Type of refusal
Refusal to recognise with a counterparty in United States
O7 is a refusal to recognise: the counterparty disputes that a decision, or the underlying right itself, exists at all. In the United States the other side is normally a registered entity, not an individual, and its status can be checked through public filings before any procedural step is taken. What can be fixed now, without describing that process, is the treaty layer behind it: whether a foreign decision travels here on a treaty basis at all, and whether documents can be authenticated for use in a US matter. See the O7 refusal overview for how this refusal type behaves across jurisdictions.
Who is actually on the other side
The party refusing to recognise a claim is typically a corporation, LLC, or fund vehicle registered at state level. A public registry search shows the entity's formation state, its registered agent, current standing (active, dissolved, or administratively revoked), and filed officers where disclosed. It does not show the underlying dispute and does not show where the entity actually holds assets. Where the counterparty operates through several layered entities, the registry confirms only which one is formally on record, not which one controls the funds involved in a stake dispute. That distinction has to be settled before deciding who is actually being pursued, and the United States jurisdiction profile sets out what else is confirmed for this jurisdiction.
What to secure before the counterparty reacts
Before the counterparty reacts, secure a complete record of the underlying transaction: subscription or investment agreements, wire transfer confirmations, correspondence in which the counterparty acknowledged the investment or the obligation, and any cap table or register extract showing the stake as it stood at the time. Keep these in their original form, since later authentication depends on that. Capture screenshots of investor portals and account statements before access can be restricted or the record altered. None of this is a court filing; it is evidence an investor can preserve directly. The mechanics of a diluted stake and how the burden of proof falls are set out in demanding money back on a diluted stake and burden of proof in diluted fund structures.
Where a judgment would have to be enforced
Layers L0 and L1 set out what is already confirmed. The United States signed the Hague 2019 Judgments Convention but has not ratified it, so no treaty route for recognising a foreign judgment currently operates here [N170]. Where the underlying decision is an arbitral award rather than a court judgment, that route is treated as structurally more reliable than the same claim run as a judgment [N172]. Documents produced abroad for use in a US matter can be authenticated by apostille, since the United States is party to the 1961 Hague Legalisation Convention, in force for it from 15 October 1981 [N413]. The order in which a claim would actually be pursued, and which body would hear it, depends on the specifics of the case and is not set out on this page. For the reverse enforcement direction, see enforcement from the UAE to the US, and for what a US-directed enforcement generally requires, see enforcement into the United States. The firm does not work on a success-fee basis, and its registration can be checked using the method described at how to verify a law firm.