S & Davis International, Inc. v. Republic of Yemen

218 F.3d 1292 (2000)

From our private database of 47,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

S & Davis International, Inc. v. Republic of Yemen

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
218 F.3d 1292 (2000)

Facts

American company S and Davis International, Inc. (Davis) (plaintiff) filed suit to enforce an arbitration award against the General Corporation for Foreign Trade and Grains (General Corporation) and the Ministry of Supply and Trade of the Republic of Yemen (Ministry) (defendants). General Corporation contracted with Davis to purchase wheat using a letter of credit to be issued by the Bank of Yemen. The contract was also signed by and under the authority of the Ministry and contained an arbitration clause that provided that any dispute arising from the contract would be arbitrated by the Grain and Feed Trade Association (GAFTA) in London, England. When the Bank of Yemen declined to issue the letter of credit, Davis initiated a GAFTA arbitration for breach of contract against both General Corporation and the Ministry, arguing that the Ministry was the principal in the transaction because General Corporation was not an independent entity that could contract without the Ministry’s authority. The original GAFTA panel held that General Corporation was in breach of contract, and an appellate arbitration panel affirmed the finding of breach and also awarded Davis $17 million in damages. Davis then filed suit in federal district court to enforce the arbitration award and bring other claims against General Corporation and the Ministry. The Ministry moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds of sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). Davis opposed the Ministry’s motion, claiming that jurisdiction extended over the Ministry per the arbitration exception to immunity in Section 1605(a)(6)(B) of FSIA and the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (convention). Yemen was not a signatory to the convention. The Ministry’s motion to dismiss was denied, and the Ministry appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Wood, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 899,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,000 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership