9ren Holding S.A.R.L. v. Kingdom of Spain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
9REN HOLDING S.À.R.L.,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 19-cv-01871 (TSC)
KINGDOM OF SPAIN,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Luxembourg-incorporated company 9REN Holding S.À.R.L. (“9REN”) has brought this
action to confirm an international arbitral award it received against the Kingdom of Spain (the
“Award”). Complaint, ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”). 9REN has moved for a preliminary injunction
enjoining Spain from pursuing litigation in Luxembourg that would prevent 9REN from seeking
to confirm the Award here. ECF No. 46 (“PI Motion”). For the reasons that follow, the court
will GRANT the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. 1
I. BACKGROUND
A. Laws and Treaties
This case concerns both international treaties and domestic laws and raises complex
issues regarding their effects on the court’s jurisdiction to enforce the Award.
Along with many other nations, the United States, Luxembourg, and Spain are all parties
to the 1965 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals
1
This opinion largely reflects the court’s reasoning for granting a similar preliminary injunction
in NextEra Energy Global Holdings B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain, Case 1:19-cv-01618-TSC, ECF
Nos. 84, 85 (February 15, 2023).
Page 1 of 25
of Other States (the “ICSID Convention”). The ICSID Convention establishes an arbitration
regime for resolving disputes related to international investments between the treaty’s members,
or “Contracting States.” The Convention’s Article 54(1) provides that “[e]ach Contracting State
shall recognize an award rendered pursuant to this Convention as binding and enforce the
pecuniary obligations imposed by that award within its territories as if it were a final judgment of
a court in that State.” Congress has confirmed that commitment by statute: “The pecuniary
obligations imposed by [an ICSID Convention] award shall be enforced and shall be given the
same full faith and credit as if the award were a final judgment of a court of general jurisdiction
of one of the several States.” 22 U.S.C. § 1650a.
In addition, Spain and Luxembourg are contracting parties to the Energy Charter Treaty
(ECT), a multinational agreement designed to create “a legal framework in order to promote
long-term cooperation in the energy field” through “complementarities and mutual benefits.”
ECT art. 2. For example, the ECT entitles investors from one contracting party to receive “fair
and equitable treatment” from the other contracting parties. Id. art. 10(1). Should a dispute
arise, the ECT provides that each contracting party “gives its unconditional consent to the
submission of [that] dispute to international arbitration”—and if a consenting investor seeks
arbitration, the arbitration can be carried out under the ICSID Convention. Id. art. 26(3)-(5).
Finally, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) provides that foreign states are
immune from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts unless they fall within certain exceptions. Under the
“waiver” exception, for example, U.S. courts have jurisdiction “in any case . . . in which the
foreign state has waived its immunity either explicitly or by implication.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1605(a)(1). And under the “arbitration” exception, U.S. courts have jurisdiction in any case
“in which the action is brought . . . to confirm an award made pursuant to . . . an agreement to
Page 2 of 25
arbitrate, if . . . the agreement or award is or may be governed by a treaty or other international
agreement in force for the United States calling for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral
awards.” Id. § 1605(a)(6).
B. Facts and Procedural History
9REN is a corporation organized under the laws of Luxembourg. Compl. ¶ 2. After
Spain enacted legislation to encourage investment in solar power projects in its territory in 2007,
9REN invested approximately 211 million euros across seven such projects. Id. ¶¶ 10-11. But
9REN alleges that between 2010 and 2014, Spain “passed measures to roll back the benefits
provided” under its earlier legislation, “frustrat[ing] 9REN’s legitimate expectation” in those
benefits. Id. ¶ 12. Because Luxembourg and Spain are both contracting parties to the ECT,
9REN sought to redress its grievances by requesting arbitration under the ICSID Convention in
2014. Id. ¶¶ 13, 17-21.
In 2016, a three-member ICSID arbitral tribunal convened to address 9REN’s request,
and the tribunal held a hearing on all issues during December of 2017. Id. ¶¶ 22, 24. In May
2019, the ICSID tribunal issued a decision for 9REN. Id. ¶ 25; see Award, ICSID Case No.
ARB/15/15, ECF No. 1-1 (“Award”). The tribunal awarded 9REN nearly 42 million euros, plus
interest and fees. Compl. ¶ 30; see Award ¶¶ 417, 429, 433, 445-49.
9REN asked this court to confirm the ICSID’s Award against Spain in June 2019.
Compl. ¶ 31. Several months later, Spain moved to dismiss 9REN’s Complaint or alternatively
stay this case while it applied for an annulment of the Award with an ICSID Annulment
Committee. ECF No. 11 (“Spain MTD”). 9REN opposed and cross-moved for judgment on the
pleadings. ECF Nos. 13, 14. In 2014, the court stayed the case and denied both motions without
prejudice, contemplating that they could be renewed once the stay was lifted. ECF No. 21. In
December 2022, the court lifted that stay upon receiving notice that the Annulment Committee
Page 3 of 25
had dismissed Spain’s application, and ordered the parties to propose a briefing schedule for
dispositive motions. December 7, 2022 Minute Order.
Before the briefing schedule’s due date, on December 22, 2022, Spain initiated a legal
action in Luxembourg (the “Luxembourg Action”), seeking an order requiring 9REN to either
“cease . . any enforcement of the [Award]” or be subject to a penalty of 100,000 EUR per day
until “the cessation by [9REN] of all actions or judicial or administrative proceedings which
violate the terms of this ruling.” See PI Motion at 1; id., Decl. of Thomas C.C. Childs, Exhibit 1,
at 21, ECF No. 46-3 (“Luxembourg Complaint”).
