Latest news with #FSIA
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Business
- Indian Express
US Supreme Court reverses order which provided relief to Government of India in dispute over $1.2 billion award for failed 2005 Devas-Antrix satellite deal
In a setback for the Government of India and Antrix Corporation – a commercial arm of the Indian Space Research Organisation (Isro) – the US Supreme Court has rolled back a reprieve given in 2023 by a US appeals court in a legal battle over a compensation claim of $1.2 billion by start-up firm Devas Multimedia for a failed satellite deal from the year 2005. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had ruled on August 1, 2023, that Antrix Corp, as an alter ego of India, must have some amount of business in the US to be subjected to the jurisdiction of US courts under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) of the US. The August 2023 order of the appeals court was expected to end efforts by Devas Multimedia to enforce in the United States a $1.2 billion compensation award made by an arbitration tribunal of the International Chamber of Commerce on September 14, 2015. The award had been confirmed by the US court for the Western District of Washington on October 27, 2020. The US Supreme Court, in an order dated June 5, following a plea by Devas Multimedia against the August 2023 appeals court order, has ruled that the appeals court had erred in its ruling that a firm must have some minimum business in the US for it to be liable to be sued in US courts. The US Supreme Court, which reserved its orders in the matter on March 3, 2025, has stated in its order on Thursday that US courts have jurisdiction over foreign entities 'when an immunity exception applies and service is proper'. 'The FSIA does not require proof of 'minimum contacts' over and above the contacts already required by the Act's enumerated exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity,' the US Supreme Court has ruled while reversing the 2023 order of the appeals court. The US SC has referred the case back to the Ninth Circuit for fresh consideration of the matter. 'Antrix's alternative arguments – that the Fifth Amendment itself requires a showing of minimum contacts, that the claims at issue do not fall within the FSIA's arbitration exception, and that the suit should be dismissed under forum non conveniens – were not addressed below by the Ninth Circuit. This Court declines to address them in the first instance,' the US SC said in its June 5 order. Earlier during the hearing of the case in the US SC, India had asked the court to respect the comity of nations by upholding the August 2023 order for setting aside the $1.2 billion arbitration award against Antrix Corp. 'India has great interest in ensuring that the set-aside decisions, and the Supreme Court of India decision on which they are based, are afforded comity and due respect from the courts of the United States,' said a written submission made by the Government of India to the US SC, ahead of the commencement of an oral hearing on March 3 by the US SC. When the oral arguments in the dispute over the $1.2 billion arbitration award were allowed by a bench of the US Supreme Court on March 3, the counsel for Antrix argued that the case 'serves as an irritant to the Indian government'. The counsel for Antrix Corp, Carter G Philips, said during the oral arguments that the Antrix-Devas agreement of 2005 – which was cancelled for security reasons during the tenure of the UPA government in 2011 – did not have any US interests or anything 'that remotely affects either interstate or foreign commerce'. The Antrix Corp counsel argued that only courts in India could deal with the matter according to the original agreement and that the Supreme Court of India had already set aside the ICC arbitration award in favour of Devas Multimedia. The acting Solicitor General for the US Department of Justice, Sarah M Harris, who argued as an amicus curiae on behalf of the US investors in Devas Multimedia in the US SC said that the US appeals court had erred in ruling that a foreign entity like Antrix Corp should have some minimum contacts in terms of business in the US to be subject to US courts. She said that the US FSIA says 'when personal jurisdiction over a foreign state shall exist and omits any minimum contacts requirement. That is all this court needs to hold to reverse. The Ninth Circuit's contrary statutory holding disregards that text, and no one, even Respondent, appears to defend it.' Following the filing of the case in the US SC against the appeals court order by Devas Multimedia investors, several business bodies like the US Council for International Business, the Chamber of Commerce of the USA and the American Petroleum Institute supported the stand of the investors in Devas Multimedia – that an enterprise does not require to have business interests in the US for federal courts to confirm international arbitration awards. The Ninth Circuit court's order that a foreign entity must have minimum contact or presence in the US to be liable to suits 'undermines (the US) Congress's goal of creating a uniform body of law concerning the amenability of a foreign sovereign to suit in United States courts,' the foreign investors in Devas Multimedia argued. The August 1, 2023, order of the US appeals court was a major relief for Antrix Corp and the Indian government, which is fighting legal battles all over the world in connection with a 2011 decision of the UPA government to annul a satellite deal with Devas Multimedia. Antrix had argued that 'there is no longer an award to enforce because the Delhi High Court – the court of competent jurisdiction to determine the award's enforceability – set it aside, a decision affirmed by the Indian Supreme Court.' The UPA government annulled the 2005 Devas-Antrix satellite deal in February 2011, citing the requirement of space spectrum allocated for the satellite services of Devas for security needs. The deal was cancelled after it was cited as a 'sweetheart deal' and another instance of corruption under the UPA regime after the 2G scam. Under the failed 2005 Antrix-Devas deal, Isro was supposed to lease two communication satellites for 12 years for Rs 167 crore to Devas Multimedia. The start-up was to provide multimedia services to mobile platforms in India using the space band or S-band transponders on Isro's GSAT 6 and 6A satellites. After the NDA government came to power in 2014, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) began seriously investigating the deal, even as the foreign investors in Devas Multimedia – The German telecom major Deutsche Telekom, three Mauritius investors, and Devas Multimedia itself – approached various international tribunals seeking compensation for the failed deal. Devas Multimedia was awarded $1.2 billion by the International Chamber of Commerce on September 14, 2015. Deutsche Telekom was awarded $101 million in compensation by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in Geneva, and the Mauritius investors were awarded $111 million by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in India ordered the liquidation of Devas Multimedia on May 25, 2021, citing fraud in its creation. The NCLT order was upheld by the Supreme Court of India on January 17, 2022.
