Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Services, Inc., 551 U.S. 224 (2007)
Primary Holding
A foreign corporation that is a wholly owned subsidiary of a foreign state does not qualify as an "organ of a foreign state" under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) for the purposes of removal to federal court.
In the case of Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Services, the Supreme Court decided that a foreign company that is completely owned by a foreign government does not have the same legal protections as the government itself when it comes to being taken to court in the U.S. This matters because it clarifies that consumers can hold foreign companies accountable in U.S. courts if they are involved in unfair practices, like price-fixing in energy markets. This case is relevant if you ever find yourself dealing with a foreign company that you believe is harming consumers or violating laws, as it shows that those companies can be sued in U.S. courts.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
In Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Services, Inc., the underlying dispute arose from lawsuits filed by the State of California and various private entities against companies in the California energy market, alleging price-fixing in violation of state law. Among the defendants were Powerex Corp., a Canadian corporation and subsidiary of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro), as well as other entities like the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), which are U.S. government agencies. The defendants sought indemnity from Powerex and BC Hydro, leading to the removal of the case to federal court based on claims of sovereign immunity and foreign state status under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The procedural history of the case began when the District Court ruled that BPA and WAPA could remove the case under 28 U.S.C. §1442(a), while BC Hydro and Powerex relied on §1441(d) for foreign states. The District Court concluded that Powerex did not qualify as a foreign sovereign under the FSIA, while BC Hydro was granted sovereign immunity. Consequently, the court remanded the entire case back to state court, prompting Powerex to appeal to the Ninth Circuit, asserting its status as a foreign sovereign and challenging the remand decision. The relevant background context includes the legal framework established by the FSIA, which defines the conditions under which foreign states and their entities can be sued in U.S. courts. The case highlights the complexities of jurisdiction and sovereign immunity, particularly in the context of cross-border corporate structures and the interplay between federal and state court systems. The Supreme Court's review was prompted by the need to clarify whether Powerex qualified as an "organ of a foreign state" under the FSIA and to address jurisdictional questions related to the Ninth Circuit's authority to hear the appeal.
Whether petitioner Powerex Corp. qualifies as an “organ of a foreign state or political subdivision thereof” under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. §1603(b)(2).
The judgment is reversed.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- April 16, 2007
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Majority Author
- Scalia
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel, 553 U.S. 851 (2008)
Consumer LostThe foreign sovereign immunity of a state precludes a court from proceeding with an action in which the sovereign cannot be joined as a party, and the court must consider the implications of Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in light of this immunity.
Permanent Mission of India to United Nations v. City of New York, 551 U.S. 193 (2007)
Consumer LostThe Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not provide immunity to a foreign sovereign from a lawsuit seeking to declare the validity of tax liens on property held by the sovereign for the purpose of housing its employees, as such matters involve "rights in immovable property" situated in the United States.
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005)
Consumer LostThe Rooker-Feldman doctrine is limited to cases where state-court losers seek to challenge state court judgments in federal court, and it does not extend to other situations that would override preclusion law or allow federal courts to dismiss cases in deference to state court actions.
Ministry of Defense and Support for Armed Forces of Islamic Republic of Iran v. Elahi, 546 U.S. 450 (2006)
Consumer LostThe Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not provide an exception for the attachment of property owned by a foreign state itself based on engagement in commercial activity; such an exception applies only to the property of an "agency or instrumentality" of a foreign state.