In response, 9REN now seeks injunctive relief of its own, asking this court to issue a
preliminary injunction preventing Spain from pursuing the Luxembourg Action insofar as it
would affect 9REN’s suit here. Specifically, 9REN seeks an injunction
(1) enjoining Spain from (a) seeking any relief in the Luxembourg Action or in
other Luxembourg proceedings requiring Petitioner to cease, suspend, hold in
abeyance, or withdraw any proceedings before this Court, or that otherwise
interferes with, obstructs, or delays resolution of Petitioner’s Petition to Confirm
the Award, and (b) pursuing any other foreign litigation that interferes with,
obstructs, or delays resolution of Petitioner’s Petition to Confirm the Award; and
(2) directing Spain to withdraw its request for relief in the Luxembourg Action
requiring Petitioner to “cease . . . any enforcement” of the Award insofar as it
relates to the proceedings before this Court.
PI Motion, Proposed Order at 2, ECF No. 46-4. 2
2
In a Joint Status Report on January 26, 2023, 9REN also appeared to request that the court enter
a temporary restraining order with the same effects as its proposed preliminary injunction.
ECF No. 50. But under Local Civil Rule 65.1(a), “[a]n application for a temporary restraining
order shall be made in a motion separate from the complaint.” And in any event, that request
will be mooted by the court’s order granting a preliminary injunction.
Page 4 of 25
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A. FSIA Jurisdiction
“Before evaluating the availability of preliminary relief, the Court must first determine
that it may properly exercise jurisdiction over the action.” Rosenkrantz v. Inter-Am. Dev. Bank,
No. CV 20-3670 (BAH), 2021 WL 1254367, at *7 (D.D.C. Apr. 5, 2021) (quotation omitted),
aff’d, 35 F.4th 854 (D.C. Cir. 2022); see also Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d 1023, 1028, 1038 (D.C.
Cir. 2014) (“We begin, as we must, with the question of subject-matter jurisdiction,” then “turn
to the question of whether petitioners have established their entitlement to injunctive relief.”).
Spain argues that it is immune from jurisdiction under the FSIA, which provides the “sole basis
for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in the courts of this country.” Saudi Arabia v.
Nelson, 507 U.S. 349, 351 (1993). “Under the Act, a foreign state is presumptively immune
from the jurisdiction of United States courts; unless a specified exception applies, a federal court
lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim against a foreign state.” Id. at 356.
When a defendant challenges the factual basis for jurisdiction under an FSIA exception,
the D.C. Circuit applies a burden-shifting analysis. See Agudas Chasidei Chabad of U.S. v.
Russian Fed’n, 528 F.3d 934, 940 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The plaintiff “bears the initial burden of
supporting its claim that the FSIA exception applies.” Chevron Corp. v. Ecuador, 795 F.3d 200,
204 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (citing Chabad, 528 F.3d at 940). “[T]his is only a burden of
production”—producing evidence of the required jurisdictional facts. Id. (same). If Plaintiff
meets its burden, then the “burden of persuasion rests with the foreign sovereign claiming
immunity, which must establish the absence of the factual basis by a preponderance of the
evidence.” Id. (same).
Page 5 of 25
B. Motion for Preliminary Injunction
A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic” remedy that is “never awarded
as of right.” Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008). A movant must demonstrate (1) a
likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm absent injunctive relief;
(3) that the balance of equities tips in their favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public
interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Because
“a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy,” the court should not grant one
“unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v.
Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (internal citation omitted) (emphasis in original).
Courts in this Circuit have typically applied a “sliding-scale” approach in analyzing these
four factors; a particularly strong showing in one factor could outweigh weakness in
another. Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388, 393 (D.C. Cir. 2011). It is unclear if this approach
has survived the Supreme Court's decision in Winter, however. See, e.g., Banks v. Booth, 459 F.
Supp. 3d 143, 149-50 (D.D.C. 2020) (citing Sherley, 644 F.3d at 393). Nonetheless, the movant
still bears a burden to show that “all four factors, taken together, weigh in favor of the
injunction.” Abdullah v. Obama, 753 F.3d 193, 197 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (quoting Davis v. Pension
Benefit Guar. Corp., 571 F.3d 1288, 1292 (D.C. Cir. 2009)).
III. JURISDICTION
The court concludes that it has jurisdiction under the FSIA’s arbitration exception.
The D.C. Circuit has found that “jurisdiction under the arbitration exception requires
more than a claim invoking an arbitration award.” LLC SPC Stileks v. Republic of Moldova, 985
F.3d 871, 877 (D.C. Cir. 2021). “Rather,” and tracking the text of the exception, the court has
held that “the existence of an arbitration agreement, an arbitration award and a treaty governing
the award are all jurisdictional facts that must be established.” Id.; see also Process & Indus.
Page 6 of 25
Devs. Ltd. v. Fed. Republic of Nigeria, 27 F.4th 771, 776 (D.C. Cir. 2022). Spain does not
contest the latter two facts. 3 See Spain MTD at 16-17 (discussing the Award and its application
for annulment); id. at 2 (acknowledging that “Congress passed legislation implementing the
ICSID Convention” by enacting 22 U.S.C. § 1650a(a)). Instead, Spain’s central argument is that
“9REN does not have a valid arbitration agreement with Spain.” Id. at 20. 9REN does not
dispute that an existing agreement is essential for jurisdiction under the arbitration exception.
As a result, the key issue is whether an agreement to arbitrate existed between Spain and
9REN. Spain concedes—as it must—that the ECT exists, and that its terms facially create such
an agreement: Article 26 “provides for resolution of disputes between investors of a contracting
party and another contracting party through arbitration under various arbitral rules, including
those set forth in the ICSID Convention.” Spain MTD at 10. So, in a purely literal sense, there
is no dispute about the existence of an agreement to arbitrate.
Whether the ECT’s agreement to arbitrate existed as a legal matter is a harder question.