Associated Press
29-05-2025
- Politics
- Associated Press
NAS PENSACOLA TERRORISM VICTIMS WILL ARGUE THE APPEAL OF THEIR LAWSUIT AGAINST THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA ON JUNE 3, 2025
JACKSONVILLE, Fla., May 29, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- The Law Offices of Jeffrey E. McFadden, LLC wish to announce that on the morning of June 3, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit will hear oral argument on the appeal of the lawsuit victims and their families filed against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia after a Royal Saudi Air Force ('RSAF') officer went on a shooting rampage at Naval Air Station Pensacola, Florida on December 6, 2019. The argument will take place in the Gerald B. Tjoflat Courtroom (13th Floor) of the United States Courthouse located at 300 North Hogan Street, Jacksonville, Florida. The date of the shooting coincided two years to the day of President Trump's announcement on December 6, 2017, declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel, and marked the first time since the attacks of September 11, 2001 that al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula had been involved in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. The shooter, Mohammed Saeed Al-Shamrani, a Second Lieutenant in the RSAF, murdered three U.S. Servicemembers and severely injured four U.S. Navy servicemembers; a Navy civil servant; seven Escambia County Sherrif's deputies; and a member of the Department of Defense Police Force. Al-Shamrani was at NAS Pensacola for flight training under a Security Cooperation Education & Training Program administered under U.S. foreign military sales to Saudi Arabia. In the wake of the shootings, the U.S. Department of Justice declared the incident to be an act of international terrorism. All of the victims, and in the cases of those killed, their families, filed a civil complaint against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on February 22, 2021, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida in Pensacola, pleading 19 causes of action, all of which seek to hold the Kingdom civilly liable for the acts of its military officer. In extended motions practice, the Kingdom sought to dismiss the suit on grounds of immunity under the U.S. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ('FSIA'). On March 30, 2024, the U.S. District Court granted the Kingdom's motion, and the victims and their families timely filed an appeal with the Eleventh Circuit. In addition to raising important questions about a foreign sovereign's civil liability for an act of international terrorism in U.S. soil, the appeal raises a number of questions of first impression regarding the Foreign Sovereign Immunicites Act – including the meaning of certain provisions of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act of 2016, which neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any federal court of appeals has previously interpreted. The case is captioned Benjamin Watson, Jr., et al. v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, No. 24-11310 (11th Cir.). View original content: SOURCE Law Offices of Jeffrey E. McFadden, LLC
Iraq Business
22-03-2025
- Politics
- Iraq Business
Iraq responds to Wye Oak petition in US Supreme Court
By John Lee. The Republic of Iraq has responded to a petition from American defense contractor Wye Oak Technology, which had has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review its long-running legal dispute with Iraq. The case stems from a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in July 2024, overturning a previous decision that had granted Wye Oak more than $120 million in damages against the Republic of Iraq and the Iraqi Ministry of Defense. Wye Oak's petition for a writ of certiorari, filed on 14th January, 2025, seeks to overturn the lower court's ruling. The case involves the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), and concerns two legal issues regarding whether a foreign state can be sued in a U.S. court for an alleged breach of contract: Iraq argues that Wye Oak's claim of a circuit split (disagreement among different courts) is incorrect, as no court rejects this approach; Iraq also claims that Wye Oak's assertion of a circuit split is mistaken, as the Fourth Circuit's contrary decision was wrong and superseded by a Supreme Court ruling (Sachs, 2015). Neal Kumar Katyal of Hogan Lovells US LLP represents Wye Oak Technology, while Boaz S. Morag of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP represents the Republic of Iraq. The original ruling would have reimbursed Wye Oak for alleged unpaid invoices relating to work done for the Iraqi Ministry of Defense. Dale Stoffel, the President of Wye Oak Technology, was killed in mysterious circumstances twenty years ago while attempting to recover the debt. The full text of Iraq's Brief in Opposition can be read here. For information on Iraqi law, see our Legal Services page. (Source: U.S. Supreme Court)
Yahoo
04-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Family of American killed on Malaysian Airlines flight can sue Russian bank, US court rules
