Amaplat Mauritius Ltd., et al. v. Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation, et al.

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act allows suit against a foreign sovereign that “has waived its immunity . . . by implication.” 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(1). The Second Circuit has long held that a foreign sovereign impliedly waives its immunity from a suit seeking recognition of a foreign judgment confirming an arbitral award where the sovereign both (1) joins the U.N. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958 (the “New York Convention”) and (2) agrees to binding arbitration of a dispute in another Convention state. See Seetransport Wiking Trader Schiffarhtsgesellschaft MBH & Co. v. Navimpex Centrala Navala, 989 F.2d 572, 581–583 (2d Cir. 1993). In this case, the District of Columbia Circuit explicitly disagreed. App.12a–13a. As a result, an acknowledged conflict of authority exists between two of the “principal” circuits in which parties seek to enforce arbitral awards against foreign sovereigns. See Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela v. Hemerich & Payne Intern. Drilling Co., 581 U.S. 170, 186 (2017). The question presented by this Petition is: When a foreign sovereign that is a party to the New York Convention agrees to arbitrate a dispute governed by the Convention, does it impliedly waive immunity from an action in U.S. courts to recognize a valid foreign judgment confirming the arbitral award in another member state. See 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(1).