Event 14 Oct. 2022
Curtis Provides Capacity Training to the Government of Uganda
more
Event 21 Sep. 2022
Kalidou Gadio Speaks at AIEN 2022 International Energy Summit
News 16 Dec. 2022
Curtis Trade Team is top ranked in Chambers Asia-Pacific 2023
Event 06 Dec. 2022
George Kahale Lectures on "Key Issues Facing States in ISDS" at Rashtriya Raksha University
News 27 Jan. 2023
Curtis Italy wins Law Firm of the Year for Arbitration/Energy 2023 at national Italian legal awards
News 09 Dec. 2022
Six Curtis Partners Recognized in Who's Who Legal - Arbitration
Event 22 Nov. 2022
Elisa Botero and Fernando Tupa to speak at the XVI International Congress of Arbitration in Lima, Perú
Event 02 Nov. 2022
Claudia Frutos-Peterson Speaks at the Universidad Externado de Colombia’s 6th Conference on National and International Arbitration
News 27 Sep. 2022
Curtis Boosts Riyadh Office with New Corporate Partner Stuart Davies
News 16 Aug. 2022
Curtis Delivers More Firsts for the Government of Oman in its Defense Against U.S. Trade Measures
Event 08 Nov. 2022
Simon Batifort and Andrew Larkin Speak at the 2022 ASIL Midyear Meeting
Client Alert 30 Aug. 2022
The EU Adopts the “Maintenance and Alignment” Sanctions Package
Client Alert 20 Jul. 2022
The EU Undertakes Fundamental Reform of the Legal Basis for Sanctions Enforcement
Client Alert 24 Jun. 2021
Update on Virtual Notarization (Executive Order 202.7) During the COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Pandemic (Updated: June 24, 2021) — U.S. Insight
Update on Virtual Witnessing (New York Executive Order 202.14) During The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Pandemic (Updated: June 24, 2021) — U.S. Insight
Client Alert 07 Feb. 2022
In 2021, courts in the United States and the United Kingdom decided significant cases affecting the rights, privileges and immunities of foreign states and their agencies and instrumentalities. In this year-in-review report, we highlight key cases from these two jurisdictions, including a case in which Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle successfully represented the foreign state defendant in the UK Supreme Court.
UK Highlights
In the United Kingdom, the State Immunity Act 1978 (the “SIA”) recognises immunity for foreign sovereign states, but then establishes a number of exceptions to this immunity. Not all cases involving state litigants deal with the SIA. One significant case this year concerned which of two rival governments the British courts would recognize. Other cases have dealt with the SIA often in the context of enforcement against assets of the state. In such cases the UK Supreme Court has held that diplomatic service on a foreign state is mandatory. In some ways this decision bucks a pro-enforcement trend as seen in another case this year where the exception to immunity based on a “commercial purpose” was broadly interpreted. On the other hand, the court has taken a more cautious approach to enforcement of perhaps the single largest arbitral award, holding that any issues of state immunity should be determined before enforcement can be considered. Read more about these cases in our full report.
US Highlights
In the United States, foreign states and their agencies and instrumentalities are generally immune from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, except in few circumstances enumerated in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (the “FSIA”). All four cases featured in this section involved the FSIA or its interplay with the U.S. Constitution or other statutes.
In 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the circumstances in which U.S. courts may hear expropriation claims against foreign states, holding that the FSIA’s expropriation exception to sovereign immunity does not encompass claims for alleged takings in violation of international human rights law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (New Orleans) held that foreign states who face actions to enforce arbitral awards may raise the absence of an arbitration agreement as a threshold sovereign immunity defense under the FSIA. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (New York) reaffirmed that legally distinct corporations owned by foreign states are persons under the U.S. Constitution’s due process clause, meaning that they cannot be sued in the U.S. courts unless they are found to be “at home” in the United States or the claims against them arise out of or are related to their contacts with the United States. The Second Circuit also held that a foreign state-owned corporation may be subject to criminal prosecution, despite the FSIA’s grant of jurisdiction only in a “civil action,” because a separate statute granting jurisdiction over all federal crimes applies to prosecutions against those entities too. Read more about these cases in our full report.
International Arbitration
Public International Law
Joseph D. Pizzurro
Partner
Mark Handley
Robert B. García
Luciana Teresa Ricart
Kevin A. Meehan
Milo Molfa
Serena Boscia Montalbano
William Hampson
Counsel
Juan Perla
Lise Johnson
Andrew Larkin
Associate
Lorena Guzmán-Díaz
Sena Tsikata
Jean Marie Lambert
New York
+1 212 696 6000
London
+44 20 7710 9800
News 18 Jan. 2023
Simon Batifort and Andrew Larkin Publish “The Meaning of Silence in Investment Treaties” in the ICSID Review
Event 16 Jan. 2023
Lise Johnson to Speak on the Possible Multilateral Instrument to Implement ISDS Reforms
We use cookies on our website to enhance your browsing experience, match your interests and assess our website performance. We do not share information with any third-party for marketing purposes. Please view our privacy policy to learn more about the use of cookies on our website. By continuing to browse our website, you consent to our use of cookies.