Overview
First Tuesday Update is our monthly take on current issues in commercial disputes, international arbitration, and judgment enforcement. This month we provide updates on the Crystallex sales process, Helms-Burton litigation, and developments in various cases of interest.
Crystallex Update
The new year brings fresh uncertainty to the Crystallex auction. On January 3, US forces captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro. The Third Circuit, where consolidated appeals from Crystallex are currently pending, asked the US government to state its position by January 8 regarding whether this development affects the litigation. Silence. At least for now.
The Third Circuit must determine whether PDVSA's property can be attached to satisfy Venezuela's debts (revisiting an alter ego question it has decided twice before), whether the sale process was well-conducted and the sale price high enough, and whether the law firm and investment bank advising the special master had conflicts of interest when they recommended the $5.9 billion winning bid for Citgo, submitted by an affiliate of Elliott Investment Management. Briefing will continue next month, including another request for the United States to present its position.
Those filings—especially if the United States weighs in—may offer hints about what comes next. But perhaps not. And regardless of the appeals, the Citgo sale will ultimately require OFAC approval. We will continue to watch developments closely.
Preview of Key International Cases Headed to the Supreme Court in 2026
Several international‑law cases are moving toward argument at the US Supreme Court in 2026. Each involves the intersection of sovereign immunity, investment‑treaty enforcement, or cross‑border statutory claims. Together, they will shape how US courts treat foreign sovereigns and state‑owned entities in the years ahead.
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación CIMEX S.A. (Helms‑Burton Act)
The court will hear Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación CIMEX S.A., in February, one of the term's two Helms‑Burton cases. This case involves issues of foreign sovereign immunity, and our firm serves as counsel for Exxon. The dispute centers on whether Title III of the Act itself abrogates the sovereign immunity of Cuban state‑owned enterprises, or whether plaintiffs must still invoke an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act before proceeding. The answer will determine whether Helms‑Burton offers a direct statutory route past immunity defenses—an issue that has divided lower courts and drawn significant attention from both the business community and the US government. CIMEX filed its merits brief last week and oral argument is set for February.
Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (Helms‑Burton Act)
Rounding out the Helms‑Burton docket is Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., which presents a different statutory question: what must a plaintiff show about its ownership interest in allegedly trafficked property? One interpretation requires plaintiffs to prove they would still own the property today but for the expropriation; the other requires only that they hold a claim to the property. The decision will matter for any claimant with a time‑limited interest, including those asserting rights based on leaseholds or patents. Its reasoning is likely to influence future litigation under the statute. It will be heard on the same day as Exxon.
Kingdom of Spain v. Blasket Renewable Investments (on petition for certiorari)
The Supreme Court is also considering Kingdom of Spain v. Blasket Renewable Investments, a dispute arising from efforts to enforce several investment‑treaty awards issued to renewable‑energy investors. The case presents a stark choice: whether US courts may rely on the FSIA's arbitration exception without first deciding whether a sovereign actually consented to arbitrate with the specific claimant. Spain argues that consent must be established at the outset; investors contend that a facially valid award satisfies the exception. The case highlights a clash between sovereign‑immunity principles and the United States' treaty commitments to honor arbitral awards. Multiple governments have weighed in on both sides, reflecting its significance. The court has requested the Solicitor General's views, signaling that certiorari is under serious consideration.
Amaplat Mauritius Ltd. v. Zimbabwe Mining Development Corp. (on petition for certiorari)
Another case with significant implications for the arbitration and sovereign‑immunity landscape is Amaplat Mauritius Ltd. & Amari Nickel Holdings Zimbabwe Ltd. v. Zimbabwe Mining Development Corp., in which Steptoe serves as counsel for the petitioners and a certiorari petition was filed just last month. The case asks the Supreme Court to resolve a direct split between the DC Circuit and the Second Circuit on whether a sovereign that joins the New York Convention and agrees to arbitrate impliedly waives immunity from a US action to recognize a foreign judgment confirming the arbitral award. The petition argues that the DC Circuit's rejection of implied waiver misreads both the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the Convention, and that a uniform national rule is essential for predictable enforcement of awards against sovereigns. Given the conflict between two of the principal circuits for arbitral enforcement, and the importance of the underlying question for international commerce and treaty reliability, the case is a good candidate for certiorari and one that could meaningfully impact how investors enforce awards in US courts.
Important Case to Follow on Remand Following Supreme Court Review
Devas Multimedia v. Antrix
Another major dispute concerns the long‑running Devas Multimedia v. Antrix saga. Although not yet set for argument, the litigation continues to raise important questions about the confirmation of foreign arbitral awards against sovereign entities with little or no US contact. Last term, the Supreme Court held that once an FSIA immunity exception applies and service is proper, courts need not conduct the minimum‑contacts inquiry traditionally required for nonresident defendants. On remand, the Ninth Circuit is now weighing whether the FSIA's arbitration exception applies; whether due process nonetheless limits personal jurisdiction after the court's recent Fuld decision; and whether the Delhi High Court's annulment of the $1.3 billion award bars enforcement in the United States. The outcome may reshape the contours of jurisdiction and enforceability in award‑confirmation cases involving foreign sovereigns.
