Worldwide: Recent Decision On Sovereign Immunity Highlights Need For Advance Planning When Transacting With Foreign Sovereign Entities

Last Updated: December 23 2015
Article by Charles T. Kotuby Jr., Melissa Stear Gorsline and Baiju S. Vasani

On December 1, 2015, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs,1 which presented a seemingly simple question: When do commercial activities in the United States strip foreign states and state-owned entities of sovereign immunity and subject them to jurisdiction in U.S. courts? The answer, according to the Court, is that they are subject to U.S. jurisdiction only when the plaintiff's claim is "based upon" commercial activity in the United States. This decision reversed an en banc decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and made it more difficult to sue foreign sovereigns and state-owned entities in U.S. courts. This was less of a jurisprudential revolution than a simple reminder that when U.S. individuals and companies transact business with foreign sovereigns, proactive negotiation of arbitration clauses, forum selection clauses, or investment treaty planning is a paramount element of risk mitigation.

Commercial Activity and Foreign Sovereigns: A Primer

For more than half a century, U.S. law has reflected a policy of "restrictive sovereign immunity," which provides immunity to foreign states for claims arising out of governmental acts but denies the same immunity for claims arising out of commercial activities. And since 1976, sovereign immunity in the United States has been implemented through the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ("FSIA"), which reflects this policy of restrictive immunity in section 1605. That provision subjects foreign states to U.S. jurisdiction in connection with any case:

in which the action is based upon a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state; or upon an act performed in the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere; or upon an act outside the territory of the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere and that act causes a direct effect in the United States.2

This provision sets forth a number of bases to find an adequate nexus to the United States for jurisdiction to attach. But general language like "in connection with" and "direct effect" has given rise to significant litigation and jurisprudence as states have increasingly entered the marketplace, breached their contracts, and committed commercial torts.

OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs

This case focused on a different open-ended phrase in the statute: when a claim is "based upon" a commercial activity.

Sachs involved tort claims brought by an American tourist who was seriously injured while boarding a train in Austria. The train was operated by OBB Personenverkehr AG, an Austrian state-owned railway and member of the Eurail Group. Sachs was traveling on a Eurail pass, which she had purchased online from Rail Pass Experts ("RPE"), a travel agent located in Massachusetts.

Sachs filed suit against OBB and other parties in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Unsurprisingly, OBB asserted sovereign immunity, and the district court dismissed the case on that basis, finding that there was insufficient evidence to find that RPE was OBB's agent such that RPE's sale of the Eurail pass could be imputed to OBB for purposes of establishing jurisdiction under the commercial activity exception of the FSIA. On appeal, a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, but the case then went en banc.

The en banc Court of Appeals held that RPE's sale of the Eurail pass was imputable to OBB under traditional agency doctrine. Thus, OBB had engaged in "commercial activity" in the United States under the FSIA. The court of appeals then considered the question of whether the plaintiff's claims were "based upon" that commercial activity—i.e., whether there was an adequate nexus between Sachs's purchase of the Eurail pass in the United States and her claims. The court said that there was; Sachs's purchase of the pass established a passenger-carrier relationship with OBB, a necessary element of her negligence claim, and further provided the basis for the warranties that Sachs claimed OBB breached.

The Supreme Court reversed in a unanimous opinion by Chief Justice Roberts. The Court's analysis focused primarily upon whether Ms. Sachs's claims were "based upon" OBB's alleged commercial activity in the United States. The Court relied upon its decision in Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, in which it determined that this inquiry requires a court to "identify[] the particular conduct on which the [plaintiff's] action is 'based,'" by looking to the "the 'gravamen of the complaint,'" or "those elements ... that, if proven, would entitle a plaintiff to relief."3 The Court found that the Ninth Circuit's decision did not comport with this standard. Specifically, the Court found that while the U.S. sale of the Eurail pass indeed provided "an element" of her claim, "[u]nder Nelson ... the mere fact that the sale of the Eurail pass would establish a single element of a claim is insufficient to demonstrate that the claim is 'based upon' that sale."4 The Court explained that a "one-element approach" was incompatible with Nelson, which required an analysis of the "gravamen" of the claim, or the "core of [the] suit."5 Citing Justice Holmes, the Court noted that "the 'essentials' of a personal injury narrative will be found at the 'point of contact'—'the place where the boy got his fingers pinched.'"6

