## Facts

- A Russian gas supplier and a Ukrainian pipeline operator entered a gas-transport contract in Ukraine that allowed the Ukrainian operator to withdraw a fixed quantity of gas as compensation.
- The Ukrainian operator allegedly made additional, unauthorized withdrawals, causing losses to the supplier.
- The supplier was insured; the reinsurer paid and became subrogated to the supplier’s rights.
- The subrogated reinsurer arbitrated the dispute in Moscow and obtained an arbitral award against the Ukrainian operator’s successor entity.
- The reinsurer petitioned in federal court in New York to confirm the foreign arbitral award under the New York Convention, asserting jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), and also sought to hold the foreign state liable based on control and successor-liability theories.
- The successor entity challenged personal jurisdiction, asserting no U.S. contacts; the foreign state raised immunity and also sought dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds.
- The court emphasized that the contract, performance, alleged misconduct, restructuring, evidence, and witnesses were centered in Ukraine (and related neighboring jurisdictions), not the United States.

## Issues

1. Whether forum non conveniens may be applied to a petition to confirm a foreign arbitral award brought under the New York Convention and the FAA.
2. Whether Ukraine was an adequate alternative forum and, if so, whether private and public interest factors favored dismissal.
3. Whether FSIA immunity and personal jurisdiction over the respondents barred the action (issues raised but not decided once dismissal was ordered).

## Decision

- The court held that forum non conveniens is available in an action to confirm a foreign arbitral award under the New York Convention and the FAA.
- The court found Ukraine to be an available and adequate alternative forum because the respondents were amenable to suit there and Ukrainian law and courts could address the claims.
- The court rejected generalized allegations of corruption and political interference as insufficient to establish that Ukraine was an inadequate forum.
- The court concluded private interest factors favored Ukraine because key documents and witnesses were abroad, compulsory process in New York would be limited, and enforcement would likely focus on foreign assets.
- The court concluded public interest factors favored Ukraine because the dispute was predominantly foreign, would likely require application of foreign law, and implicated comity concerns involving a foreign sovereign.
- The petition was dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds; the personal-jurisdiction motion was treated as moot, and immunity/jurisdiction questions were not resolved as dispositive.

## Legal Principles

- The New York Convention and its implementing legislation do not displace a federal court’s power to dismiss on forum non conveniens in an appropriate case.
- An “adequate alternative forum” exists when defendants are amenable to suit there and the forum offers a meaningful remedy; generalized allegations of corruption do not defeat adequacy without specific, compelling support.
- In balancing forum non conveniens, courts consider private factors (access to proof, witness availability and cost, ability to compel testimony, and practical enforceability) and public factors (local interest, docket burden, foreign-law issues, and comity), with substantial weight given to the locus of operative facts.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the award-confirmation petition on forum non conveniens, holding that the New York Convention does not bar dismissal where the dispute is centered abroad and Ukraine provides an adequate forum whose private and public interest factors strongly favor adjudication there.


Monegasque de Reassurances S.A.M. (Monde Re) v. NAK Naftogaz of Ukr., 158 F. Supp. 2d 377 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)