Spain asserts that recent decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)—which
interprets and enforces EU law—have clarified that Spain never had the authority to agree to
ICSID arbitration via the ECT. In Slovak Republic v. Achmea B.V., Case No. C-284/16 (Mar. 6,
2018), ECF No. 62-47 (Achmea), the CJEU addressed the relationship between international
arbitration agreements and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, “which sets
forth the EU's authority to legislate and key principles of EU law.” Micula v. Gov’t of Romania,
3
As noted supra Section I.B., Spain’s original Motion to Dismiss was denied without prejudice.
But Spain’s Opposition to 9REN’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction refers to its original
motion’s arguments asserting sovereign immunity. See Opposition to Motion for Preliminary
Injunction at 12-14, ECF No. 55 at 12-14 (“Opp. to PI Motion”). Because the court must
determine whether it has jurisdiction before considering preliminary relief, see supra Section
II.A., it will consider those jurisdictional arguments here.
Page 7 of 25
404 F. Supp. 3d 265, 278 (D.D.C. 2019), aff’d, 805 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2020). In Achmea, the
CJEU held that
Articles 267 and 344 [of the] TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a provision
in an international agreement concluded between Member States . . . under which
an investor from one of those Member States may, in the event of a dispute
concerning investments in the other Member State, bring proceedings against the
latter Member State before an arbitral tribunal whose jurisdiction that Member
State has undertaken to accept.
Achmea ¶ 60.
In other words, to protect “the autonomy of EU law,” Achmea invalidated arbitration
agreements that would “call upon [an] arbitral tribunal to interpret or apply EU law . . . not
subject to review by a court or tribunal within the EU’s judicial system.” Micula, 404 F. Supp.
3d at 279. In Republic of Moldova v. Komstroy, Case C-741/19 (Sept. 2, 2021), ECF No. 62-67,
the CJEU confirmed that its reasoning in Achmea applied specifically to ECT Article 26. Based
on Achmea and Komstroy, Spain contends that “as a matter of EU law, no valid arbitration
agreement existed between Spain and 9REN” because any such agreement would violate core
tenets of EU sovereignty as set out in the EU Treaties. Spain MTD at 26; see id. at 24-26.
As another court in this district recognized in similar case, “[a]ssuming Spain is correct,
the dominoes begin to fall. If there was no agreement to arbitrate, the ICSID tribunal never had
jurisdiction, its award is not enforceable, and therefore it is not entitled to full faith and credit in
this Court.” InfraRed Env’t Infrastructure GP Ltd. v. Kingdom of Spain, No. CV 20-817 (JDB),
2021 WL 2665406, at *4 (D.D.C. June 29, 2021). “Moreover, absent an agreement to arbitrate,
Spain maintains its immunity under the FSIA, leaving this Court without subject-matter
jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the complaint.” Id.Only one U.S. court has attempted to grapple with the implications of Achmea for its
jurisdiction under the FSIA to confirm an ICSID arbitral award. In Micula v. Government of
Page 8 of 25
Romania, Swedish investors had “initiated arbitration proceedings against Romania before an
ICSID tribunal” pursuant to a Romania-Sweden bilateral investment treaty (“BIT”), then sought
to confirm that award in this district. 404 F. Supp. 3d at 270, 272-73. Romania argued that the
FSIA arbitration exception did not apply “because the arbitration clause in the Sweden-Romania
BIT has been declared invalid” by the Achmea decision, id. at 277—the same argument Spain
advances here with respect to the ECT’s Article 26.
After “carefully consider[ing] the Achmea decision,” the court in Micula held that
Romania “ha[d] failed to carry its burden of showing that Achmea forecloses this court’s
jurisdiction under the FSIA’s arbitration exception.” Id. at 279. Specifically, Romania had “not
shown that the concern that animated Achmea—the un-reviewability of an arbitral tribunal's
determination of EU law by an EU court—[was] present in [that] case.” Id. The court gave
three reasons for that conclusion, all of which related to the fact that “all key events to the
parties’ dispute occurred before Romania acceded to the EU.” Id. at 280. First, “Romania’s
challenged actions occurred when it remained . . . subject, at least primarily, to its own domestic
law.” Id. Second, the parties agreed that the “substantive rules” of the “Sweden-Romania BIT,”
not EU law, “supplied the applicable law” for the claims at issue—the ICSID tribunal only
considered EU law “for factual context, not as a source of controlling law.” Id. (quotation
omitted). And third, a ruling from a CJEU constituent court had expressly distinguished Achmea
on the grounds that the arbitral tribunal in Micula “was not bound to apply EU law to events
occurring prior to the accession before it.” Id. at 280. The court found that that ruling “therefore
explicitly refute[d] Romania’s position that the CJEU’s decision in Achmea nullified the
arbitration agreement contained in the Sweden Romania BIT.” Id.
Page 9 of 25
A panel of the D.C. Circuit affirmed Judge Mehta’s conclusion in an unpublished, per
curiam opinion, noting the “question[] whether Romania’s agreement to arbitrate was nullified
by its ascension to the European Union.” Micula v. Gov’t of Romania, 805 F. App’x 1, 1 (D.C.
Cir. 2020). But the panel did not address that question because, “as the district court carefully
explained, Romania did not join the EU until after the underlying events here, so the arbitration
agreement applied.” Id.Even more recently, however, the D.C. Circuit has indicated that there is no need to reach
an analysis of EU law and the CJEU’s Achmea decision in this context. In LLC SPS Stileks v.
Republic of Moldova, 985 F.3d 871, 875 (D.C. Cir. 2021), Energoalliance, a Ukrainian energy
provider, had invoked the ECT’s arbitration clause to initiate a proceeding against Moldova
before the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). After that
arbitral tribunal issued an award, Energoalliance sought to confirm it in the United States.
