Summary

As explained in Respondent's pending Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 24) ("Mot. to Dismiss), Respondent's Reply in Support of the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 64) ("Reply"), and Respondent's Supplemental Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 108, amended by ECF No. 139-3 and ECF No. 142-2) ("Suppl. Mot."), this case must be dismissed on the basis of Respondent's immunity from suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ("FSIA"), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602- 1611. Respondent has never offered-let alone entered into any unambiguous agreement-to arbitrate with Petitioners under the Energy Charter Treaty ("ECT") (ECF No. 2-7). Nor has Respondent otherwise waived its sovereign immunity in any respect. This Court thus lacks subject-matter jurisdiction under the FSIA. All arguments raised under the ECT and FSIA in Respondent's 2015 and 2016 submissions (ECF No. 24, 64, 108, 142-2) are hereby reasserted and maintained in full.[1]

In accordance with this Court's Order (ECF No. 228), this Supplemental Submission now provides an updated analysis regarding further legal authorities and factual evidence relating to Respondent's FSIA defenses. Without prejudice to the other issues addressed previously in the pending 2015 and 2016 submissions, this Supplemental Submission will address three categories of issues.

First, Respondent never offered to arbitrate with Petitioners....

Second, Respondent has also demonstrated that Petitioners were not eligible offerees (i.e., foreign investors) under Article 26 of the ECT by virtue of their Russian nationality and, separately, Petitioners' fraudulent and illegal conduct-when considered in light of the text, purpose, and structure of the ECT, as well as applicable principles of corporate veil-piercing.. ..

Third, contrary to Petitioners' contention, Respondent's signature of the New York Convention does not itself reflect any freestanding waiver of Respondent's sovereign immunity under 28 U.S.C § 1605(a)(1), absent an agreement to arbitrate.. ..