Facts
On 16 February 1988, a judgment was rendered by the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles against the American citizen G., who was residing in America at the time, ordering him to pay a total of US$ 5,472,441.10 to B. Laboratories and X. Corp., as well as US$ 223,469.13 to Y. Corporation, which he had brought into the proceedings as a non-plaintiff counterdefendant. Since G. had transferred his domicile to St. Moritz during the proceedings, the companies entitled under the judgment applied for its recognition and declaration of enforceability in the Canton of Graubünden. By order of 6 April 1993, the President of the Cantonal Court granted the request.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court dismisses G.'s constitutional appeal against this decision, insofar as it enters into it. The President of the Cantonal Court has rightly decided that the evidence required by Art. 29(1) PILA is available and that the judgment can only be refused recognition if one of the grounds for refusal exhaustively listed in Art. 27(1) and (2) PILA is fulfilled. The alleged nullity of the judgment under American law does not constitute an independent ground for…