By Jonathan Stempel NEW YORK (Reuters) - The family of an American killed when a Malaysian Airlines plane was shot down over Ukraine in 2014 can sue Russia's largest bank for allegedly providing money transfers to a group blamed for downing the plane, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Tuesday. In a 3-0 decision, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said state-controlled Sberbank was not entitled to sovereign immunity, after being accused of using the U.S. banking system to funnel donor money to the Russia-backed separatist group Donetsk People's Republic. See for yourself — The Yodel is the go-to source for daily news, entertainment and feel-good stories. By signing up, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy. A U.S.-based lawyer for Sberbank had no immediate comment. Sberbank was not immediately available for comment after business hours in Moscow. The case was brought by the family of Quinn Schansman, who was 18 when he boarded Malaysian flight MH17 to Kuala Lumpur from Amsterdam on July 17, 2014, for a planned family vacation. The flight was shot down over DPR-controlled territory in eastern Ukraine by a surface-to-air missile, killing all 298 people on board. Russia has denied involvement. Ukraine had previously declared the DPR a terrorist organization, while the United States had imposed sanctions on the group. Schansman's family sued Sberbank, another Russian bank and two U.S. money transfer companies in April 2019, saying they should be liable for doing business with the DPR. A year later, Russia's Ministry of Finance bought a majority stake in Sberbank from the country's central bank. In Tuesday's decision, Circuit Judge Joseph Bianco called Sberbank's alleged handling of money transfers "quintessentially commercial activity," triggering an exception to protections under the federal Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). Sberbank had argued it deserved a presumption of immunity as a state agency or instrumentality. The bank also said another U.S. law, the Anti-Terrorism Act, provided immunity regardless of when it came under state control, with no exception for commercial activity. Bianco disagreed. He said the FSIA comprehensively governed sovereign immunity in civil cases, and its framework was not "silently repealed" by the anti-terrorism law. Adopting Sberbank's position, the judge wrote, would negate Congress' intent to give civil litigants the "broadest possible" legal basis to sue entities that materially support foreign entities that engage in terrorism against the United States. Jenner & Block, a law firm representing the Schansman family, welcomed the court's rejection of what it called Russia's effort to immunize Sberbank by "strategically acquiring" a majority stake. "We look forward to pursuing further evidence of Sberbank's wrongdoing in the district court and finally achieving justice for the Schansman family," the firm said. The case is Schansman et al v Sberbank of Russia PJSC, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 22-3097.
Reuters
04-02-2025
- Business
- Reuters
Family of American killed on Malaysian Airlines flight can sue Russian bank, US court rules
NEW YORK, Feb 4 (Reuters) - The family of an American killed when a Malaysian Airlines plane was shot down over Ukraine in 2014 can sue Russia's largest bank for allegedly providing money transfers to a group blamed for downing the plane, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Tuesday. In a 3-0 decision, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said state-controlled Sberbank was not entitled to sovereign immunity, after being accused of using the U.S. banking system to funnel donor money to the Russia-backed separatist group Donetsk People's Republic. A U.S.-based lawyer for Sberbank had no immediate comment. Sberbank was not immediately available for comment after business hours in Moscow. The case was brought by the family of Quinn Schansman, who was 18 when he boarded Malaysian flight MH17 to Kuala Lumpur from Amsterdam on July 17, 2014, for a planned family vacation. The flight was shot down over DPR-controlled territory in eastern Ukraine by a surface-to-air missile, killing all 298 people on board. Russia has denied involvement. Ukraine had previously declared the DPR a terrorist organization, while the United States had imposed sanctions on the group. Schansman's family sued Sberbank, another Russian bank and two U.S. money transfer companies in April 2019, saying they should be liable for doing business with the DPR. A year later, Russia's Ministry of Finance bought a majority stake in Sberbank from the country's central bank. In Tuesday's decision, Circuit Judge Joseph Bianco called Sberbank's alleged handling of money transfers "quintessentially commercial activity," triggering an exception to protections under the federal Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). Sberbank had argued it deserved a presumption of immunity as a state agency or instrumentality. The bank also said another U.S. law, the Anti-Terrorism Act, provided immunity regardless of when it came under state control, with no exception for commercial activity. Bianco disagreed. He said the FSIA comprehensively governed sovereign immunity in civil cases, and its framework was not "silently repealed" by the anti-terrorism law. Adopting Sberbank's position, the judge wrote, would negate Congress' intent to give civil litigants the "broadest possible" legal basis to sue entities that materially support foreign entities that engage in terrorism against the United States. Jenner & Block, a law firm representing the Schansman family, welcomed the court's rejection of what it called Russia's effort to immunize Sberbank by "strategically acquiring" a majority stake. "We look forward to pursuing further evidence of Sberbank's wrongdoing in the district court and finally achieving justice for the Schansman family," the firm said. The case is Schansman et al v Sberbank of Russia PJSC, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 22-3097.
