Dispute Settlement is exemplified.

ABC is a multinational enterprise (MNE) incorporated in State X. ABC entered into a joint venture agreement with XYZ, an MNE incorporated in State Y, to jointly produce a new line of hydraulic equipment in ABC's new factory in State Z, a developing nation. ABC & XYZ have mutually agreed to have the law of State Y govern any disputes or concerns arising under the joint venture agreement. Shortly after the conclusion of the agreement, a wiring defect in ABC's factory caused it to burn to the ground, killing five tourists in the immediate vicinty who were nationals (citizens) of State Q. XYZ, fearing bad publicity, sued ABC to rescind the joint venture agreement. X,Y, & Z are all common law states, while Q is a civil law jurisdiction.

My question is, should a civil lawsuit between ABC and XYZ be filed, I am trying to analyze the possible arguments and counter-arguments that counsel for either ABC or XYZ would reasonably make for having the case heard in the municipal courts of:

State X

State Y

State Z

State Q

As part of my answer  I am to review whether any other cases are relevant to this question-i.e. if they support or refute the arguments I have articulated for having the case heard in the municipal courts of each State listed above. I am also suppose to indicate when filing suit (either criminal and/or civil) which is not legally viable in a particular State and come with a rationale for my conclusion. I have reviewed cases susch as  Case 3-7 Shell v R.W. Sturge, Ltd. also I looked at case 3-1 Concerning the military and paramilitaryactivities in and against nicaragua.

This is the web site I use.  Please assist

http://www.raymondaugust.com/pbs/ibl4/features.htm