Russian Federation v. Stabil LLC, et al.

This petition presents the same question pending before this Court in Kingdom of Spain v. Blasket Renewable Investments, LLC, et al. (No. 24-1130) on the proper interpretation and application of the arbitration exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), which provides that a foreign state shall not be immune in an action to confirm an award rendered pursuant to “an agreement made by the foreign state with or for the benefit of a private party to submit to arbitration all or any differences * * * between the parties.” 28 U.S.C. 1605(a)(6); Appendix (Pet. App.) 85a. This petition, however, presents the question from a different but complementary angle. While Blasket involves the foreign state’s legal authority to offer (consent) to arbitrate with investors from certain Contracting Parties under a multilateral investment treaty, this petition involves the legal authority of domestic investors to accept an offer to arbitrate under a bilateral investment treaty that by its terms extends only to foreign investors. Although Russia’s petition is independently certworthy, this Court would benefit from granting both petitions and hearing the cases together. That way it can conduct a 360-degree review of the relevant issues and fully resolve the existing circuit split on the question presented, which is: Whether Section 1605(a)(6) requires a court to determine, as a threshold jurisdictional matter, that the foreign state offered (consented) to arbitrate “with or for the benefit of a private party” such that an arbitration agreement exists between those parties.