Moldova argued before the district court and D.C. Circuit that U.S. courts lacked jurisdiction
under the FSIA’s arbitration exception because Energoalliance was not a qualifying investor
under the ECT and therefore could not have validly invoked the ECT’s arbitration clause. Id. at
875, 877-78. Thus, Moldova argued, “[a]lthough the ECT may establish that Moldova agreed to
arbitrate certain disputes, it does not prove that it agreed to arbitrate this particular dispute.” Id.
at 878. In other words, Moldova argued—as Spain does here—that whether one party could
have validly agreed to arbitrate under the ECT implicated the agreement’s very existence and
was therefore a necessary jurisdictional question under the FSIA.
The D.C. Circuit panel squarely rejected that argument. It characterized Moldova’s
argument as contesting the arbitrability of the dispute, not the necessary jurisdictional fact of an
agreement’s existence. Id.; see also id. at 877 n.3 (observing “no disagreement that Moldova is a
Page 10 of 25
party to the ECT, which provides for the arbitration of certain disputes”). And, citing Chevron
Corp. v. Ecuador, 795 F.3d 200, 205-06 (D.C. Cir. 2015), the Court concluded that “the
arbitrability of a dispute is not a jurisdictional question under the FSIA.” 985 F.3d at 878. In
Chevron, Ecuador asserted that it “had never agreed to arbitrate with Chevron” because
Chevron’s investments had terminated before the relevant treaty came into force. 795 F.3d at
203. But, the Court ruled, that assertion “conflate[d] the jurisdictional standard of the FSIA with
the standard for review” of the award’s merits based on its arbitrability or lack thereof. 795 F.3d
at 205. Likewise, the Stileks panel declined to address Moldova’s argument that Energoalliance
could not have invoked the ECT’s arbitration provision for purposes of resolving the issue of
jurisdiction under the FSIA. 985 F.3d at 878. 4
The lesson of Stileks and Chevron appears to be this: The assertion that a party lacked a
legal basis to enter or invoke an arbitration agreement is not a challenge to the jurisdictional fact
of that agreement’s existence but rather a challenge to that agreement’s arbitrability. And that
assertion goes to arbitrability even if it contends that the ECT was not validly applied. As the
Circuit noted in Stileks: “Whether the ECT applies to the dispute and whether the tribunal had
jurisdiction under the ECT are different ways of framing the same question” about the merits of
an award—namely, whether a dispute was arbitrable. Id. at 879. A defendant may accordingly
4
The Stileks Court did consider Moldova’s arguments in deciding whether it could assert “a
defense to confirmation under the New York Convention.” 985 F.3d at 878. But even in that
context, the Court declined to “pass[] on the merits of that defense” because the ECT bound its
parties to arbitration under UNCITRAL’s rules, one of which was that UNCITRAL had power
to rule on its own jurisdiction. Id. Thus, the ECT’s parties had delegated the question of
arbitrability to the UNCITRAL tribunal, and therefore the “court possesse[d] no power to
decide the arbitrability issue.” Id. at 878-79 (quoting Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White
Sales, Inc., 139 S.Ct. 524, 529 (2019)). Ultimately, however, there is no need to replicate that
analysis here because unlike the New York Convention—and as reiterated infra Section
III.B.1—the ICSID Convention’s Article 54(1) and 22 U.S.C. § 1650a do not provide for
judicial review of an ICSID tribunal award’s merits, including the question of arbitrability.
Page 11 of 25
assert the lack of a legal basis for entering an agreement to contest an award’s merits (where the
law provides for judicial review of an award’s merits), but not to rebut a plaintiff’s evidence that
an agreement to arbitrate exists.
At least one other judge in this district has applied Stileks in that way. In Tethyan Copper
Co. Pty Ltd. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 590 F. Supp. 3d 262 (D.D.C. 2022), Tethyan, an
Australian mining company, sought to confirm an ICSID arbitration award against Pakistan.
Under the relevant treaty, a referral to arbitration required written consent. Pakistan argued that
it had “never provided such written consent,” and therefore had “never agreed to arbitrate at
ICSID.” Id. at 273. In evaluating that purported “dispute[] over the existence of an arbitration
agreement,” id., the court recognized that Tethyan had met its jurisdictional burden to produce
“copies of the [underlying treaty], the notice[] of arbitration, and the tribunal’s decision,” id.(quoting Stileks, 985 F.3d at 877), which together “entitle[d] Tethyan to a presumption of a valid
arbitration agreement,” id. Further, the court expressly rejected Pakistan’s argument that “the
Court should make its own independent determination on the existence of an agreement,”
construing that argument as going to arbitrability and citing Chevron and Stileks for the
proposition that an arbitrability dispute “does not affect the Court’s jurisdiction.” Id. at 273-74.
Consequently, the court found, “Pakistan’s arbitrability argument [was] not cognizable under
FSIA” and the arbitration exception applied to grant the court jurisdiction to confirm the arbitral
award. Id. at 275.
The court reaches the same conclusion here. As noted above, there is no question as to
the existence of the “copies of the [underlying treaty], the notice[] of arbitration, and the
tribunal’s decision.” Stileks, 985 F.3d at 877. Under the Chevron burden-shifting framework,
therefore, Spain has the burden of showing that, in fact, no arbitration agreement exists. See 795
Page 12 of 25
F.3d at 204. Spain’s only argument on that score is that it could not have entered into the ECT’s
arbitration provisions because EU law—as retroactively clarified by the Achmea and Komstroy
decisions—does not permit EU members to assign questions of EU law to arbitration in non-EU
tribunals. Therefore, the ECT did not apply to Spain and 9REN’s dispute, and no agreement to
arbitrate was ever formed. But the D.C. “Circuit [has] rejected that tactic.” Tethyan, 590 F.
