Justia International Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves Dr. Saad Aljabri, a former Saudi Arabian government official, who alleges that a group led by the current Saudi Prime Minister and Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz al Saud, plotted to kill him after he relocated to Canada. The district court dismissed Aljabri's claims, finding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over most of the defendants, and that Aljabri had failed to state a claim against two others.The district court found that due to the burden on bin Salman to litigate in the United States and Saudi Arabia’s greater procedural and substantive interest, the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over bin Salman would not meet “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” The court also determined that the District of Columbia’s long-arm statute did not provide “specific” personal jurisdiction over other defendants because Aljabri failed to sufficiently align their alleged business activities in D.C. with the plot against his life. The court denied Aljabri's request for jurisdictional discovery, finding that any information revealed in the discovery would not change the court’s conclusion that exercising personal jurisdiction over the defendants would be unreasonable.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the dismissal of all claims against Saudi Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz al Saud, albeit for a different reason: his immunity from suit. However, the court held that the district court did abuse its discretion in denying Aljabri’s motion for jurisdictional discovery outright. The court therefore reversed the district court’s order denying jurisdictional discovery, vacated the judgment of dismissal with respect to two defendants, and remanded for jurisdictional discovery. The court affirmed the dismissal of claims against two other defendants for the reasons given by the district court. View "Aljabri v. Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz al Saud" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between the Estate of Ke Zhengguang and Stephany Yu, concerning the enforcement of an arbitral award issued in Hong Kong. The award was the result of a business dispute involving real estate in China. The arbitration panel ordered Yu and her two sisters to pay the Estate and Xu Hongbiao a sum of money for the losses they sustained. After Yu paid Xu his share, the Estate sought to collect the remaining half from Yu, a U.S. citizen residing in Maryland.Yu challenged the enforcement of the award in the District Court of Maryland, arguing that the court was an inconvenient forum, that necessary parties were not included in the proceedings, and that enforcing the award would violate Chinese currency control laws, thereby violating U.S. policy favoring international comity. She also argued that the judgment should be in Renminbi (RMB), as provided in the arbitral award, not in U.S. dollars. The district court rejected all of Yu's arguments and confirmed the award under the New York Convention, entering judgment in favor of the Estate against Yu in a total amount of $3.6 million.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court found none of Yu's arguments persuasive and held that the district court was correct in confirming and enforcing the arbitral award. The court also held that the district court did not err in entering the judgment in U.S. dollars, as it was within its discretion to do so. View "In re Estate of Ke Zhengguang v. Yu" on Justia Law

The case involves an appeal by Marmen Inc., Marmen Énergie Inc., Marmen Energy Co., the Government of Québec, and the Government of Canada against a decision by the U.S. Department of Commerce. The Department of Commerce had imposed countervailing duties on imports of certain utility scale wind towers from Canada, arguing that the Canadian government had provided illegal subsidies to the producers and exporters of these towers.The case was initially reviewed by the United States Court of International Trade, which upheld the Department of Commerce's decision. The appellants then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.The appellants argued that the Department of Commerce had erred in its assessment of three government programs and its computation of the sales denominator used to calculate the subsidy rate. They contended that the subsidy rate should have been de minimis, meaning it was too trivial or minor to merit consideration.The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the U.S. Court of International Trade, ruling that the Department of Commerce's determination was supported by substantial evidence and was in accordance with the law. The court rejected the appellants' arguments, finding that the Department of Commerce had reasonably determined that the auditor's adjustment was unreliable, and that the three subsidy programs at issue did provide countervailable subsidies. View "GOVERNMENT OF QUEBEC v. US " on Justia Law

The case revolves around EIG, an American investment fund, which lost $221 million after investing in a project to exploit newly discovered oil reserves off the coast of Brazil. The project was led by Petróleo Brasileiro, S.A. (Petrobras), Brazil’s state-owned oil company. A criminal investigation later revealed that Petrobras executives were accepting bribes from contractors and sharing the proceeds among themselves and Brazilian politicians. When this corruption was exposed, the project's lenders withdrew, causing the project to collapse and EIG’s investment to become worthless.The District Court for the District of Columbia had previously denied Petrobras' motion to dismiss the case, arguing that it was immune from liability under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The court held that EIG had sufficiently alleged that Petrobras’ fraud had a "direct effect in the United States" and therefore fell within the direct-effect exception to the FSIA.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The court concluded that Petrobras had caused a direct effect in the United States because it had engaged with EIG in a sustained course of dealing over many months that conveyed its desire to obtain an investment from EIG. The court also found that the direct effect in the United States was not the result of happenstance or coincidence. It was wholly foreseeable, given that Petrobras had contemplated and tried to attract U.S. investment. The court therefore affirmed the district court’s denial of Petrobras’ assertion of foreign sovereign immunity at this stage and remanded for further proceedings. View "EIG Energy Fund XIV, L.P. v. Petroleo Brasileiro, S.A." on Justia Law

