September 7, 2022
Click on for PDF
Gibson Dunn’s D.C. Circuit Overseas Sovereign Immunities Act Enforcement Replace summarizes current selections inside the D.C. Circuit which can be related to the enforcement of judgments and arbitral awards in opposition to international states.
This version summarizes:
(1) the D.C. Circuit’s determination in Property of Levin v. Wells Fargo Financial institution, N.A., Nos. 21-7036, 21-7041, 21-7044, 21-7052, 21-7053, 2022 WL 3364493, addressing the attachment of digital fund transfers (“EFTs”) by victims of state-sponsored terrorism;
(2) the district court docket’s determination in Chiejina v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, No. 21-2241, 2022 WL 3646377 (D.D.C.), addressing the right framework that applies when a international state opposes enforcement of an arbitral award by disputing the existence of a legitimate arbitration settlement between the events; and
(3) the district court docket’s selections in ConocoPhillips Petrozuata B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 19-0683, 2022 WL 3576193 (D.D.C.) and Tethyan Copper Co. PTY Ltd. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, No. 19-2424, 2022 WL 715215 (D.D.C.), addressing the enforcement of arbitral awards issued pursuant to the Worldwide Conference on the Settlement of Funding Disputes between States and Nationals of Different States (“ICSID Conference”).
D.C. Circuit Opens The Door For Victims Of Terrorism To Connect Blocked Belongings Of State Sponsors Of Terrorism
On August 16, 2022, the D.C. Circuit broke with the Second Circuit and issued a big determination for victims of terrorism in Property of Levin v. Wells Fargo Financial institution, N.A., Nos. 21-7036, 21-7041, 21-7044, 21-7052, 21-7053, 2022 WL 3364493. Ruling in favor of terrorism victims represented by Matt McGill (argued) and Jessica Wagner of Gibson Dunn, the court docket unanimously reversed the district court docket’s dissolution of orders of attachment on almost $10 million in blocked Iranian funds. The determination opens the door for victims of terrorism to connect blocked funds of state sponsors of terrorism underneath the Terrorism Danger Insurance coverage Act (“TRIA”) extra usually.
Background
Victims of terrorism usually wrestle to gather on judgments in opposition to state sponsors of terrorism. Even when these states’ funds floor in U.S. monetary establishments and are blocked by sanctions legal guidelines, sovereign immunity can place them past the attain of judgment collectors. To deal with these enforcement challenges, Congress enacted TRIA, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1610 Be aware. This regulation ensures that when funds of state sponsors of terrorism are blocked by sanctions, these funds stay out there for “execution or attachment” by plaintiffs holding judgments in opposition to these states—”[n]otwithstanding another provision of regulation.” TRIA, § 201(a).
To ensure that blocked funds to fall inside the safety of TRIA, they should be “blocked property of” the related state or its company or instrumentality. TRIA, § 201(a). The Second Circuit, nevertheless, has adopted a slim view of possession within the context of EFTs, during which funds transfer shortly from one account to a different via a collection of middleman banks. Counting on Article 4A of the Uniform Business Code (“UCC”), the Second Circuit has held that the one entity with an possession curiosity in funds blocked at an middleman financial institution is the entity instantly previous that financial institution within the chain of digital transfers—even when the chain of transfers was initiated by a state sponsor of terrorism. See Doe v. JPMorgan Chase Financial institution, N.A., 899 F.3d 152 (2nd Cir. 2018). Till Levin, nevertheless, the D.C. Circuit had not determined this subject.
In Levin, two teams of terrorism victims—together with almost 90 victims represented by Gibson Dunn (the “Owens victims”)—who maintain roughly $1 billion in judgments in opposition to the Islamic Republic of Iran obtained writs of attachment in opposition to funds blocked at Wells Fargo by the Workplace of Overseas Belongings Management (“OFAC”) throughout an tried EFT initiated by an agent of Iran in search of to buy an oil tanker. The US—which had earlier sought forfeiture of the identical funds—intervened and moved to quash the writs. Adopting the Second Circuit’s strategy in Doe, the district court docket granted the federal government’s movement, holding that the funds weren’t topic to attachment underneath TRIA as a result of solely the financial institution instantly previous Wells Fargo within the chain of transfers held an possession curiosity.