Supp. 3d at 274. Chevron and Stileks treat the argument that a party lacked a legal basis to enter
an agreement as a question of arbitrability and therefore an issue of the award’s merits. See
Stileks, 985 F.3d at 878; Chevron, 795 F.3d at 205 n.3. Spain thus cannot deploy that argument
here as a backdoor challenge to FSIA jurisdiction.
Because Spain’s argument “does not affect the Court’s jurisdiction,” Tethyan, 590 F.
Supp. 3d at 274, there is no need at this stage to analyze the effects of Achmea and Komstroy on
EU law and intra-EU disputes. And because Spain does not offer any other arguments or
evidence rebutting the existence of an arbitration agreement, it has failed to carry its burden of
persuasion that the necessary jurisdictional facts are not present here. As a result, the court finds
that it has jurisdiction over Spain under the FSIA’s arbitration exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6).
IV. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Having found that it has jurisdiction over this action, the court turns to 9REN’s request
for injunctive relief. The court is persuaded that this case presents sufficiently unusual
circumstances to warrant a preliminary, anti-suit injunction against a foreign sovereign.
A. Anti-Suit Injunction
U.S. federal courts “have power to control the conduct of persons subject to their
jurisdiction to the extent of forbidding them from suing in foreign jurisdictions.” Laker Airways
Ltd. v. Sabena, Belgian World Airlines, 731 F.2d 909, 926 (D.C. Cir. 1984). “However, . . . [t]he
mere filing of a suit in one forum does not cut off the preexisting right of an independent forum
Page 13 of 25
to regulate matters subject to its prescriptive jurisdiction,” and “[i]f the foreign court reacts with
a similar injunction, no party may be able to obtain any remedy.” Id. at 927. Thus, “foreign
anti-suit injunctions are appropriate only when ‘required to prevent an irreparable miscarriage of
justice,’ such as when ‘necessary to protect the jurisdiction of the enjoining court, or to prevent
the litigant’s evasion of the important public policies of the forum.’” United States v. All Assets
Held at Credit Suisse (Guernsey) Ltd., 45 F.4th 426, 434 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (quoting Laker
Airways, 731 F.2d at 927).
The D.C. Circuit’s decision in Laker Airways provides direct guidance in this case. In
1982, the liquidated British airline Laker Airways—which operated transatlantic flights between
New York and London—brought an antitrust action against several domestic and foreign
airlines, seeking to recoup losses caused by alleged predatory pricing and other economic
interference. 731 F.2d at 917. Shortly thereafter, the foreign airlines initiated a suit in the
United Kingdom’s High Court of Justice, seeking “(1) a declaration that the four foreign
defendants were not engaged in any unlawful combination or conspiracy, and (2) an injunction
prohibiting Laker from taking any action in United States courts to redress an alleged violation
by the defendants of United States antitrust laws,” including by forcing Laker Airways to
withdraw its antitrust suit. Id. at 918. Ultimately, the British courts did order Laker Airways to
cease prosecuting at least the British airlines, and were considering a similar order protecting the
other foreign airlines as well. Id. at 919-20. Laker Airlines sought an anti-suit injunction in this
district restraining the other foreign airlines from continuing their efforts to obtain injunctive
relief against Laker Airways in British courts. Id. at 919-21.
The D.C. Circuit concluded that, in those circumstances, an anti-suit preliminary
injunction was warranted.
Page 14 of 25
Courts have a duty to protect their legitimately conferred jurisdiction to the extent
necessary to provide full justice to litigants. Thus, when the action of a litigant in
another forum threatens to paralyze the jurisdiction of the court, the court may
consider the effectiveness and propriety of issuing an injunction against the
litigant’s participation in the foreign proceedings.
Laker Airways, 731 F.2d at 927. “[D]uplication of parties and issues alone is not sufficient” to
warrant this remedy, as “the fundamental corollary to concurrent jurisdiction must ordinarily be
respected: parallel proceedings on the same in personam claim should ordinarily be allowed to
proceed simultaneously, at least until a judgment is reached in one which can be pled as res
judicata in the other.” Id. at 927-28. But “where the foreign proceeding is not following a
parallel track but attempts to carve out exclusive jurisdiction over concurrent actions, an
injunction may be necessary to avoid the possibility of losing validly invoked jurisdiction” and
protect “the court’s ability to render a just and final judgment.” Id. at 930.
That is the case here. For the reasons explained supra section III, this action is a
“proper[] exercise[]” of the court’s jurisdiction.” Id. And the express and primary purpose of
Spain’s suit in Luxembourg “is to terminate [this] action,” id.—ordering 9REN to withdraw this
suit, imposing penalties upon failure to do so, and issuing an injunction preventing 9REN from
taking any action to confirm the Award, Luxembourg Complaint at 21. Like the foreign airlines
in Laker Airways, Spain did not provide the court with “any prior notice” that it was seeking an
anti-suit injunction against 9REN in Luxembourg, apparently planning to simply later advise the
court of the “fait accompli . . . which would have virtually eliminated the court’s effective
jurisdiction over [9REN’s] facially valid claim.” 731 F.2d at 930-31. That leaves the court with
“the stark choice of either protecting or relinquishing [its] jurisdiction” over 9REN’s petition. Id.Page 15 of 25
at 930. The court concludes that these “most compelling circumstances” require an anti-suit
injunction. Id. at 927. 5
Spain offers only three direct counterarguments, but each fails for reasons the court has
already explained. First, Spain argues that because the court lacks jurisdiction, there is no
jurisdiction here to protect. Opp. to PI Motion at 15-18. But the court has rejected Spain’s
premise and found jurisdiction, so Spain’s argument likewise fails. Supra section III. Second,
Spain argues that jurisdiction under the FSIA’s arbitration exception does not extend to issuing
an anti-suit injunction. Opp. to PI Motion at 14-15. But that theory would render FSIA
jurisdiction totally defenseless to foreign collateral attacks—like Spain’s Luxembourg Action.
