Any lingering doubts as to whether ARC acted as it did in obtaining a federal forum are dispelled by the CRA`s admission that the supply of contracts by the airlines was partly motivated by the desire to remain before the federal court. See Airlines Reporting Corp., 857 F.Supp. 1046 (referring to the CRA letter filed with the District Court). Thus, we find craS`s explanatory statement anticipated, since it is merely an attempt to conceal the principal purpose of the assignment, namely the jurisdiction of the court that did not previously possess it. Accordingly, we agree with the District Court that the assignments were collusive in violation of paragraph 1359. Many complainants cannot aggregate their claims against a single defendant. Prior to the transfer, the carriers would not have been able to aggregate their claims in calculating the amount of the dispute. The only carrier with a claim of more than $50,000 against S-N is the organization that the parties appear to be willing to have or have its main location in New York. In accordance with the Power of Attorney, ARC signed an agent report agreement with S-N on behalf of all national air carriers that have entered into service agreements with Carrier. The agent notification agreement was explicitly designated by the CRA on behalf of each airline. Indeed, there were a number of identical agreements between the different airlines and S-N. First, the assignments took place only after the jurisdiction of this court was challenged by the defendants. Second, while the assignments on their faces have transferred all the rights, titles and interest in the claims to ARC, in reality, the promoters retain the primary interest in the claims, because CRA has agreed to transfer to the institution all the money from the litigation, net of the costs of pursuing the case.
Third, ARC did not pay a reasonable consideration for the assignments. On October 16, 1989, ARC entered into an agent relationship agreement with S-N. ARC and S-N are the only signatories to the agreement. However, the agent notification agreement expressly states that ARC outsources contracts with the representative on behalf of the airlines. See the agent`s reporting agreement, Section XXVIII (B). Arc did not pay a reasonable consideration for the assignments. Arc describes the consideration paid to air carriers for divestitures as “the provision of a lean and inexpensive procedure for reporting carrier transactions by arc accredited travel agencies and recovering funds generated by these transactions.” However, ARC already provides this service to air carriers in accordance with the CSA and the enforcement of this existing fee cannot be sufficient in return for a valid agreement. See 3 Williston on Treaties 7:36, 569.
In addition, the CSA requires that all damages recovered in this action be returned to the agents, net of the costs, indicating that nothing was substantially exchanged. See Kramer, 394 U.S. at 827, 89 S.C. at 1490 (finding that a simultaneous reallocation of 95% of the recovery in the cesist leads to “little doubt” as to the collusiveness of the assignment).