Justia International Law Opinion Summaries

In 2010, the Venezuelan government expropriated assets belonging to a Venezuelan subsidiary of a U.S.-based energy company. The subsidiary had provided drilling services to a state-owned Venezuelan energy company, but after a breakdown in their business relationship and significant unpaid invoices, Venezuelan authorities blockaded the subsidiary’s operations, issued public statements about nationalization, and ultimately transferred the subsidiary’s assets to the state-owned company, which began operating them. The U.S. parent company claimed that this expropriation rendered its ownership interest in the subsidiary worthless and deprived it of its rights to control the subsidiary’s assets.The U.S. parent company and its Venezuelan subsidiary filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against Venezuela and its state-owned energy company, alleging unlawful expropriation. The district court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit initially affirmed. However, the Supreme Court vacated that decision, clarifying the standard for the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) expropriation exception. On remand, the D.C. Circuit found that only the U.S. parent company had a valid claim under international law, as the domestic-takings rule barred the subsidiary’s claim. The district court later dismissed Venezuela as a defendant, leaving the state-owned company as the sole defendant.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the state-owned company’s motion to dismiss. The court held that the FSIA’s expropriation exception applied because Venezuela indirectly expropriated the U.S. company’s property, the state-owned company owns and operates the expropriated assets, and it engages in commercial activity in the United States. The court also held that personal jurisdiction was proper and that the act-of-state doctrine, as limited by the Second Hickenlooper Amendment, did not bar the claim. View "Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co. v. Petroleos De Venezuela, S.A." on Justia Law

A German telecommunications company invested nearly $100 million in an Indian company through a Singaporean subsidiary, acquiring a significant minority stake. The Indian government, through its wholly owned space company, later terminated a contract with the Indian company, prompting the German investor to initiate arbitration in Switzerland under a bilateral investment treaty (BIT) between Germany and India. The arbitral tribunal ruled in favor of the German company, awarding it over $93 million, and courts in Switzerland, Germany, and Singapore confirmed the award.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia was then asked to confirm the arbitral award. India moved to dismiss, arguing sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), forum non conveniens, and that the dispute did not fall within the scope of the BIT’s arbitration clause. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the FSIA’s arbitration exception applied, that forum non conveniens was unavailable in such proceedings, and that the parties had delegated questions of arbitrability to the arbitrators, thus precluding judicial review of those issues. The court also found that India had forfeited other merits defenses by not raising them earlier.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the denial of dismissal on immunity and forum non conveniens grounds, but held that the district court erred in refusing to consider India’s substantive defenses to enforcement of the award. The appellate court found that the BIT did not clearly and unmistakably delegate exclusive authority over arbitrability to the arbitrators, so the district court must consider India’s merits defenses under the New York Convention. The judgment confirming the award was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Deutsche Telekom, A.G. v. Republic of India" on Justia Law

An instrumentality of Iran attempted to wire nearly $10 million through an American bank, but the funds were blocked by the U.S. government under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) due to Iran’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. Two groups of plaintiffs, each holding substantial judgments against Iran for its support of terrorist acts, sought to attach these blocked funds to satisfy their judgments. The funds had been frozen by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and were the subject of a pending civil-forfeiture action initiated by the United States.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia initially quashed the plaintiffs’ writs of attachment. The court reasoned, first, that the funds were not “blocked assets” as defined by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) and thus were immune from attachment. Second, it held that the government’s earlier-filed civil-forfeiture action invoked the prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine, barring any subsequent in rem proceedings against the same property. The district court also noted that the existence of the Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund suggested Congress did not intend to encourage individual attachment actions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed. The court held that the funds in question are “blocked assets” under TRIA, as they remain frozen by OFAC and are not subject to a license required by a statute other than IEEPA. The court further held that the prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine does not bar multiple in rem proceedings filed in the same court. Accordingly, the court concluded that neither sovereign immunity nor the prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine prevented the plaintiffs from seeking attachment of the funds and reversed the district court’s order quashing the writs of attachment. View "Estate of Levin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