The case involves El Shafee Elsheikh, a former citizen of the United Kingdom who joined the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) in 2012. Along with others, Elsheikh captured and held hostage several foreign nationals, including United States and United Kingdom citizens. Some hostages were released, while others were executed, with their deaths featured in ISIS propaganda materials. The hostages referred to their captors as "the Beatles" due to their British accents. Elsheikh was captured in 2018 by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) while attempting to flee Syria.In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Elsheikh was indicted on eight counts, including conspiracy to commit hostage taking, resulting in death, hostage taking resulting in death, conspiracy to murder United States citizens outside of the United States, and conspiracy to provide material support or resources to a designated terrorist organization (ISIS), resulting in death. Elsheikh was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to eight terms of life imprisonment.In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Elsheikh appealed his convictions, challenging the admissibility of certain evidence against him at trial. The court affirmed Elsheikh’s convictions and sentences, finding no reversible errors occurred during the trial. The court concluded that Elsheikh received a fair trial as guaranteed by the Constitution and laws. View "United States v. El Elsheikh" on Justia Law

The case involves a contract dispute between Brands International Corporation, a Canadian manufacturer of hand sanitizer, and Reach Companies, LLC, a Minnesota retail distributor. In 2020, Reach contracted with Brands for 1,000,000 bottles of hand sanitizer to be delivered directly to Reach’s customer, Five Below. The parties agreed to “cash on delivery” terms. Brands began shipping hand sanitizer to individual Five Below stores. Brands made three deliveries, all of which were accepted by Five Below. Brands informed Reach of the deliveries, and Five Below paid Reach for the hand sanitizer, but Reach did not pay Brands. As a result of Reach’s failure to pay, Brands informed Reach that it would no longer deliver hand sanitizer to Five Below on Reach’s behalf. Brands then invoiced Reach for the contract price for the delivered hand sanitizer. Reach still did not pay and ceased communicating with Brands. Brands then filed suit against Reach for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, account stated, and unpaid goods and services. Reach counterclaimed for breach of contract.The parties cross-moved for summary judgment on their contract claims. They disagreed on the applicable law: Brands asserted that the U.N. Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) applied, while Reach asserted that Minnesota law applied. The district court determined that the CISG governed and that Reach had breached the contract. The district court granted summary judgment to Brands on the parties’ competing breach-of-contract claims, granted summary judgment to Reach on Brands’s unjust-enrichment and account-stated claims, dismissed all other claims, and awarded Brands the contract price for the delivered hand sanitizer. The district court also found that the CISG authorized the award of attorney’s fees and so awarded Brands attorney’s fees. Reach appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment but reversed the award of attorney’s fees. The court found that the CISG governed the dispute and that Reach had breached the contract by failing to pay Brands upon delivery of the hand sanitizer. The court also found that Brands was entitled to recover damages based on Reach’s breach of the contract. However, the court held that the CISG does not authorize an award of attorney’s fees, and thus, the district court erred in awarding those fees to Brands. View "Brands International Corp. v. Reach Companies, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the ownership of a painting by Bernardo Bellotto, which was sold under duress by Max Emden during the Nazi persecution of Jews prior to World War II. The painting was later found in a salt mine in Austria by the Monuments Men, a group of U.S. military officers tasked with facilitating the restitution of art stolen by the Nazis. The painting was mistakenly sent to the Netherlands to fulfill a claim by a gallery in Amsterdam, but the painting was actually a replica painted by Bellotto himself, not the gallery's version. The painting was eventually sent to the United States and is currently housed in the Museum of Fine Arts in Houston. The heirs of Max Emden, the original owner, are seeking to recover the painting.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, which dismissed the claim due to the act of state doctrine. This doctrine prohibits U.S. courts from questioning the actions of a foreign government, in this case, the Dutch government's decision to send the painting to the United States.The case was then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, agreeing that the act of state doctrine applies in this case. The court held that any evaluation of the painting's ownership would require questioning the Dutch government's actions, which is prohibited by the act of state doctrine. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' arguments that the doctrine should not apply because the Dutch government's actions were not official, there would be no negative impact on foreign relations, and the act was not solely within the Netherlands. The court concluded that the act of state doctrine bars U.S. courts from questioning the validity of the Dutch government's actions. View "Emden v. Museum of Fine Arts" on Justia Law

