## Facts

- World Wide Minerals Ltd., a Canadian corporation, entered 1996–1997 agreements with the Republic of Kazakhstan and related state entities to manage and finance rehabilitation of uranium mining operations in northern Kazakhstan.
- Under a management arrangement, World Wide obtained operational control over a state-run uranium holding company and assumed obligations connected to the enterprise’s debts and restoration financing.
- To secure loans and related obligations, the parties executed a pledge agreement in which Kazakhstan expressly waived sovereign immunity “as provided in the [FSIA].”
- World Wide’s business plan depended on exporting uranium; it alleged Kazakhstan agreed to permit exports, but the management agreement did not expressly guarantee an export license.
- Before receiving any export license, World Wide contracted with two U.S. nuclear-fuel/energy companies to supply uranium from the Kazakh mines.
- Kazakhstan had a preexisting agreement granting Nukem, Inc. exclusive marketing rights for Kazakh uranium, which World Wide alleged made an export license unavailable.
- After Kazakhstan did not issue an export license, World Wide could not perform its U.S. supply contracts and suspended operations at the mines; Kazakhstan then terminated World Wide’s management role.
- World Wide sued Kazakhstan, Kazakh state entities, and Nukem asserting contract and tort claims (and additional statutory theories), seeking damages tied to the failed export-based project.

## Issues

1. Whether Kazakhstan and its state entities were immune under the FSIA or had waived immunity such that the court had subject-matter jurisdiction.
2. Whether the act of state doctrine required dismissal because the claims depended on reviewing Kazakhstan’s sovereign acts within its territory, including export-licensing decisions and termination of state-sector control arrangements.
3. Whether the court had personal jurisdiction over Nukem, Inc. in the District of Columbia.

## Decision

- The court held Kazakhstan and its instrumentalities waived sovereign immunity through the pledge agreement, satisfying the FSIA waiver provision and supporting subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The court nevertheless dismissed the claims against Kazakhstan and its entities under the act of state doctrine because adjudication would require passing on the validity of Kazakhstan’s sovereign public acts in Kazakhstan, including export-licensing decisions and related control of the uranium sector.
- The court dismissed claims against Nukem, Inc. for lack of personal jurisdiction because the alleged injuries did not arise from acts by Nukem in the District of Columbia and could not be bootstrapped through conspiracy-based forum attribution.
- The complaint was dismissed in full.

## Legal Principles

- A foreign state may expressly waive sovereign immunity under the FSIA; such a waiver can establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction when statutory requirements are met.
- FSIA jurisdiction and the act of state doctrine are distinct: jurisdiction may exist even when prudential abstention bars adjudication.
- The act of state doctrine generally precludes U.S. courts from adjudicating claims that require judging the validity of a recognized foreign sovereign’s public acts performed within its own territory.
- Personal jurisdiction requires a sufficient nexus between the defendant’s forum contacts and the plaintiff’s injuries; conclusory conspiracy allegations do not substitute for forum-based conduct giving rise to the claims.

## Conclusion

The court concluded Kazakhstan’s contractual waiver defeated sovereign immunity and allowed FSIA jurisdiction, but dismissed the action because the claims turned on nonreviewable sovereign acts in Kazakhstan, and separately dismissed the U.S. co-defendant for lack of District of Columbia–based personal jurisdiction.


World Wide Minerals Ltd. v. Republic of Kaz., 116 F. Supp. 2d 98 (D.D.C. 2000)