Resolution
The D.C. Circuit unanimously reversed, rejecting the Second Circuit’s reliance on UCC Article 4A in favor of a broader rule grounded in tracing rules. The court docket defined—as Gibson Dunn had argued on behalf of the Owens victims—that “[w]hile [Article 4A] seeks to reduce disruptions in digital funds transfers, OFAC’s blocking does the alternative—its goal is to disrupt terrorist [EFTs].” Given this mismatch, the court docket concluded that Article 4A is a poor match for figuring out possession of blocked EFTs. As a substitute, the court docket held that possession ought to be decided in accordance with tracing rules: underneath TRIA, “terrorist victims might connect OFAC blocked digital funds transfers if these funds could be traced to a terrorist proprietor,” and “no middleman or upstream financial institution asserts an curiosity as an harmless third social gathering.”
Decide Pillard filed a concurrence arguing {that a} tracing rule—which accounts for the funds’ path via the monetary system—doesn’t, by itself, accomplish the statutorily required exhibiting of possession. Decide Pillard would have adopted, “as a substitute of or along with tracing,” the frequent regulation rule of company that the Owens victims proposed, which might have handled banks as brokers quite than homeowners once they effectuate EFTs originated by state sponsors of terrorism.
The D.C. Circuit’s determination has important implications for judgment enforcement actions introduced by victims of terrorism. It clears the way in which for victims to connect blocked funds that may have been unreachable underneath the Second Circuit’s rule, and effectuates Congress’ intent to make blocked funds of state sponsors of terrorism out there—”however another provision of regulation”—to victims holding judgments in opposition to these states. By making a circuit cut up, furthermore, the choice might present an avenue for terrorism victims to problem the prevailing normal within the Second Circuit.
D.D.C. Reaffirms Arbitrability Disputes Do Not Implicate U.S. Courts’ Jurisdiction
On August 23, 2022, a district court docket within the D.C. Circuit issued a call reaffirming that arbitrability disputes don’t implicate subject-matter jurisdiction underneath the arbitration exception of the Overseas Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”). See Chiejina v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, No. 21-2241, 2022 WL 3646377 (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2022). In Chiejina, Nigeria opposed affirmation of an arbitration award in opposition to it on the grounds that one of many petitioners was not a celebration to the underlying settlement to arbitrate. Per “each case” the district court docket has selected this subject, the court docket decided that arbitrability disputes akin to this one implicate the deserves of the petition and never the court docket’s subject-matter jurisdiction underneath the FSIA. The court docket thus denied Nigeria’s movement to dismiss, which signifies that Nigeria’s arbitrability problem must be litigated on the deserves stage underneath a extra deferential normal of evaluation, quite than determined de novo as a difficulty of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Background
Petitioners in search of to verify a international arbitral award issued in opposition to a international state usually should overcome two obstacles. First, underneath the FSIA, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a), international states are presumptively immune from swimsuit in U.S. court docket until one of many FSIA’s enumerated exceptions to jurisdictional immunity is happy. One such exception, the FSIA’s arbitration exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6), offers for subject-matter jurisdiction in an motion in opposition to a international state to “affirm an award made pursuant to” an arbitration settlement. Second, as soon as jurisdiction is established, the petitioner should set up on the deserves that the award is topic to affirmation underneath the relevant authorized framework—usually, both the Conference on the Recognition and Enforcement of Overseas Arbitral Awards (the “New York Conference”) or the ICSID Conference. Each Conventions restrict a court docket’s authority to evaluation the deserves of the arbitral award or query the determinations of the tribunal that issued it.
