Second Circuit Holds that Forum Non Conveniens Applies Under the FSIA
In Aenergy, S.A. v. Republic of Angola, the Second Circuit held that the standard doctrine of forum non conveniens applies to suits against foreign states under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). This holding is consistent with what the D.C. Circuit has said about forum non conveniens in FSIA cases. The Second Circuit’s decision would likely…
Continue ReadingWhat Should Happen Next in Cassirer?
Most of the procedural questions that arise in domestic litigation have a counterpart in transnational litigation. In Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation, the Supreme Court confronted the transnational counterpart to Klaxon v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co., a much-debated choice-of-law case decided in 1941. As Justice Kagan noted in her opinion for a unanimous Court, “[a]lthough…
Continue ReadingCassirer and FSIA Choice of Law
Today the Supreme Court unanimously resolved an important case about choice of law under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation is a lawsuit about the ownership of a Camille Pissarro painting, surrendered by Lilly Cassirer to the Nazis and now held by a foundation created and controlled by the Government…
Continue ReadingSupreme Court decides Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation
The Supreme Court today unanimously held in Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation that state choice-of-law rules apply in cases brought against foreign sovereigns alleging non-federal claims.
Continue ReadingThrowback Thursday: Foreign Sovereign Immunity in 1970
A fascinating and obscure book from 1970 discusses the relationship between domestic and foreign state immunity, the power of the executive branch over immunity, reciprocity, and – of course – the legislative reforms that would several years later become the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The American Law of Sovereign Immunity, published in 1970 by Theodore…
Continue ReadingAfghan Central Bank Assets Should Be Immune in Cases against the Taliban
Victims of terrorist attacks who obtained default judgments against the Taliban have requested the turnover of Afghan central bank assets frozen by U.S. sanctions. Because these assets are protected by foreign sovereign immunity and because no exception to immunity is applicable, courts should not order the assets turned over to the judgement-creditor plaintiffs, despite the terrible injuries that they and their families have suffered.
Continue ReadingCriminal Proceedings and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
Congress enacted the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) to address the inconsistent application of doctrines of state immunity to civil suits against foreign states and state-owned enterprises. The statute confers jurisdictional immunity on these entities, subject to enumerated exceptions. Most litigation under the FSIA involves whether a particular defendant qualifies as a foreign…
Continue ReadingLitigating a Russian Bond Default
The Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the sanctions imposed in response by the United States and other governments, have fueled expectations of a Russian sovereign debt default. Despite the Russian government’s recent coupon payments on two dollar bonds and apparent desire to avoid default, prices remain in deeply distressed territory. As often happens in such…
Continue ReadingD.C. Circuit Addresses FSIA in Hungarian Art Case
Last month, the D.C. Circuit addressed several important questions under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) in its latest decision in De Csepel v. Republic of Hungary, a long-running suit to recover art expropriated during the Second World War. The court held that the defendant Hungarian National Asset Management Inc. (MNV) was subject to jurisdiction…
Continue ReadingJam v. IFC: Secondary Liability in Transnational Disputes
Later this month, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider a petition for a writ of certiorari in Jam v. International Finance Corp., a case that raises important questions about United States jurisdiction over cross-border disputes. The case most immediately involves the scope of sovereign immunity where a foreign state or international organization takes actions in the United States that contribute to tortious conduct overseas.  But the case also has broader implications for secondary liability generally.
Continue Reading