why and what next. After being accustomed to a state of ‘not knowing’ regarding MH370 during the past 4 years and more, dealing with uncertainty should come easy. But it doesn’t.

The logical thing to do is to wait for the lawyers to take stock, strategise and let us know the way forward. Is there an appeal process? We don’t know. Should we take our plaints to Malaysia and let it run its course? These and other questions will come up in the coming days. Right now – no longer the early morning with grey clouds – the sun shines on brightly while anger and frustration grows.

I am shocked and perplexed. Our plaint (my layman’s understanding, that is) is that Boeing’s design deficiency / flaw, in terms of tracking and communications systems, endangered lives. There were superior technologies available that should have been part of the product in the interests of passenger safety. Boeing’s research, design, development, manufacture, sales are primarily located in and directed from the USA. Boeing’s headquarters is in the USA. In light of this it seems to contrary to common sense to hold that “Litigation in the United States related to the Flight MH370 disaster is inconvenient”. We don’t know what the legal arguments against were. Furthermore, while nearly 40 MH370 lawsuits were dismissed, all of them I believe weren’t against Boeing. So what arguments were adduced to dismiss all suits needs to be understood better.

Reuters quotes the judge, “At its core, this case is about the unexplained disappearance of a passenger plane operated by Malaysia Airlines as part of its national air carrier fleet following its departure from a Malaysian airport,”. Further, the judge is reported as saying that the case belonged in Malaysia, which has an “overwhelming interest” in and “substantial nexus” to the March 8, 2014 disappearance of Flight MH370, a Boeing 777 heading to Beijing from Kuala Lumpur with 239 people on board.

I wonder if the judge re-framed the issue at hand as above and ruled on this basis rather than examine the separate plaints on their own merits before deciding on convenience of defendants. While it is true that the context that gave rise to the plaints is the same, the parties (not just Boeing) to the litigation, the arguments and the pleas are varied. Hearing all cases together perhaps creates a fiction that the case is one. So what arguments were adduced to dismiss the suits needs to be understood better.

For a legally trained mind, if all of the above is hogwash, indulge a bit, coming as it does from one who is disappointed and reacting prematurely. MH370 families are treading unfamiliar legal terrain with the same curiosity and enthusiasm with which we learnt about Radar returns, Satcom, BTO, BFO, ACARS, phugoid, and much more.
The initial case filing was in 2016. After more than two-and-a- half years, we have come to a ruling from the US Court on forum non conveniens. How long this case might take in the Malaysian courts is anybody’s guess.

Meanwhile, we watch Boeing deftly manoeuvre its way out of the Boeing 737 Max 8 safety issues that caused the Indonesian airline Lion Air’s JT610 is fall from the sky at high speed last month killing more than 180 people on board. Huge orders are at stake. Large corporations like Boeing and Allianz can be expected to unleash the full force of their Corporate Communications and Legal teams to manage fallout, and the lobbyists to contain any demands for change.

This post originally appeared on my Facebook page.