News 09 Apr. 2024
Curtis Announces New Partners and Counsels Across Offices in Spring 2024
more
News 25 Jan. 2024
Counsel Mohannad A. El Murtadi Suleiman Addresses “Africanization” of International Investment Law
Event 18 Aug. 2023
Partner Borzu Sabahi Speaks at FDI Moot Shenzhen
News 25 Jul. 2023
Partner Eric Gilioli Ranked in Top 10 Influential Energy & Natural Resources Lawyers in Kazakhstan in Business Today
Client Alert 28 Dec. 2023
U.S. to Impose Secondary Sanctions on Non-U.S. Banks For Financing Russia’s Defense Industry
Event 22 Aug. 2023
Partner Dr. Claudia Frutos-Peterson to Speak at Arbitration and ADR Commission of the ICC Mexico
Event 11 Jul. 2023
Partner Elisa Botero Speaks on the Role of the ICC in Investment Disputes
News 15 Aug. 2023
Legal Reader Publishes Article on Dr. Majed Alotaibi’s Arrival as Senior Counsel in Curtis’ Riyadh Office
News 31 Jul. 2023
Curtis Welcomes Senior Saudi Advisor, Dr. Majed Alotaibi, to its Riyadh Office
News 24 Aug. 2023
Curtis Attorneys Quoted in CoinDesk on FTX Founder Sam Bankman-Fried’s Strategy Ahead of His Criminal Trial
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
The United States and the United Kingdom Issue New Prohibitions on Metal Imports to Russia
news
Fernando Tupa Lectures on Fair and Equitable Treatment at an Investment Arbitration Course Organized by Litigando Derecho
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
Robert B. García
Luciana Teresa Ricart
Kevin A. Meehan
Milo Molfa
Serena Boscia Montalbano
William Hampson
Juan Perla
Lise Johnson
Counsel
Andrew Larkin
Associate
Sena Tsikata
Jean Marie Lambert
New York
+1 212 696 6000
London
+44 20 7710 9800
The American Privacy Rights Act of 2024
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.