United States courts have long dealt with the enforcement of foreign money judgments, and a uniform act has been accepted by many states, in effect codifying principles generally applied by United States courts in determining whether to enforce such judgments. A difficult but relatively unexamined question is the extent to which recognition and enforcement should be given to foreign court orders that are provisional rather than final. For example, a United States court may be faced with a request to issue an order in support or in furtherance of a previously issued order from a foreign court preliminarily enjoining certain conduct by a person currently within the jurisdiction of the U.S. court. 

The provisional character of a foreign remedy can complicate the analysis of whether to recognize or enforce it. The issuance by a court in this country of a nonfinal order of its own in furtherance of an order issued by foreign court may have an impact on the status and direction of the foreign proceeding.

The fact that interim orders tend to be injunctive may also complicate the U.S. court’s decision as to how to respond to an application based on a foreign interim court order. Injunctions, unlike money judgments, must be tailored to the facts of the particular case. Accordingly, when a case is already in progress in a foreign country, courts may be understandably reluctant to issue interim orders intended to supplement or complement orders previously issued by the foreign court primarily seized of the matter. These complicating factors are less likely to confront a court that is asked to enforce a final judgment issued by another court.