In reality, U.S. courts have not just the power but the “duty to protect their legitimately conferred
jurisdiction to the extent necessary to provide full justice to litigants.” Laker Airways, 731 F.2d
at 927. Third, Spain attempts to distinguish Laker Airways by noting that one of the D.C.
Circuit’s concerns in that case was that the relief plaintiffs sought—“the remedies afforded by
the American antitrust laws”—were not available in foreign courts. Opp. to PI Mot. at 17 (citing
731 F.2d at 930). But this case does not present even that partial distinction; here, too, foreign
courts are inadequate alternatives because, as the D.C. Circuit has observed, “only U.S. courts
can attach foreign commercial assets found within the United States.” Stileks, 985 F.3d at 876
n.1; see also Laker Airways, 731 F.2d at 936 (observing that arguments like Spain’s are better
suited to forum non conveniens cases where there is an adequate alternative forum).
5
Because the court’s need to protect its own jurisdiction is sufficient to justify an anti-suit
injunction here, the court need not reach the other “category” of compelling circumstances
described by Laker Airways: “prevent[ing] the litigant’s evasion of the important public
policies of the forum.” 731 F.2d at 927.
Page 16 of 25
Considerations of comity, while deserving substantial respect, do not outweigh the need
for an anti-suit injunction in this case. Like the defendants in Laker Airways, Spain “argue[s]
strenuously” that “the crucial principles of comity that regulate and moderate the social and
economic intercourse between independent nations” preclude an injunction here. 731 F.2d at
937; see Opp. to PI Motion at 18-22. And like the Circuit in Laker Airways, the court
“approach[es] [Spain’s] claims seriously,” recognizing that “when possible, the decision of
foreign tribunals should be given effect in domestic courts, since recognition fosters international
cooperation and encourages reciprocity, thereby promoting predictability and stability.” 731
F.2d at 937. “However, there are limitations to the application of comity.” Id. For one,
United States courts must control the access to their forums. No foreign court can
supersede the right and obligation of the United States courts to decide whether
Congress has created a remedy for those injured by trade practices adversely
affecting United States interests. Our courts are not required to stand by while [a
foreign sovereign] attempts to close a courthouse door that Congress, under its
territorial jurisdiction, has opened.
Id. at 935-36. In short, “[n]o nation is under an unremitting obligation to enforce foreign
interests which are fundamentally prejudicial to those of the domestic forum.” Id. at 937.
Under these principles, the relief Spain seeks in Luxembourg is not entitled to comity.
“This is because the [Luxembourg Action] is specifically intended to interfere with and
terminate” 9REN’s petition before this court. Id. In Laker Airways, the Circuit approved of the
preliminary injunction because it was “purely defensive—it [sought] only to preserve the district
court’s ability to arrive at a final judgment adjudicating Laker’s claims under United States
law”—and was granted in response to a foreign injunction that was “purely offensive—it [was]
not designed to protect English jurisdiction, or allow English courts to proceed to a judgment on
the defendant’s potential liability.” Id. at 938. The same is true here. 9REN seeks an injunction
to protect this court’s jurisdiction, while Spain seeks an injunction to eliminate it.
Page 17 of 25
The upshot of Spain’s argument, then, is the same one made by the defendant airlines and
rejected by the D.C. Circuit in Laker Airways—“that comity compels us to recognize a decision
by a foreign government that this court shall not apply its own laws.” Id. But in the
Luxembourg Action, Spain is zealously pursuing the very same kind of anti-suit injunction that it
now asks this court to refrain from issuing. Consequently, Spain’s “claims of comity now
asserted in United States courts come burdened with the failure of [Spain] to recognize comity.”
Id. The Laker Airways court refused to countenance that hypocrisy, and neither will this court.
In that case, the Circuit observed that “[t]here never would have been any situation in which
comity or forbearance would have become an issue if some of the defendants involved in the
American suit had not gone into the English courts to generate interference with the American
courts.” 731 F.2d at 939-40. So too here. The court would not be considering this relief were
Spain not actively seeking to frustrate the operation of U.S. law. The comity concerns that Spain
laments are of its own making.
An anti-suit injunction is strong medicine. But here it is required—and will be tailored—
to meet the force of Spain’s attempt to deprive this court of jurisdiction. Spain remains free, for
example, to seek a declaration from Luxembourg courts vindicating its interpretation of EU law.
See Luxembourg Complaint at 22 . But Spain may not seek to foreclose 9REN’s opportunity to
petition this court for the relief afforded by United States law.
B. Preliminary Injunction
Having determined that an anti-suit injunction may be appropriate in this case, the court
now considers whether such relief against Spain is warranted in the form of a preliminary
injunction. See In re Millenium Seacarriers, Inc., 458 F.3d 92, 98 (2d Cir. 2006) (“Once the . . .
court has addressed the propriety of imposing an anti-suit injunction . . . , [the] court must then
Page 18 of 25
make findings on whether it is appropriate to enter a preliminary injunction.”). All four relevant
factors favor granting 9REN’s motion.
1. Likelihood of success on the merits
The analysis required for confirming the Award is relatively straightforward, and 9REN’s
success in confirming it is highly likely. By statute, an ICSID Convention award like this one
create[s] a right arising under a treaty of the United States. The pecuniary
obligations imposed by such an award shall be enforced and shall be given the
same full faith and credit as if the award were a final judgment of a court of
general jurisdiction of one of the several States.
28 U.S.C. § 1650a(a). Moreover, the Federal Arbitration Act—and its accompanying, “more
robust form of judicial review,” Tethyan, 590 F. Supp. 3d at 268—“shall not apply to
enforcement of awards rendered” under the ICSID Convention, 28 U.S.C. § 1650a(a).
