Global Voice Group SA v. Republic of Guinea

Case summary

At a glance

Parties: Global Voice Group SA (Seychelles) v. the Republic of Guinea
Case no.: U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, No. 25-7033 (appeal from D.D.C. No. 1:22-cv-02100)
Forum and rules: U.S. federal court; Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1602 et seq.
Treaty: Contract arbitration clause (ICC Rules) in a 2009 Partnership Agreement; New York Convention invoked
Court: Circuit Judges Henderson (author of the opinion), Katsas and Garcia
Underlying award(s): ICC arbitral award against the PTRA and Guinea; Paris Court of Appeal judgment declining annulment
Sector: Telecommunications regulation
Outcome: Dismissal of the award-confirmation claim vacated and remanded; dismissal of the claim to recognise the Paris Judgment affirmed (29 May 2026).
Amount: Arbitral award: more than USD 21 million in damages plus fees and costs. Paris Judgment: €200,000 in costs.

The dispute

In 2009 Global Voice Group SA, a Seychellois financial and telecommunications services company, entered into a Partnership Agreement to help build a regulatory framework for Guinea's telecommunications industry and to install traffic-control tools. The agreement named Global Voice and Guinea's Postal and Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (PTRA) as its parties, but Guinea's Minister of Telecommunications also signed it. An ICC tribunal held that Guinea was bound by the arbitration clause and awarded Global Voice more than USD 21 million against the PTRA and Guinea. The Paris Court of Appeal refused to annul the award and ordered costs of €200,000, and a challenge in the Cour de Cassation failed. Global Voice then sued Guinea alone in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to confirm the award and recognise the Paris Judgment. Guinea argued that it was immune under the FSIA, and the district court dismissed both claims.

Key holdings

The court decides FSIA immunity claim by claim. It therefore assessed the award-confirmation claim and the judgment-recognition claim separately, although the district court had not done so. p. 8 & n. 6
The district court asked only whether Guinea was a party to the arbitration agreement, and that test was too narrow. Under TIG Insurance v. Argentina, the arbitration exception (28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6)) asks whether the agreement legally binds the sovereign to arbitrate, whether as a party or a nonparty. To answer that, a court must first identify the governing law and then apply it. The district court did neither. pp. 8–9
The court does not hold that jurisdiction exists over the award-confirmation claim. It vacates the dismissal and remands for the TIG Insurance inquiry. On remand the district court may consider whether the PTRA is a political subdivision of Guinea and, if so, whether the two are the same for FSIA purposes. p. 9 & n. 7
The arbitration exception does not reach actions to recognise a foreign court judgment on an award. Under Amaplat Mauritius v. Zimbabwe Mining Development Corp., this applies even when the recognition claim is brought together with a claim to confirm the award. The court declined to revisit Amaplat and relied on it although Amaplat was decided after the district court's ruling. pp. 10–11 & n. 8
Signing the New York Convention is not an implied waiver of immunity from judgment-recognition actions (28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(1)). With no other FSIA exception applicable, the dismissal of the claim to recognise the Paris Judgment is affirmed. p. 11

Procedural history

2009Global Voice enters into the Partnership Agreement. It is signed by Global Voice, the PTRA and Guinea's Minister of Telecommunications, and is later amended twice.
Early 2012The PTRA owes Global Voice more than USD 13 million in unpaid invoices.
2016Global Voice claims more than USD 103 million. After the PTRA refuses to pay, Global Voice files an ICC request for arbitration against the PTRA and Guinea.
UndatedThe ICC tribunal holds that Guinea is bound by the arbitration agreement and awards more than USD 21 million plus fees and costs. The Paris Court of Appeal declines to annul the award and orders €200,000 in costs. The challenge before the Cour de Cassation fails.
18 February 2025The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismisses both claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the FSIA.
14 November 2025Oral argument before the D.C. Circuit.
29 May 2026The D.C. Circuit vacates the dismissal of the award-confirmation claim, affirms the dismissal of the judgment-recognition claim, and remands.