To keep away from the New York and ICSID Conventions’ limits on judicial evaluation, international states usually try to border their challenges to enforcement of an arbitral award as elevating problems with subject-matter jurisdiction underneath the FSIA, quite than the deserves. Specifically, in quite a few current instances, international states have argued that the FSIA’s arbitration exception doesn’t apply—and the state is due to this fact immune from swimsuit—as a result of there isn’t any legitimate arbitration settlement between the events. The D.C. Circuit and the D.D.C. have repeatedly held, nevertheless, that problems with “arbitrability”—together with the existence of a legitimate arbitration settlement—go to the deserves quite than to subject-matter jurisdiction underneath the FSIA. See, e.g., LLC SPC Stileks v. Republic of Moldova, 985 F.3d 871, 877-78 (D.C. Cir. 2021); Chevron Corp. v. Ecuador, 795 F.3d 200, 204 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
In Chiejina, petitioners are in search of to verify and implement underneath the New York Conference a $2.9 million award, plus curiosity, issued in opposition to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Just like the defendants in Stileks, Chevron, and Tethyan, Nigeria moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that the FSIA’s arbitration exception didn’t apply as a result of one of many petitioners was not a celebration to the related arbitration settlement. Nigeria additionally argued that the court docket lacked private jurisdiction as a result of the petitioners didn’t correctly impact service of course of in line with the FSIA’s service provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e).
Resolution
The district court docket rejected Nigeria’s problem to subject-matter jurisdiction, explaining that underneath the D.C. Circuit’s selections in Stileks and Chevron, arbitrability “is a query that goes to the deserves of whether or not the award ought to be confirmed pursuant to the New York Conference,” quite than “a foundation on which to conclude that the Court docket lacks jurisdiction underneath the FSIA.” For that purpose, Nigeria couldn’t problem subject-matter jurisdiction by arguing that petitioners’ claims within the arbitration have been “not encompassed by the underlying settlement to arbitrate” as a result of one of many petitioners was not a celebration to that settlement. As a substitute, the court docket indicated that it will deal with arbitrability—together with the existence of a legitimate arbitration settlement between the events—on the deserves stage underneath the deferential normal for affirmation of international arbitral awards underneath the New York Conference. The choice thus reaffirms the precept that arbitrability isn’t a difficulty of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The court docket additionally addressed service of course of. When a plaintiff enters right into a “particular association” for service on a international state, the FSIA, 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(1), requires the plaintiff to aim service via that association earlier than continuing with different strategies of service. In Chiejina, the underlying building contract at subject within the arbitration included a discover provision specifying a way for serving notices associated to the contract. Reasonably than comply with that discover provision, the petitioner served Nigeria via a separate technique relevant within the absence of a “particular association” between the events. The court docket held that service was correctly effected on Nigeria as a result of the contractual discover provision utilized solely to notices that have been “‘required or licensed’ by the Contract itself,” not service of course of within the lawsuit. In doing so, the court docket reaffirmed the precept {that a} discover provision in an underlying contract creates a “particular association” for functions of FSIA service “solely the place the language is ‘all encompassing’ quite than ‘confined to the contract or settlement at subject.’” Berkowitz v. Republic of Costa Rica, 288 F. Supp. 3d. 166, 173 (D.D.C. 2018) (quoting Orange Center East & Africa v. Republic of Equatorial Guinea, No. 1:15-CV-849 2016 WL 2894857, at *4 (D.D.C. Could 18, 2016)).
D.D.C. Reaffirms U.S. Courts’ Obligation To Implement ICSID Awards
On August 19, 2022, a district court docket within the D.C. Circuit issued a call reaffirming the duty of U.S. courts to implement arbitral awards issued pursuant to the ICSID Conference. See ConocoPhillips Petrozuata B.V. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:19-cv-683, 2022 WL 3576193 (D.D.C. Aug. 19, 2022). Per precedent and federal regulation, the court docket held that it had subject-matter jurisdiction underneath each the arbitration and waiver exceptions of the FSIA on account of Venezuela’s determination to affix the ICSID Conference. In doing so, the court docket reaffirmed the precept {that a} international state that joins the ICSID Conference waives immunity to the enforcement of ICSID awards in U.S. court docket.
Background
The ICSID Conference is a treaty signed by the US and 164 different nations of the world that gives a complete framework for resolving funding disputes between collaborating nations and the non-public traders of different collaborating nations. The Conference offers for arbitration earlier than a global tribunal and streamlined enforcement procedures for any ensuing arbitral award. Every contracting social gathering agrees to “acknowledge an award rendered pursuant to [the] Conference as binding and implement the pecuniary obligations imposed by that award inside its territories as if it have been a remaining judgment of a court docket in that State.” ICSID Conference, artwork. 54(1). The US has carried out this treaty obligation via laws offering that an ICSID award “shall be enforced and shall be given the identical full religion and credit score as if the award have been a remaining judgment of a court docket of basic jurisdiction of one of many a number of States.” 22 U.S.C. § 1650a(a).