“[T]he Court’s role in enforcing an ICSID arbitral award is therefore exceptionally
limited.” TECO Guatemala Holdings, LLC v. Republic of Guatemala, 414 F. Supp. 3d 94, 101
(D.D.C. 2019); see also Tidewater Inv. SRL v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. CV 17-
1457 (TJK), 2018 WL 6605633 (D.D.C. Dec. 17, 2018) (noting “the perfunctory role that 22
U.S.C. § 1650a appears to envision for federal district courts”). “The Court must ensure that it
has subject-matter and personal jurisdiction; that the award is authentic; and that its enforcement
order tracks the award.” Tethyan, 590 F. Supp. 3d at 268 (citing TECO Guatemala, 414 F. Supp.
3d at 101; Mobil Cerro Negro, Ltd. v. Bolivarian Repub. of Venezuela, 863 F.3d 96, 112 (2d Cir.
2017)).
All those elements are present here. For the reasons explained infra Section III, the court
finds that it has jurisdiction. And neither party raises any reason to believe that the Award in this
case is not authentic, or that the court’s enforcement order will not be able to successfully track
the Award’s terms. That ends the court’s inquiry; the Award must be enforced.
Page 19 of 25
In challenging that conclusion, Spain asks the court to look beyond the scope of 22
U.S.C. § 1650a(a) in several respects. First, reiterating its assertion that no valid arbitration
agreement existed, Spain argues that 9REN’s Award is not entitled to full faith and credit
because the ICSID tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the underlying dispute. Spain MTD at 26-
28, 29-30. But under the ICSID Convention, “[m]ember states’ courts are . . . not permitted to
examine . . . the ICSID tribunal’s jurisdiction to render the award.” Mobil Cerro, 863 F.3d at
103. In any event, “a judgment is entitled to full faith and credit—even as to questions of
jurisdiction—when the second court’s inquiry discloses that those questions have been fully and
fairly litigated and finally decided” by the original court. Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106, 111
(1963); Ins. Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 702 n.9
(1982); see Tethyan, 590 F. Supp. 3d at 276. After hearing the same arguments Spain raises
here, the ICSID tribunal determined that it had jurisdiction over the dispute. Award ¶¶ 116-208.
Consequently, that determination, as well as the Award itself, is due full faith and credit.
Second, Spain argues that the ICSID tribunal violated EU law’s prohibition on granting
“state aid”—that is, subsidies to private actors—without authorization from the European
Commission. Spain MTD at 29-30. Insofar as Spain argues that the ICSID tribunal exceeded its
own jurisdiction, that argument is foreclosed for the reasons explained in the previous paragraph.
And to the extent that Spain argues that the Award itself violates EU law, that contention “goes
to the merits of the ICSID panel’s determination” and must be taken up with the ICSID tribunal
itself. Micula, 404 F. Supp. 3d at 285. The ICSID Convention’s Article 53 provides that an
“award shall be binding on the parties and shall not be subject to any appeal or to any other
remedy except those provided for in this Convention.” Nothing in § 1650a permits the court to
consider this issue.
Page 20 of 25
Finally, Spain appeals to the “foreign sovereign compulsion” and “act of state” doctrines.
Spain MTD at 30-34. Neither is applicable here. The foreign sovereign compulsion doctrine is a
defense that some Circuits permit antitrust defendants to assert to shield their anticompetitive
acts from liability on the grounds that those acts were compelled by a foreign government. See
Construction and Application of Foreign Sovereign Compulsion Doctrine, 86 A.L.R. 2d 1(2014); see, e.g., In Re: Vitamin C Antitrust Litig., 8 F.4th 136 (2d Cir. 2021). The D.C. Circuit
has not adopted the doctrine. More importantly, this is not an antitrust case, and therefore the
doctrine is inapplicable; the court is unaware of any authority extending this doctrine outside of
the antitrust context. Spain’s allusions to comity principles, see, e.g., Spain MTD at 33-34, do
not persuade the court to do so here. See also supra section IV.A (discussing the role of comity
in this case).
The related act of state doctrine “precludes the courts of this country from inquiring into
the validity of the public acts a recognized foreign sovereign power committed within its own
territory.” World Wide Minerals, Ltd. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, 296 F.3d 1154, 1164 (D.C. Cir.
2002) (quoting Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398, 401 (1964)). But “[a]ct of
state issues only arise when a court must decide—that is, when the outcome of the case turns
upon—the effect of official action by a foreign sovereign.” W.S. Kirkpatrick & Co. v. Env’t
Tectonics Corp., Int’l, 493 U.S. 400, 406 (1990). As noted above, under § 1650a(a), the court
only needs to decide three questions: (1) whether “it has subject-matter and personal
jurisdiction,” (2) whether “the award is authentic,” and (3) whether “its enforcement order tracks
the award.” Tethyan, 590 F. Supp. 3d at 268; TECO Guatemala, 414 F. Supp. 3d at 101; Mobil
Cerro, 863 F.3d at 112. Whether a foreign act was lawful is not part of this calculus. As the
D.C. Circuit recognized in Micula, petitioners to confirm an ICSID arbitral award “have not
Page 21 of 25
challenged the acts or decisions of a foreign sovereign,” but instead “have merely sought to
enforce a decision rendered by a forum for international arbitration to which [the foreign
sovereign] has voluntarily submitted itself.” 2022 WL 2281645, at *2.
