Please read the 2 cases below and tell me the result of the trial against them. And tell me your opinion about the trial results.

Case 19.2: Carlyle Investment Management LLC v. Moonmouth Company SA

(To learn more about this case, copy and paste this link into the address bar.

Link : https://scholar.google.co.kr/scholar_case?case=4382448111609841181&q=Carlyle+Investment+Management+LLC+v.+Moonmouth+Company+SA&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1)

Moonmouth Co. SA (incorporated in the British Virgin Islands) bought stock in Carlyle Capital Corp. Ltd. (CCC), an investment fund(incorporated in Guernsey, a dependency of the United Kingdom), under a subscription agreement. Carlyle Investment Management LLC signed the agreement on CCC's behalf. Plaza Management Overseas SA signed it on Moonmouth's behalf. The agreement provided that "the courts of the State of Delaware shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any action *** with respect to this Subscription Agreement."Later, when CCC entered liquidation, Plaza threatened to hold it liable for all damages that Moonmouth sustained in connection with its investment. Carlyle filed a suit In a Delaware state court against Plaza to enforce the forum selection clause. Plaza sought to move the case to a federal district court. That court remanded the case to the state court. Plaza appealed.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed. Plaza was not a signatory to the subscription agreement but was held bound by the forum selection clause because the clause was valid, Plaza was "closely related to the agreement," and the claim arose from Plaza's status related to it.

Case 19.3: Daimler AG v. Bauman

(To learn more about this case, copy and paste this link into the address bar.

Link : https://scholar.google.co.kr/scholar_case?case=1929137067016164680&q=Daimler+AG+v.+Bauman&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1)

Twenty-two residents of Argentina filed a suit in a federal district court in California against Daimler AG, a German company, alleging that Mercedes-Benz Argentina (MB Argentina), an Argentinian subsidiary of Daimler, collaborated with state security forces to kidnap, detain, torture, and kill certain MB Argentina workers, including the plaintiffs and their relatives. These claims were asserted under the ATCA. Personal jurisdiction was based on the California contacts of Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA), a Daimler subsidiary incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in New Jersey. The court dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. Daimler appealed.

The United States Supreme Court reversed. The question is whether a corporation's connections with a state are so continuous and systematic as to render it at home there. Neither Daimler nor MBUSA was incorporated in California, and neither had its principal place of business there, and there was no California connection to the atrocities, perpetrators, or victims described in the complaint. Thus, the federal district court in California could not exercise jurisdiction over Daimler in this case.