Client Alert: D.C. Circuit Rulings Strengthen Enforcement of Investment Treaty Awards Against Foreign Sovereigns in U.S. Courts: Key Takeaways for Cross-Border Investors
The Bottom Line
U.S. courts are among the most reliable venues in the world for enforcing investment treaty awards against foreign governments. Recent D.C. Circuit decisions—NextEra Energy Global Holdings B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain (D.C. Cir. August 2024)[1] and Stabil LLC v. Russian Federation (D.C. Cir. February 2026) and Russian Federation v. Stabil LLC/JSC DTEK Krymenergo (February 2026) [2] —make clear that foreign sovereigns cannot easily use complex treaty or jurisdictional arguments to avoid U.S. court proceedings before investors receive a hearing on the merits. For EU investors holding ECT awards that cannot be enforced within the EU, the message is simple: what blocks enforcement in Europe does not necessarily block enforcement in the United States.
This alert outlines a practical protocol the D.C. Circuit's rulings suggest for investors pursuing post-judgment discovery against sovereign assets, and identifies the investors, developers and companies most likely to be affected by these decisions.
U.S. courts are among the most reliable venues in the world for enforcing investment treaty awards against foreign governments. Recent D.C. Circuit decisions—NextEra Energy Global Holdings B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain (D.C. Cir. August 2024)[1] and Stabil LLC v. Russian Federation (D.C. Cir. February 2026) and Russian Federation v. Stabil LLC/JSC DTEK Krymenergo (February 2026) [2] —make clear that foreign sovereigns cannot easily use complex treaty or jurisdictional arguments to avoid U.S. court proceedings before investors receive a hearing on the merits. For EU investors holding ECT awards that cannot be enforced within the EU, the message is simple: what blocks enforcement in Europe does not necessarily block enforcement in the United States.
This alert outlines a practical protocol the D.C. Circuit's rulings suggest for investors pursuing post-judgment discovery against sovereign assets, and identifies the investors, developers and companies most likely to be affected by these decisions.
[1] This involved three cases against the Kingdom of Spain before the D.C. Circuit: NextEra v. Kingdom of Spain; No. 23-7031, 9REN Holding S.A.R.L. v. Kingdom of Spain, 23-7032, and Blasket Renewable Investments LLC v. Kingdom of Spain, 23-7038 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 16, 2024). The three cases were decided separately before the district courts with variant rulings. While the NextEra and 9REN decisions held that the U.S. district court had jurisdiction under the FSIA’s arbitration exception and granted the investors’ requested injunctions to prevent Spain from seeking anti-suit relief in foreign courts, the Blasket decision found that Spain was immune under the FSIA. Spain appealed the NextEra and 9REN decisions and Blasket, a successor of the investors, appealed the Blasket decision. The D.C. Circuit resolved the three appeals in a single opinion. On May 5, 2025, a petition for writ of certiorari was filed before the Supreme Court of the United States, and on June 29, 2026, the petition for writ of certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court of the United States.
[2] Nos. 25-7005, 25-7064 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 13, 2026).