Global Voice Group SA v. Republic of Guinea
In 2009, Global Voice entered into a Partnership Agreement connected to Guinea's telecommunications sector. The agreement defined the parties as Global Voice and the PTRA, a Guinean public legal entity. Guinea's Minister of Telecommunications and New Information Technologies also signed the agreement. The contract required Global Voice to help build a regulatory framework and install tools allowing the State of Guinea to monitor and bill telecommunications traffic. The arbitration clause submitted disputes between the "Parties" to ICC arbitration in Paris. Global Voice later commenced ICC arbitration against both PTRA and Guinea. Guinea argued before the tribunal that it had signed the Partnership Agreement only as a supervising authority and had not consented to be a party. The tribunal rejected that objection, held that Guinea was bound by the arbitration agreement, and awarded Global Voice more than USD 21 million plus fees and costs. PTRA and Guinea then sought annulment before the Paris Court of Appeal. The Paris court refused to annul the award and ordered PTRA and Guinea to pay EUR 200,000 in costs. The Cour de Cassation challenge failed. Global Voice sued the Republic of Guinea in D.D.C. seeking two forms of relief: confirmation of an ICC arbitral award and recognition of a Paris Court of Appeal judgment issued after annulment proceedings. The district court dismissed both claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The latest Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit opinion arrived at a split conclusion. The court vacated dismissal of the award-confirmation claim and remanded because the district court did not establish whether the arbitration agreement legally binds a sovereign to arbitrate, as required by TIG Insurance v. Republic of Argentina , 110 F.4th 221 (D.C. Cir. 2024) . The district court was required first to determine "what source of law governs the question of enforcement" and then to decide whether, under that law, the sovereign was bound to arbitrate. In a remand footnote, the Court of Appeals also noted that the district court may consider whether Postal and Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of Guinea (" PTRA ") is a "political subdivision" of Guinea and, if so, whether PTRA and Guinea are "one and the same" for purposes of subject matter jurisdiction under the arbitration or waiver exceptions. The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the claim for recognition of the Paris Court of Appeal judgment. It reasoned that the jurisdictional issue for foreign-judgment recognition had already been resolved in Amaplat Mauritius Ltd. v. Zimbabwe Mining Development Corp ., 143 F.4th 496 (D.C. Cir. 2025). In Amaplat , the court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6) does not mention foreign court judgments and declined "to expand the reach of the arbitration exception beyond its plain terms". For quick reference, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6), the arbitration exception, reads as follows: (a) A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case — [...] (6) in which an action is brought [...] to enforce an [arbitration] agreement made by the foreign state [...] or to confirm an award made pursuant to such an agreement. The same case was also dispositive of Global Voice's waiver argument. Global Voice argued that Guinea had waived immunity by signing the New York Convention. But Amaplat held the opposite: signing the New York Convention does not waive immunity from an action to recognize a foreign court judgment. For reference, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(1), governing the waiver exception, reads as follows: (a) A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case — (1) In which the foreign state has waived its immunity either explicitly or by implication, notwithstanding any withdrawal of the waiver which the foreign state may purport to effect except in accordance with the terms of the waiver;