The case involves Bainbridge Fund Ltd. (Bainbridge), which sought to attach property owned by the Republic of Argentina (Argentina) in partial satisfaction of a judgment entered against Argentina in 2020. The property in question, the Chancery Annex, was a building owned by Argentina in Washington, D.C. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) stipulates that the property of a foreign sovereign cannot be attached unless the sovereign waives immunity and the property is used for commercial activity in the United States. The district court denied Bainbridge’s application after finding that the property in question is not used for commercial activity.Previously, in the Southern District of New York, Bainbridge obtained a judgment against Argentina for $95,424,899.38, arising out of Argentina’s default on a bond owned by Bainbridge. The bond contained a waiver of sovereign immunity by Argentina. Bainbridge sought to attach and execute upon the Chancery Annex to satisfy the judgment in part.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Bainbridge’s application. The court found that the Chancery Annex was not “used for commercial activity” at the time of filing. The court also rejected Bainbridge's argument that Argentina had waived the “commercial activity” requirement under Section 1610(a) of the FSIA. The court held that the bond did not evince an explicit promise or intent by Argentina not to raise FSIA defenses. View "Bainbridge Fund Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina" on Justia Law

The case involves three organizations of Spanish olive producers (collectively “Asemesa”) who appealed a decision by the Court of International Trade (“the Trade Court”) regarding a countervailing duty imposed on olives imported from Spain. Asemesa argued that an order from the Department of Commerce imposing a countervailing duty on imported olives was contrary to law and that the Trade Court should have overturned the order. The United States and the Coalition for Fair Trade in Ripe Olives argued that Commerce’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the Trade Court’s decision should be upheld.The Trade Court had previously reversed a decision by Commerce, concluding that the evidence that table olives accounted for 8 percent of the demand for raw olives did not show that the demand for raw olives was “substantially dependent” on the demand for table olives. The case was remanded to Commerce for further analysis. On remand, Commerce redefined the market for the prior stage product as the raw olives that the olive industry considers principally suitable for use in the production of table olives. The Trade Court rejected Commerce’s analysis, reasoning that Commerce’s market definition would “render the requirements of Section 1677–2 largely self-fulfilling.” The case was remanded to Commerce for a second time to correctly define the relevant market for the prior stage product and analyze whether the demand for the prior stage product was substantially dependent on the demand for table olives.On the second remand, Commerce again redefined the relevant market for the prior stage product, this time defining that market as consisting of the olives from varietals that the Spanish government considers suitable for processing into table olives, including dual-use varietals. Commerce calculated that 55.28 percent of all olives from varietals suitable for processing into table olives were indeed sold as table olives. Commerce adopted the Trade Court’s interpretation of the “substantially dependent” provision in section 1677–2 as requiring that more than half of the prior stage product be processed into the relevant finished good. Accordingly, Commerce determined that the demand for olive varietals suitable for processing into table olives was substantially dependent on the demand for table olives, and that a countervailing duty on table olives from Spain was warranted to offset the subsidies provided to Spanish olive growers. This time, the Trade Court sustained Commerce’s analysis.Asemesa now appeals the Trade Court’s determination. Asemesa argues that Commerce’s interpretation of the statute was contrary to law, and that Commerce’s factual analysis was not supported by substantial evidence. Although the court's interpretation of section 1677–2 and its analysis of the factual record in this case differ from the Trade Court’s, the court agrees with that court’s ultimate conclusion on both issues. The court affirms the Trade Court's decision. View "ASOCIACION DE EXPORTADORES E INDUSTRIALES v. US " on Justia Law

The case involves a Ukrainian couple, Yasamin Karimi and Roman Tereshchenko, who divorced and disputed custody of their two children. Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Tereshchenko agreed to Karimi removing the children from Ukraine for safety reasons, but requested that she bring them to him in Dubai. Instead, Karimi took the children to undisclosed locations, including the United States. Tereshchenko filed a petition under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction for the return of the children. The District Court granted Tereshchenko’s petition and ordered the children returned to him in France, where he was currently residing.Karimi appealed the decision, challenging the District Court's jurisdiction and arguing that Tereshchenko had consented to the children's removal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's jurisdiction and rejected Karimi's argument that Tereshchenko had consented to the children's removal. The Court of Appeals also found that the District Court had erred in determining that the children would not be exposed to a grave risk of harm if they were returned to western Ukraine. However, the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court was permitted to order the return of the children to Tereshchenko in a third country, France, as a temporary measure due to the grave risk of harm in Ukraine. The case was remanded to the District Court to modify the order to maintain the Ukrainian courts’ authority over an ultimate custody determination. View "Tereshchenko v. Karimi" on Justia Law