## Facts

- Plaintiffs were fishermen, farmers, local entities, and a nonprofit from coastal Gujarat, India, alleging harm from a coal-fired power plant project (Tata Mundra).
- Defendant International Finance Corporation (IFC) is an international organization headquartered in Washington, D.C. that financed the project through a $450 million loan to the plant owner/operator’s affiliate.
- IFC required environmental and social performance standards and an action plan, incorporated into the loan agreement.
- Plaintiffs alleged IFC knew of likely adverse impacts but failed to enforce its standards while disbursing funds, allowing the plant to be designed, built, and operated in ways that polluted air, land, and water and damaged health and livelihoods in India.
- Claims included negligence, negligent supervision, public and private nuisance, trespass, and breach of contract (as asserted third-party beneficiaries).
- After the Supreme Court held that international organizations’ immunity tracks the FSIA, the case returned to the district court to determine whether an FSIA exception applied; IFC again moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

## Issues

1. Whether the FSIA commercial-activity exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2), applied by showing the action was “based upon” commercial activity in the United States or acts in the United States in connection with commercial activity elsewhere.
2. Whether the suit was “based upon” acts outside the United States causing a “direct effect” in the United States under § 1605(a)(2).
3. How to identify the suit’s “gravamen” for the “based upon” inquiry, including whether the core conduct was IFC decision-making in Washington, D.C. or the alleged injurious activity in India.

## Decision

- The court granted IFC’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The court held the claims were not “based upon” commercial activity in the United States because the gravamen was the alleged injury-producing conduct and harms in India.
- The court rejected jurisdiction under the “direct effect” clause because the alleged injuries occurred in India and any U.S. effects were too remote.
- The court found no other FSIA exception applied; IFC remained immune from suit.

## Legal Principles

- Under the IOIA as interpreted by the Supreme Court, international organizations have the same immunity from suit as foreign states under the FSIA, including FSIA exceptions.
- The FSIA commercial-activity exception requires that an action be “based upon” qualifying commercial activity or acts with the statutorily required U.S. nexus; “but-for” connections to U.S. conduct are insufficient.
- Courts determine what a suit is “based upon” by identifying the complaint’s gravamen—those elements of the claim that, if proven, would entitle the plaintiff to relief—and locating where that core conduct occurred.
- The “direct effect in the United States” requirement demands an immediate consequence in the United States; foreign injuries with only derivative or attenuated U.S. impacts do not satisfy the standard.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding that although IFC’s financing and oversight decisions occurred in Washington, D.C., the gravamen of the claims was the alleged pollution and resulting injuries in India, so the FSIA commercial-activity exception (including its direct-effect clause) did not remove IFC’s immunity.


Jam v. Int'l Fin. Corp., 442 F. Supp. 3d 162 (D.D.C. 2020)