Bridas SAPIC v. Government of Turkmenistan

447 F.3d 411 (2006)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Bridas SAPIC v. Government of Turkmenistan

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
447 F.3d 411 (2006)

Facts

In February 1993, Bridas SAPIC (Bridas) (plaintiff) entered a joint venture agreement (JVA) with Turkmenneft, a production association owned by the Government of Turkmenistan (Government) (defendant). The JVA only identified Bridas and the “Turkmenian Party” as the parties to the JVA, and the Government substituted various parties in for Turkmenian Party over time. The JVA created a joint venture entity to conduct hydrocarbon operations in southeastern Turkmenistan. The JVA contained a clause agreeing to refer any dispute arising out of the JVA to the arbitration under the Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). Bridas asserted the Government ordered Bridas to suspend work in Turkmenistan, causing Bridas to initiate arbitration in April 1996. The Government argued it was not an appropriate party to the arbitration because it did not sign the JVA. The ICC Court of Arbitration stated the arbitrators would determine the tribunal’s jurisdiction over the Government. The arbitral tribunal held the arbitrators had jurisdiction to determine whether they had jurisdiction over the Government and that the Government was a proper party to the arbitration. The arbitrators later issued an award for Bridas. Bridas filed a lawsuit to confirm the award rendered against the Government. The Government filed a motion to vacate or modify the award. The district court denied the Government’s motion to vacate or modify the award, and the Government and Turkmenneft appealed to the Fifth Circuit. On appeal, the Government argued the JVA did not name the Government and lacked the ability to bind the Government to the terms of arbitration clause within the JVA. Bridas countered that the “Turkmenian Party” was always controlled by the Government and that the Government was bound to the terms of the JVA under the alter-ego doctrine.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Jones, C.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 815,000 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 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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 815,000 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
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 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