Argentine law, “because [some of] the assets are located in Switzerland, Swiss law may govern certain of the legal issues in the action.” (Russenberger Decl. ¶ 13.) In sum, then, the Court believes that this trial will be difficult regardless of where it takes place, and thus the Gilbert private factors do not weigh strongly in favor of the Defendants. See, e.g., Peregrine, 89 F.3d at 46-47 (denying forum non conveniens motion in part because critical documents were located in New York and witnesses would be forced to travel regardless of where trial took place); Herbstein, 743 F.Supp. at 189 (finding that existence of American defendants, who committed acts of fraud in this country, weighed heavily in favor of maintaining action in United States); see also Maganlal, 942 F.2d at 168-69 (<HOLDING>). Neither do the public interest factors tilt
holding that forum selection clause providing that any appropriate state or federal district court located in the borough of manhattan new york city new york shall have exclusive jurisdiction was not dispositive but merely one factor to consider in transfer analysis quoting underlying contract holding that need to apply foreign law was not dispositive factor especially where key evidence regarding production and condition of goods was located in new york holding that a divorce granted at a foreign consulate in new york was not valid for immigration purposes because it did not comply with new york law holding that the interstate commerce requirement for a hobbs act violation was met where the defendant robbed a new york grocery store that sold goods purchased in new york but produced outside of new york because the robbery depleted assets that might have been utilized to purchase outofstate goods holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york