Regardless of this congressional mandate, international states usually try and oppose enforcement of ICSID awards by difficult the U.S. court docket’s subject-matter jurisdiction underneath the FSIA. However the D.C. Circuit held in Tatneft v. Ukraine that when a international state joins a treaty that “ponder[s] arbitration-enforcement actions in different signatory nations, together with the US”—because the ICSID Conference does—it “waives its immunity from arbitration-enforcement actions” underneath the FSIA. 771 F. App’x 9, 10 (D.C. Cir. 2019). The Second Circuit has utilized this precept within the context of the ICSID Conference, holding {that a} international states “waive[s] its sovereign immunity” from enforcement of an ICSID award “by changing into a celebration to the ICSID Conference.” Blue Ridge Invs., L.L.C. v. Republic of Argentina, 735 F.3d 72, 84 (2nd Cir. 2013). These selections present an alternate foundation—along with the arbitration exception at subject in Chiejina—for establishing subject-matter jurisdiction in an motion to implement an ICSID award.
Resolution
The petitioners in ConocoPhillips sought to verify and implement an ICSID award issued in opposition to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. When Venezuela didn’t well timed reply to the enforcement petition, the petitioners sought entry of a default judgment, and the district court docket granted the movement. Though the movement was not opposed, the district court docket addressed subject-matter jurisdiction underneath the FSIA, holding that Venezuela was not immune from swimsuit—and the court docket due to this fact had subject-matter jurisdiction—on two grounds: (1) the FSIA’s arbitration exception; and (2) the FSIA’s waiver exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(1), which offers jurisdiction the place a international state has waived its immunity to swimsuit in U.S. court docket.
First, the court docket concluded that when a international state agrees to arbitration pursuant to the ICSID Conference, the arbitration exception permits enforcement even when the state subsequently withdraws from the Conference, as long as “the related rights and obligations of the events arose earlier than [the] denunciation took impact.” This holding signifies that a international state can not evade its obligations to events holding ICSID awards by withdrawing from the ICSID Conference.
Second, the court docket confirmed that the waiver exception additionally utilized as a result of “Venezuela implicitly waived its sovereign immunity with respect to fits to acknowledge and implement ICSID awards by changing into a Contracting State to the ICSID Conference.” The court docket emphasised that “[t]o maintain in any other case could be to disrespect Venezuela’s alternative (on the time) to be a Contracting State, and it will diminish different Nations’ capability to draw funding sooner or later by committing themselves to resolving funding disputes via arbitration.” The court docket thus referenced one of many key functions of the ICSID Conference: By offering traders with a treatment via arbitration and robust ensures that any ensuing award will likely be topic to enforcement, the Conference helps contracting events entice international funding. ConocoPhillips thus strengthens the refrain of selections recognizing that events to the ICSID Conference and different arbitration enforcement treaties waive their immunity from enforcement of arbitral awards issued pursuant to these treaties.
D.D.C. Clears The Approach For Landmark $6.5 Billion Judgment Implementing Arbitration Award Towards Pakistan
On March 10, 2022, a district court docket within the D.C. Circuit issued a groundbreaking determination on behalf of Tethyan Copper Firm PTY Restricted (“Tethyan”), an Australian mining firm represented by Matt McGill, Robert Weigel, Jason Myatt, and Matt Rozen of Gibson Dunn in its long-running efforts to implement a $4 billion plus curiosity arbitration award issued in opposition to Pakistan pursuant to the ICSID Conference. Tethyan Copper Co. PTY Ltd. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, No. 1:19-cv-2424, 2022 WL 715215 (D.D.C. Mar. 10, 2022). In its opinion and accompanying order, the court docket denied Pakistan’s movement to dismiss or, within the various, to remain enforcement proceedings, and directed the events to submit a proposed judgment, clearing the way in which for the entry, after curiosity and prices, of a greater than $6.5 billion judgment as of this writing, which might be one of many largest judgments ever entered by the D.C. federal district court docket. The choice reinforces three rules in regards to the enforcement of ICSID awards.