In this case, "the gravamen of Sachs's suit plainly occurred abroad," as "[a]ll of her claims turn on the same tragic episode in Austria, allegedly caused by wrongful conduct and dangerous conditions in Austria, which led to injuries suffered in Austria."7 The Court also reiterated its concern that applying a broader standard "would allow plaintiffs to evade the Act's restrictions through artful pleading."8 To wit, any plaintiff could "recast virtually any claim of intentional tort ... as a claim of failure to warn, simply by charging the defendant with an obligation to announce its own tortious propensity before indulging it."9 This, the Court held, would "effectively thwart[] the Act's manifest purpose."10

This is becoming a familiar approach of the U.S. Supreme Court. Whether presented as a question of sovereign immunity, personal jurisdiction,11 or statutory interpretation,12 claims for acts occurring abroad are getting pushed away from U.S. shores.

The Upshot for U.S. Business Interests

The Supreme Court's decision in Sachs illustrates the difficulty of obtaining jurisdiction under the FSIA. The "gravamen" of a commercial tort committed by a foreign sovereign will rarely occur in the territorial United States,13 and while political expropriations and nationalizations can sometimes be addressed by U.S. courts, the exception from immunity in those cases is vanishingly small.14 Accordingly, putative plaintiffs with claims against foreign sovereigns are increasingly forced to thread the eye of a needle to sustain the jurisdiction of a U.S. court.

Ms. Sachs had little opportunity to plan for the risk of a personal injury while traveling in Europe; she could not, as a practical matter, force the putative defendant to consent to U.S. jurisdiction or international arbitration when she bought the ticket and left for Europe. Business interests, though, have much more leverage when transacting or investing abroad, and there are four considerations they should keep in mind.

First, to the extent that a U.S. party wants resort to a U.S. court for its foreign sovereign contracts, it is important to structure the transaction so that the "gravamen" of any breaches will be in the United States. Where, for instance, a foreign sovereign breaches a contract by failing to complete a contractual obligation that must be performed in the United States (for example, payment in U.S. dollars into a U.S. account), such a breach is usually sufficient to be a direct effect in the United States and, thus, implicate the commercial activity exception to the FSIA.15

Second, state parties can consent to a particular forum—like U.S. courts—to settle their disputes, and such a choice is typically respected.16 That choice may also strip a state or state-owned entity of its sovereign immunity.17 Again, though, it should come as no surprise to learn that states and state-owned entities rarely agree to having their acts—even their commercial acts—adjudicated by a foreign court.

Third, a more typical strategy is for the parties to choose international arbitration in a third state. If a state or state-owned entity can meaningfully contract (to the purchase or sale of good, for instance), it can also meaningfully consent to a private arbitral forum to resolve any disputes resulting from the contract. Sovereign immunity is not implicated, at least at the outset, and the choice to arbitrate will typically be enforced.18 Immunity issues will arise down the line only if the claim is successful, the respondent refuses to pay, and the claimant needs to attach the state's assets to satisfy the award.

Fourth, when a state or state-owned entity will not agree to specify a neutral forum, that choice can, in some respects, be unilaterally imposed on it. Private parties who are broad-based "investors" in a foreign state—because, for instance, they own shares in local companies, tangible or intangible rights, and long-term operations—can and should structure those investments to take advantage of investment treaties. There are more than 3,000 such treaties in force, and by routing that investment through a country that has an investment treaty with the host state, disputes arising from those investments (and even the contracts in furtherance of those investments) can be subject to compulsory arbitration against the state. With this simple step, the investor is assured of a neutral forum for its disputes.19

With these structures in place, the difficulties and idiosyncrasies of the FSIA can be largely avoided, and claims can be brought against a foreign state in a neutral forum (i.e., not its own courts). For multinational business interests, no less than personal injury plaintiffs like Ms. Sachs, this can often be a case-determinative result.


