Stabil LLC v. Russian Federation

Case summary

At a glance

Parties: Stabil LLC and ten other Ukrainian companies v. the Russian Federation (consolidated on appeal with JSC DTEK Krymenergo v. Russian Federation, No. 25-7064)
Case no.: D.C. Cir. No. 25-7005; district court Case No. 1:22-cv-00983 (TNM)
Forum and rules: U.S. federal courts; petition to confirm a foreign arbitral award under the New York Convention (9 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.); immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
Treaty: Russia–Ukraine BIT of 27 November 1998
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit: Circuit Judges Childs (author of the opinion) and Pan, and Senior Circuit Judge Rogers. District court: Judge Trevor N. McFadden, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Underlying award(s): UNCITRAL award of April 2019 by a tribunal in Switzerland, upheld by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court
Sector: Petrol stations; fuel retail
Outcome: The D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Russia's motion to dismiss: the FSIA arbitration exception applies and personal jurisdiction exists. Confirmation of the award on the merits remained undecided.
Amount: Award: more than USD 34 million in damages. The companion DTEK award was approximately USD 208 million.

The dispute

Eleven Ukrainian companies owned and operated a chain of 31 petrol stations in Crimea. After Russia took control of Crimea in 2014, Russian paramilitary forces seized and looted the stations and sold off the fuel. Crimean authorities then nationalised the assets in stages between 2014 and 2016 and transferred the right of economic management to a Russian State-owned enterprise. The companies won an UNCITRAL award of more than USD 34 million under the Russia–Ukraine BIT and petitioned the D.C. district court to confirm it under the New York Convention. Russia claimed immunity under the FSIA on three grounds: the BIT did not cover investments in Crimea, the award was political rather than commercial, and due process barred personal jurisdiction because the case had no link to the United States. It also sought a stay pending four other appeals.

Key holdings

The companies proved an arbitration agreement by producing the BIT and their notice of arbitration. Russia's argument that the BIT does not reach investments in Crimea concerns the scope of the agreement, which is a question of arbitrability, not the agreement's existence. It therefore does not defeat jurisdiction under the FSIA arbitration exception. D.C. Cir. Judgment, pp. 15–20
The FSIA requires only that the award "is or may be governed" by a treaty. The New York Convention potentially governs this award. The BIT creates a legal relationship between Russia and the investors, who are its intended beneficiaries and accepted its standing offer to arbitrate (Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9). D.C. Cir. Judgment, pp. 22–26
Russia argued for the first time on appeal that the award is political rather than commercial. The argument was not forfeited, because it goes to subject-matter jurisdiction. It fails on the merits: the seizure and sale of petrol stations has an obvious connection to commerce, and the tribunals applied the treaty to territory under Russia's de facto control without deciding who is sovereign over Crimea. D.C. Cir. Judgment, pp. 27–30
Personal jurisdiction exists. Foreign states are not "persons" protected by the Fifth Amendment (Price), and the panel is bound by that precedent. Under CC/Devas v. Antrix, personal jurisdiction follows once an FSIA exception applies and service is proper, and Russia did not dispute service. D.C. Cir. Judgment, pp. 31–33
The court did not decide whether ratifying the New York Convention is an implied waiver of immunity, because the arbitration exception already supplies jurisdiction. D.C. Cir. Judgment, p. 31
The district court refused to stay the case pending four other appeals: the hardship to the companies and judicial efficiency weighed against a stay. It also refused to confirm the award at once, because a foreign sovereign is entitled to a ruling on immunity before it raises merits defences. District Court Memorandum Order, pp. 11–12

Procedural history

June 2015The companies file a Notice of Arbitration under the BIT and the UNCITRAL Rules. Russia does not participate.
Not statedThe Swiss Federal Supreme Court rejects Russia's challenge to the tribunal's ruling that it has jurisdiction.
April 2019Final award: Russia expropriated the companies' assets without compensation; damages of more than USD 34 million.
2019The Swiss Federal Supreme Court dismisses Russia's application to set aside the award.
April 2022The companies petition the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to confirm the award.
12 December 2024The district court denies Russia's motion to dismiss and its motion to stay, and defers the merits of confirmation.
17 April 2025In the parallel DTEK Krymenergo case, the district court likewise upholds jurisdiction and denies a stay.
4 December 2025Argument of the consolidated appeals (Nos. 25-7005 and 25-7064) before the D.C. Circuit.
13 February 2026The D.C. Circuit affirms the district court's judgments on subject-matter and personal jurisdiction.