First, the choice emphatically rejects the recurring argument that enforcement of such awards ought to universally be stayed whereas the shedding social gathering tries to vacate or put aside the award in parallel proceedings. Beneath the ICSID Conference, solely an ICSID tribunal or committee—not the courts of any contracting state—might determine whether or not an award ought to be put aside, both via revision by the unique tribunal pursuant to Article 51 of the Conference, or via annulment by an advert hoc committee pursuant to Article 52 of the Conference. Article 54 of the Conference expressly offers that ICSID awards are instantly enforceable as “remaining judgment[s]” even whereas revision or annulment proceedings are pending, and it duties the ICSID tribunal or committee overseeing these proceedings with deciding whether or not a keep of enforcement is acceptable.
In TCC, Pakistan sought each revision and annulment, however the tribunal and committee overseeing these proceedings allowed enforcement to proceed. Pakistan then moved within the district court docket to remain the U.S. enforcement proceedings. However the district court docket rejected that request. The court docket acknowledged some prior selections from the identical district that had stayed enforcement proceedings pending put aside proceedings. Within the court docket’s view, nevertheless, the curiosity in judicial economic system and the potential hardship to Tethyan from a keep clearly outweighed any potential hardship to Pakistan from denying a keep. Tethyan had waited over a decade for compensation, and the court docket concluded that “[a] keep solely prolongs justice denied.”
Second, the court docket rejected the state’s try and relitigate in enforcement proceedings jurisdictional arguments already raised earlier than and rejected by the arbitral tribunal. Particularly, Pakistan had challenged the tribunal’s jurisdiction on the bottom that there was no legitimate arbitration settlement, as a result of Pakistan purportedly had not correctly consented to arbitration underneath the ICSID Conference. The tribunal rejected the argument. Within the subsequent enforcement proceedings, Pakistan tried to resume the identical objection—that there was no legitimate arbitration settlement between the events—as a problem each to the district court docket’s jurisdiction underneath the FSIA and its authority to grant full religion and credit score to the award. Counting on the above-described rules from the D.C. Circuit’s selections in Stileks and Chevron, nevertheless, the TCC court docket refused to second-guess the tribunal’s rulings on arbitrability—together with the existence of a legitimate settlement to arbitrate. The court docket held that after such points have been resolved in arbitration, they can’t be revisited via a collateral assault on the tribunal’s rulings, whether or not within the guise of a problem to jurisdiction underneath the FSIA or to the deserves of the enforcement petition.
Lastly, the court docket’s order, directing the events to promptly meet and confer and submit a proposed judgment, with curiosity, acknowledges that after the court docket has decided that it has subject-matter jurisdiction to implement an ICSID award, the award holder is entitled to immediate entry of judgment as quickly as curiosity is calculated. (In an effort to facilitate settlement, the court docket later granted the events’ joint request for an extension of time to submit a proposed judgment till December 15, 2022.) If adopted elsewhere, the court docket’s order might drastically streamline efforts by future litigants to implement arbitral awards in opposition to international sovereigns in U.S. courts.
Gibson Dunn’s Judgment and Arbitral Award Enforcement Follow Group provides top-tier worldwide arbitral award and judgment enforcement methods and options, deep proficiency in cross-border litigation and worldwide arbitration, and best-in-class advocacy that not solely applies the regulation, however, again and again, has crafted and formed new regulation to attain our shoppers’ aims.
Gibson Dunn’s legal professionals can be found to help in addressing any questions you will have concerning developments on the D.C. Circuit. Please contact the Gibson Dunn lawyer with whom you normally work, any member of the agency’s Judgment and Arbitral Award Enforcement observe group, or the next:
Matthew D. McGill – Co-Chair, Washington, D.C. (+1 202-887-3680, [email protected])
Robert L. Weigel – Co-Chair, New York (+1 212-351-3845, [email protected])
Jason Myatt – New York (+1 212-351-4085, [email protected])
Matthew S. Rozen – Washington, D.C. (+1 202-887-3596, [email protected])
This shopper replace was ready by Matt McGill, Robert Weigel, Jason Myatt, Matt Rozen, Jessica Wagner, Jeff Liu, Luke Zaro, and Sam Speers.
© 2022 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Legal professional Promoting: The enclosed supplies have been ready for basic informational functions solely and are usually not supposed as authorized recommendation.
