MMA Consultants 1, Inc. v. Republic of Peru

In a case where a foreign sovereign issued bearer bonds in New York, which required payment there, whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying the gravamen language in OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs, 136 S. Ct. 390 (2015), where the Plaintiff’s claim is not based entirely outside of the United States, or at least some of the key elements of Plaintiff’s claim occurred within the United States.

In a case where a foreign sovereign issued bearer bonds in New York, which required payment there, whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying OBB, a case involving tortious conduct and unrelated commercial activity, to deny jurisdiction under the first and third prongs of the “commercial activity” exception, over the application of this Court’s decision in Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc., 504 U.S. 607 (1992), a case involving breach of contract and the issuance of bonds in the United States and payable there.

In a case where a foreign sovereign issued bearer bonds in New York, which required payment there, whether the Court of Appeals erred in applying OBB’s gravamen language to split Plaintiff’s claim into a contractual right of action and the breach of that contract, and in doing so found no “direct effect” in the United States under the third prong of the commercial activity exception, and no commercial activity in the United States under the first prong.

In a case where a foreign sovereign issued bearer bonds in New York, which required payment there, whether the Court of Appeals erred when it held that the original place of performance in New York “disappeared” due to the unilateral conduct of the foreign sovereign issuer?