A Swiss healthcare company entered into a contract with the Republic of Equatorial Guinea to modernize and operate a medical clinic. After the relationship deteriorated, with Equatorial Guinea refusing to allow the company to run the clinic, the company initiated arbitration in Switzerland and was awarded damages. The parties settled the first arbitration, but the company later sought further damages in a second arbitration. Equatorial Guinea challenged the arbitrators’ jurisdiction, arguing that the contract’s dispute-resolution clause required the company to first seek relief in Equatoguinean courts before pursuing international arbitration. The arbitral panel found the clause ambiguous but ultimately concluded that exhaustion of local remedies was not required and awarded the company over $9 million.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia reviewed the company’s petition to confirm the arbitral award. The court found it had subject-matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s arbitration exception. On the merits, the court deferred to the arbitrators’ interpretation of the dispute-resolution clause, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in BG Group, PLC v. Republic of Argentina, and confirmed the award.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed that the district court had jurisdiction but disagreed with its deferential approach to the arbitrators’ interpretation of the dispute-resolution clause. The appellate court held that, in this context, the question of whether exhaustion of local remedies was required is a substantive arbitrability issue for courts, not arbitrators, to decide. The court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to resolve the proper interpretation of the dispute-resolution clause. View "Marseille-Kliniken AG v. Republic of Equatorial Guinea" on Justia Law

Several companies incorporated in Cyprus and the Isle of Man, who were shareholders of OAO Yukos Oil Company, alleged that the Russian Federation unlawfully expropriated Yukos’s assets between 2003 and 2004. The shareholders initiated arbitration proceedings under the Energy Charter Treaty, which Russia had signed but not ratified, claiming that Russia’s actions violated the Treaty’s protections against expropriation. The arbitral tribunal in The Hague found in favor of the shareholders, awarding them over $50 billion in damages. Russia contested the tribunal’s jurisdiction, arguing that it was not bound to arbitrate under the Treaty because provisional application of the arbitration clause was inconsistent with Russian law, and that the shareholders were not proper investors under the Treaty.After the tribunal’s decision, Russia sought to set aside the awards in Dutch courts. The Dutch Supreme Court ultimately upheld the tribunal’s jurisdiction and the awards, finding that Russia was provisionally bound by the Treaty’s arbitration clause and that the shareholders qualified as investors. Meanwhile, the shareholders sought to enforce the arbitral awards in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Russia moved to dismiss, asserting sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and arguing that the arbitration exception did not apply because there was no valid arbitration agreement. The district court denied Russia’s motion, holding that it had jurisdiction under the FSIA’s arbitration exception, and deferred to the arbitral tribunal’s determination that an arbitration agreement existed.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the existence of an arbitration agreement is a jurisdictional fact under the FSIA that must be independently determined by the district court, rather than deferred to the arbitral tribunal. The court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for independent consideration of whether the FSIA’s arbitration exception applies, including whether the Dutch courts’ judgments should have preclusive effect. View "Hulley Enterprises Ltd. v. Russian Federation" on Justia Law

Two Mauritian mining companies, Amaplat Mauritius Ltd. and Amari Nickel Holdings Zimbabwe Ltd., filed a lawsuit against the Republic of Zimbabwe, the Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation (ZMDC), and Zimbabwe’s Chief Mining Commissioner. The plaintiffs sought to recognize and enforce a judgment from the High Court of Zambia, which confirmed an arbitral award issued in Zambia. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants waived their immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) through the arbitration exception and the implied waiver exception.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled on the scope of the FSIA exceptions. The court determined that the arbitration exception did not apply because it covers actions to confirm arbitral awards, not actions to recognize and enforce foreign court judgments. However, the district court held that the implied waiver exception applied, reasoning that by signing the New York Convention and agreeing to arbitrate in Zambia, the defendants waived their immunity from the action to recognize a foreign court judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with the district court that the arbitration exception did not apply, as the exception covers only actions to confirm arbitral awards, not actions to recognize foreign court judgments. The court also concluded that the implied waiver exception did not apply, as signing the New York Convention and agreeing to arbitrate in a signatory state did not demonstrate an intent to waive immunity from judgment recognition actions. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's determination of subject matter jurisdiction, vacated the remaining orders, and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. View "Amaplat Mauritius Ltd. v. Zimbabwe Mining Development Corp." on Justia Law

