Whether a foreign state's submission to arbitration in a New York Convention jurisdiction constitutes an implied waiver of sovereign immunity from a subsequent action in U.S. courts to enforce a foreign arbitral award

has divided the Courts of Appeals—whether a signatory to the New York Convention (see Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Art. I(1), June 10, 1958, 21 U.S.T. 2517), by agreeing to arbitrate in another New York Convention jurisdiction, waives its sovereign immunity from a subsequent action in U.S. courts to enforce a foreign judgment confirming the arbitration award. Petitioners Amaplat and Amari intend to seek review to resolve the conflict in the Circuits on this important question. In this action, Amaplat and Amari seek to enforce a judgment entered by the High Court of Zambia against Defendants the Republic of Zimbabwe, the Zimbabwe Mining Development Corporation (“ZMDC”), and Zimbabwe’s Chief Mining Commissioner (collectively “Zimbabwe’”), which confirmed an arbitration award entered pursuant to the New York Convention. The New York Convention provides for “recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards” by and among signatory states, subject to its terms and procedures. New York Convention, Art. I, Section 1. The underlying dispute arose out of a joint venture between Amaplat and Amari, both Mauritian mining companies, and ZMDC to develop nickel and platinum mines in Zimbabwe. After a change in leadership at Zimbabwe’s Ministry of Mines, Zimbabwe seized Amaplat and Amari’s mining concessions and, in the process, breached the governing joint venture agreements. The parties’ agreements provided for arbitration of any disputes before the International Chamber of Commerce’s (“ICC”) Court of Arbitration. After ZMDC sought to terminate the agreements, Plaintiffs filed for arbitration against the Zimbabwe parties, the ICC Court ordered that an arbitration tribunal be seated in Zambia. All of the relevant countries—Zimbabwe, the Republic of Mauritius, and Zambia—are parties to the New York Convention. The arbitration proceeded to a hearing on the merits. The arbitration was delayed while Zimbabwe unsuccessfully challenged the arbitration tribunal’s jurisdiction in Zambian courts. After resolution of that litigation, the arbitration tribunal completed its hearings and issued a Final Award in January 2014, ordering ZMDC to pay Amaplat US$42,882,000 and ZMDC to pay Amari US$3,900,000, along with legal costs and interest. Years of more post-award litigation followed in Zambian courts until, on August 9, 2019, the High Court for Zambia at the Commercial Registry at Lusaka issued an Ex Parte Order for Leave to Register and Enforce the Final Award. The Judgment provided that ZMDC and the Commissioner had 30 days after service to move to set aside the Judgment, but no application to set aside the Judgment was ever filed. Petitioners then attempted unsuccessfully to convince Zimbabwe to pay (or settle) voluntarily. On January 10, 2022, Plaintiffs filed suit in the U.S. District Court to enforce the Zambian judgment confirming the arbitration award. Defendants moved to dismiss, asserting foreign sovereign immunity from judgment enforcement in the United States. The District Court denied the motion in relevant part, ultimately agreeing with Amaplat and Amari that Zimbabwe’s Mining Commissioner was subject to suit under FSIA’s implied waiver exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(1). Amaplat Mauritius Ltd. v. Zimbabwe Mining Devel. Corp., 663 F. Supp. 3d 11, 35 (D.D.C. 2023). The district held that the Commissioner’s submission to arbitration constituted an implied waiver, relying on a pair of related Second Circuit decisions arising from the same dispute, see Seetransport Wiking Trader MBH & Co., v. Navimpex Centrala Navala, 989 F.2d 572 (2d Cir. 1998) (Seetransport I), and 29 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 1994) (Seetransport II). After further proceedings, the District Court also denied ZMDC’s motion to dismiss, concluding that it was an alter ego of Zimbabwe and thus subject to suit in U.S. courts as well. See Amaplat Mauritius Ltd. v. Zimbabwe Mining Devel. Corp., 717 F. Supp. 3d 1, 9-10 (D.D.C. 2024). Zimbabwe appea