## Facts

- Glencore Grain Rotterdam B.V., a Netherlands corporation, entered into eleven contracts to buy approximately 300,000 metric tons of rice from Shivnath Rai Harnarain Co., an Indian corporation.
- The contracts incorporated London Rice Brokers’ Association terms requiring arbitration in London and providing that English law governed and the contracts were deemed made in England.
- A dispute arose and was arbitrated in London; the tribunal issued an award in favor of Glencore.
- Shivnath Rai did not pay the award, and Glencore pursued enforcement proceedings in India.
- Glencore filed an application in the Northern District of California to confirm the foreign arbitral award under the New York Convention and Chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act.
- Glencore asserted jurisdiction based on Shivnath Rai’s alleged rice shipments into the United States, including shipments ending in California, and alleged use of a California-based independent sales agent.
- The district court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction and lack of quasi in rem jurisdiction due to the absence of identified in-forum property.

## Issues

1. Whether the New York Convention and its implementing provisions in the Federal Arbitration Act permit confirmation of a foreign arbitral award without establishing personal jurisdiction over the award debtor (or jurisdiction over the debtor’s property).
2. Whether the plaintiff established jurisdiction in this case through California-specific contacts, property in the forum, or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) based on nationwide contacts.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The court held that the New York Convention does not eliminate due process requirements for jurisdiction over the defendant’s person or property in an action to confirm a foreign arbitral award.
- The court held Glencore failed to show general jurisdiction because the alleged shipments did not demonstrate continuous and systematic contacts making Shivnath Rai essentially at home in California.
- The court held Glencore failed to show specific jurisdiction because confirmation of the London award did not arise out of or relate to any California contacts; the contracts were governed by English law, performed in India, and arbitrated in London.
- The court rejected quasi in rem jurisdiction because Glencore did not identify any property of Shivnath Rai located in California.
- The court held Rule 4(k)(2) did not supply jurisdiction because the asserted nationwide contacts were insufficient to satisfy constitutional minimum-contacts requirements.

## Legal Principles

- A federal court asked to confirm a foreign arbitral award under the New York Convention must have personal jurisdiction over the defendant or jurisdiction over the defendant’s property; treaty-based subject-matter jurisdiction does not dispense with due process limits.
- Personal jurisdiction is a constitutional requirement that cannot be disregarded absent waiver or consent, and it is not reduced by the Convention’s pro-enforcement policy.
- General jurisdiction requires contacts so continuous and systematic as to render the defendant essentially at home in the forum.
- Specific jurisdiction requires that the claim arise out of or relate to the defendant’s forum contacts; unrelated commercial shipments do not establish relatedness for an award-confirmation claim.
- Quasi in rem jurisdiction requires identified property of the defendant located in the forum.
- Rule 4(k)(2) permits nationwide-contacts jurisdiction only when exercising jurisdiction is consistent with due process; limited or sporadic nationwide sales activity is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that confirmation of a foreign arbitral award under the New York Convention still requires constitutionally adequate jurisdiction over the award debtor or its property, and it affirmed dismissal because the award debtor lacked sufficient California or nationwide contacts and had no identified assets in the forum.


Glencore Grain Rotterdam B.V. v. Shivnath Rai Harnarain Co., 284 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2002)