Still, Spain contends that finding the existence of an award here would effectively
question the validity of the “contrary holdings by the European Commission . . . EU Court of
Justice’s decision in Achmea, . . . Joint Declaration of EU Member States[,] and the EU’s own
statements.” Spain MTD at 32. The Supreme Court has rejected that perspective in language
that readily applies here: “Regardless of what the court’s factual findings may suggest as to the
legality” of those foreign acts, their validity “is simply not a question to be decided in the present
suit, and there is thus no occasion to apply the rule of decision that the act of state doctrine
requires.” Kirkpatrick, 493 U.S. at 406. The act of state doctrine therefore finds no purchase in
this case.
In sum, none of Spain’s protests alter the conclusion that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1650a(a)’s unambiguous directive, the court should afford the Award full faith and credit and
enter judgment enforcing it. The court thus concludes that 9REN has a strong likelihood of
succeeding on the merits of its petition.
2. Irreparable harm
The risk of irreparable harm to 9REN is clear. If Spain receives the relief it seeks in the
Luxembourg action, 9REN will be permanently enjoined from enforcing the Award. See
Luxembourg Complaint at 21. That is precisely the kind of irreparable harm identified by the
district court, and affirmed by the D.C. Circuit, in Laker Airways:
[I]f this Court should fail to issue an injunction and thus allow those defendants
which are still before this Court to join with their alleged coconspirators before
the Queen’s Bench Division, the British court may very well (1) enjoin Laker
from pursuing its remedies against any of the defendants in this Court, and (2)
Page 22 of 25
enter a judgment on the merits that the defendants here (plaintiffs there) are not
liable to Laker for the acts averred in the complaints. The Court finds that, for
these reasons, plaintiff would be irreparably injured if the Court does not issue an
injunction.
Laker Airways Ltd. v. Pan Am. World Airways, 559 F. Supp. 1124, 1137-38 (D.D.C. 1983)
(footnotes omitted); see Laker Airways, 731 F.2d at 956.
Spain’s counterarguments are unpersuasive. First, it claims that “nothing prevents 9REN
from seeking enforcement of its ICSID Award in the Luxembourg court, nor to continue this
proceeding after the Luxembourg court resolves core issues of EU law.” Opp. to PI Motion at
24. “Second, 9REN has not shown any risk with respect to collecting payment of the award,
should it ultimately prevail.” Id. In other words: 9REN will not be irreparably harmed unless
Spain gets the very relief it is actively seeking from the Luxembourg court. That is precisely
why it is necessary for this court to enjoin Spain from pursuing that relief. It is immaterial that
the Luxembourg court has not yet ruled one way or another. “[G]iven the fact that, once the
[Luxembourg] court issues an injunction of the type sought before it, it may very well be too late
for [9REN] ever to find its way back to the American judicial system,” anything “less than
absolute certainty concerning the [Luxembourg] court’s intentions suffices to support a finding
of irreparable injury.” Laker Airways, 559 F. Supp. at 1137 n.58.
3. Balance of equities
The balance of equities strongly favors 9REN, which faces irreparable harm, while Spain
faces only a temporary hold on its ability to pursue certain relief in the Luxembourg Action—
relief that would usurp this court’s jurisdiction. The injunction 9REN requests would still permit
Spain to litigate the merits of its claims in the Luxembourg Action. That tailored injunction will
serve both principles of comity and equity by allowing each country’s court to evaluate the legal
issues presented under its respective laws. See Laker Airways, 731 F.2d at 9378; Teck Metals
Page 23 of 25
Ltd. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, No. CV-05-411-LRS, 2009 WL 4716037, at
*3-4 (E.D. Wash. Dec. 8, 2009).
Contrary to Spain’s arguments, then, 9REN’s requested injunction will not “deny Spain
the opportunity to obtain a decision on its rights and obligations under EU law, by an EU court,”
Opp. to PI Motion at 25—it will simply preserve this court’s ability to decide the parties’ rights
and obligations under U.S. law.
4. Public interest
Finally, the public interest supports an injunction here, too. As the court explained supra
section IV.A, it is essential to the continued function of the U.S. courts that they protect their
lawful jurisdiction. Moreover, Spain does not dispute that there is a public interest in
“encouraging arbitration and the enforcement of international arbitration law as an efficient
means of settling disputes.” Jolen, Inc. v. Kundan Rice Mills, Ltd., No. 19-CV-1296 (PKC),
2019 WL 1559173, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2019); see Opp. to PI Motion at 25-26. Indeed, “the
text of § 1650a ‘suggest[s] an expectation’ on the part of Congress ‘that actions to enforce ICSID
awards would not be protracted,’” Micula, 404 F. Supp. 3d at 283 (quoting Mobil Cerro, 863
F.3d at 121), much less permanently halted by collateral attacks in foreign courts.
Spain’s contention that this court “stands to benefit from a decision by the Luxembourg
court” rings totally hollow. Opp. to PI Motion at 26. If Spain prevails in the Luxembourg
Action, this court would effectively lose jurisdiction over this case, as 9REN would be forced to
withdraw its suit. The court is thus not moved by Spain’s assurances, which verge on
disingenuous.
Page 24 of 25
V. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the court will GRANT 9REN’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction,
ECF No. 46. Accordingly, the court will ENJOIN Spain:
(1) from seeking any relief in the Luxembourg Action or in other Luxembourg
proceedings requiring 9REN to cease, suspend, hold in abeyance, or withdraw any
proceedings before this Court, or that otherwise interferes with, obstructs, or delays
resolution of 9REN’s Petition to Confirm the Award;
(2) from pursuing any other foreign litigation that interferes with, obstructs, or delays
resolution of 9REN’s Petition to Confirm the Award; and
(3) to withdraw its requests for relief in the Luxembourg Action requiring 9REN to
“cease . . . any enforcement” of the Award insofar as it relates to the proceedings
before this court.
A corresponding order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
Date: February 15, 2023
Tanya S. Chutkan
TANYA S. CHUTKAN
United States District Judge
Page 25 of 25