In 2013, the Metropolitan Municipality of Lima (Lima) and Rutas de Lima S.A.C. (Rutas) entered into a Concession Contract for the construction and operation of urban roads in Lima, Peru. Rutas agreed to finance and manage the project in exchange for toll revenue, while Lima was responsible for preliminary infrastructure activities. Subsequent agreements transferred these preliminary responsibilities to Rutas in exchange for toll rate increases. Social protests erupted in response to these increases, leading Lima to close a toll unit and refuse further rate hikes. Rutas initiated two international arbitrations, claiming Lima breached the contract. Lima argued the contract was void due to bribery by Rutas’s parent company, Odebrecht S.A.The District Court for the District of Columbia reviewed the case after two arbitration tribunals ruled in favor of Rutas, finding insufficient evidence of corruption linked to the Concession Contract. Lima sought to vacate the arbitration awards, citing violations of U.S. public policy against corruption, fraud by Rutas in discovery, and misconduct by the second tribunal in excluding evidence. The District Court denied Lima’s petitions and confirmed the awards, concluding that Lima failed to prove the contract was obtained through bribery and that any alleged discovery misconduct did not prejudice Lima’s case.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The court held that the arbitration tribunals’ findings were supported by the record and that there was no sufficient evidence linking Odebrecht’s bribes to the Concession Contract. The court also found no merit in Lima’s claims of discovery fraud and tribunal misconduct, noting that Lima suffered no prejudice from the exclusion of evidence. The court concluded that enforcing the arbitration awards did not violate U.S. public policy. View "Metropolitan Municipality of Lima v. Rutas De Lima S.A.C." on Justia Law

Mady Marieluise Schubarth pursued compensation for land allegedly seized from her family in Soviet-occupied Germany after World War II. She sued BVVG Bodenverwertungs-und-Verwaltungs GmbH (BVVG), an agent of Germany, under the expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). BVVG argued that U.S. courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the taking was a domestic matter, not subject to the expropriation exception. The district court disagreed and denied BVVG’s motion to dismiss.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia initially dismissed Schubarth’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the FSIA. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Germany but reversed and remanded as to BVVG, allowing the case to proceed. On remand, the district court directed jurisdictional discovery, and BVVG again moved to dismiss, claiming the expropriation was a domestic taking. The district court denied this motion, leading to the current appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s denial of BVVG’s motion to dismiss. The court held that the 1945 expropriation of the Estate was not a domestic taking because it implicated both Germany and the Soviet Union, thus interfering with relations among states. The court concluded that the expropriation could not be considered a domestic taking and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the expropriation constituted a taking in violation of international law. View "Schubarth v. BVVG Bodenverwertungs- Und -Verwaltungs GMBH" on Justia Law

Gerardo Gonzalez-Valencia, a leader of the Mexican drug-trafficking organization Los Cuinis, coordinated shipments of tens of thousands of kilograms of cocaine into the United States over a decade. He used various methods to conceal the drugs and employed violence and threats of violence in his operations. In 2016, a grand jury in the District of Columbia indicted him for conspiracy to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. He was arrested in Uruguay, where he fought extradition for four years. Despite his arguments against extradition based on the potential for a life sentence in the U.S., he was eventually extradited without any assurances from the U.S. regarding his sentence.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia sentenced Gonzalez-Valencia to life imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to the conspiracy charge without a plea agreement. The court calculated his base offense level and applied several enhancements, resulting in a recommendation of life imprisonment under the Sentencing Guidelines. Gonzalez-Valencia appealed his sentence, raising procedural and substantive claims, including objections to his criminal history category and the application of sentencing enhancements.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that Gonzalez-Valencia's objections to the sentencing enhancements did not constitute plain error and that his argument regarding the Ex Post Facto Clause was not supported by clear legal precedent. The court also rejected his claim that the district court was required to comply with Uruguay's condition against a life sentence, noting that the U.S. made no such assurances. The court affirmed the district court's sentence, concluding that there was no reversible error or grounds for remand under 28 U.S.C. § 2106. View "United States v. Gonzalez-Valencia" on Justia Law

The 1995 Dayton Peace Agreement established Bosnia and Herzegovina as an independent, democratic and multiethnic state with two separate political subdivisions—the Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. After plaintiff was removed from his post in the Republika Srpska government, he filed suit against the Office of the High Representative (OHR), a body charged with overseeing parts of the Agreement's implementation on behalf of the international community. Plaintiff also filed suit against the then-High Representative Jeremy Ashdown and the current High Representative, Valentin Inzko. The district court determined that all defendants were statutorily immune to suit under the International Organizations Immunities Act (IOIA), 22 U.S.C. 288 et seq. Plaintiff then sought reconsideration arguing, among other things, that Ashdown and Inzko had not complied with section 8(a) of the IOIA and so were not entitled to immunity. The DC Circuit held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction regardless of the date Ashdown and Inzko's immunity vested. View "Zuza v. Office of the High Representative" on Justia Law