## Facts

- Base Metal Trading, Ltd., a Guernsey commodities trader, conducted aluminum-related transactions with OJSC Novokuznetsky Aluminum Factory (NKAZ), a Russian aluminum producer, from 1995 to 1999.
- The parties arbitrated their dispute before the Commercial Arbitration Court of the Moscow Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
- The tribunal issued an award for Base Metal of about $12 million, which Base Metal could not collect in Russia.
- Base Metal filed an action in the District of Maryland to confirm the foreign arbitral award under the New York Convention and its implementing provisions (9 U.S.C. §§ 201–208).
- Base Metal obtained a prejudgment attachment of an aluminum shipment that arrived in Baltimore, alleging it was NKAZ’s property.
- MG Metal entities claimed ownership of the shipment; the district court vacated the attachment, transferred custody to MG, and directed proceeds to escrow.
- NKAZ moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the district court dismissed, finding insufficient contacts with Maryland or the United States.
- Base Metal appealed, arguing jurisdiction based on the seized property and, alternatively, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2).

## Issues

1. Whether the presence in Maryland of an attached aluminum shipment allegedly linked to NKAZ, unrelated to the arbitral dispute, could constitutionally support personal jurisdiction in an action to confirm a foreign arbitral award.
2. Whether Rule 4(k)(2) permitted personal jurisdiction based on NKAZ’s aggregated contacts with the United States in a federal-question action to confirm an arbitral award under the New York Convention.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The court held that the Maryland presence of the seized shipment, without a relationship between the property and the claim, did not satisfy due process minimum-contacts requirements.
- The court held Rule 4(k)(2) did not apply because NKAZ’s contacts with the United States, even when aggregated, were too limited to satisfy due process.
- The court rejected the argument that the New York Convention expands constitutional limits on personal jurisdiction.

## Legal Principles

- After Shaffer v. Heitner, in rem and quasi in rem theories must satisfy International Shoe minimum-contacts standards; unrelated property in the forum does not, by itself, establish personal jurisdiction.
- Due process requires purposeful availment such that the defendant could reasonably anticipate being haled into the forum; isolated or episodic shipments, without more, are generally insufficient.
- Rule 4(k)(2) allows nationwide-contacts analysis for certain federal-question cases involving foreign defendants, but it does not reduce the due process minimum-contacts requirement; the relevant forum becomes the United States as a whole.
- The New York Convention and its federal implementing statutes provide a federal cause of action and subject-matter jurisdiction for confirmation of foreign arbitral awards, but do not displace constitutional constraints on personal jurisdiction.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that an attempted attachment of a shipment in Maryland, unrelated to the arbitral dispute, could not supply personal jurisdiction over a foreign award debtor, and that the debtor’s limited nationwide contacts also failed to satisfy due process under Rule 4(k)(2); the confirmation action was therefore properly dismissed.


Base Metal Trading, Ltd. v. OJSC Novokuznetsky Aluminum Factory, 283 F.3d 208 (4th Cir. 2002)