1 OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs, 136 S.Ct. 390 (2015).

2 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2) (2012).

3 Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1993) (citations omitted).

4 Sachs, 136 S.Ct. at 395.

5 Id. at 396.

6 Id. at 397 (citation omitted)

7 Id. at 396.

8 Id.

9 Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (citation omitted).

10 Id. at 397 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citation omitted).

11 See Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S.Ct. 2846 (2011) (holding that the isolated presence of a foreign companies' products in the state as a result of others' actions do not justify general personal jurisdiction over that company for claims having nothing to do with those products).

12 See, e.g., Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S.Ct. 1659 (2013) (holding that the Alien Tort Statute does not apply to violations of the law of nations that take place in another sovereign's territory outside the U.S. and that there is a rebuttable presumption against extraterritorial application of the Statute); Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 561 U.S. 247 (2010) (holding that the antifraud provisions of U.S. securities laws apply only with respect to the purchase or sale of a security listed on a U.S. stock exchange or the purchase or sale of any other security in the United States).

13 See, e.g., Saudi Arabia v. Nelson, 507 U.S. 349 (1993) ("gravamen" of lawsuit of American employee of Saudi hospital bringing claim based on injuries arising from alleged detention and torture by Saudi government was Saudi Arabia, even though employee was recruited and signed an employment contract in the U.S.); Sun v. Taiwan, 201 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2000) (lawsuit by parents of deceased American student who drowned in Taiwanese government cultural tour in Taiwan was found to be based in Taiwan even though based on failure to warn parents in the U.S. and administration and application to the cultural promotion took place in the U.S.).

14 For the expropriation exception to apply, property must be taken in violation of international law and such expropriated "property or any property exchanged for such property [must be] owned or operated by an agency or instrumentality of the foreign state and that agency or instrumentality [be] engaged in a commercial activity in the United States." Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(3) (2012); see Kalamazoo Spice Extraction Co. v. Provisional Military Govt. of Socialist Ethiopia, 616 F. Supp. 660, 663-65 (W.D. Mich. 1985) (finding jurisdictional nexus satisfied by Ethiopian government's alleged expropriation of majority ownership of American corporation's stock in Ethiopian corporation by failing to pay reasonable compensation for property seized).

15 See, e.g., Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc., 504 U.S. 607, 618-19 (Argentine government's rescheduling of bond payments had a "direct effect" in U.S., the designated place of performance of Argentina's contractual commitments, even though bond holders were foreign corporations); Cruise Connections Charter Management v. Canada, 600 F.3d 661 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (finding a direct effect when the Canadian Police reneged on a contract to provide cruise ships to a U.S. corporation during the 2010 Winter Olympics). But see Helmerich & Payne Inter. Drilling Co. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, 784 F.3d 804 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (finding that Venezuela's breach of oil drilling contracts with wholly owned Venezuelan subsidiary of U.S. oil company did not cause a "direct effect" in the U.S.); Terenkian v. Republic of Iraq, 694 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2012) (finding that non-deposit of oil payments in New York bank due to non-purchase of oil and non-sales to potential U.S. customers insufficient to constitute a "direct effect" of Iraq's termination of contracts for oil sale to Cyprus oil brokerage companies).

16 See, e.g., Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585 (1991) (holding forum-selection clauses enforceable but subject to judicial scrutiny for fundamental fairness); M/A Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 9-10 (1972) (finding forum-selection clauses "prima facie valid" even though they "have historically not been favored by American courts").

17 See Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(1) (2012).

18 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act § 1605(a)(6); see also U.S. Titan, Inc. v. Guangzhou Zhen Hua Shipping Co., Ltd., 241 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2001) (finding arbitration clause in charter party between U.S. charterer and Chinese government satisfied FSIA arbitration exception because China and the U.S. had both signed the Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and the parties had agreed to the charter party containing arbitration clause).

19 See Jones Day Commentary, "United States Supreme Court Gives Deference to Arbitrators in Investment Treaty Cases," March 2014.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Charles T. Kotuby Jr.
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.