Archangel Diamond Corp. Liquidating Trust v. OAO Lukoil, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 2240

Archangel Diamond (now a Colorado liquidating trust) invested in a Russian diamond license originally held by state entity AGE, later privatized as AGD; Archangel alleges AGD and later Lukoil (AGD’s corporate successor) deprived it of the license and its investment after a large diamond discovery.
Archangel pursued arbitration in Stockholm in 1998 and multiple lawsuits in Colorado state court beginning in 2001; litigation history included removals, remands, and multiple appeals addressing personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens.
After adding RICO and Colorado Organized Crime Control Act claims in a 2009 amended complaint, Archangel removed to federal court; the district court dismissed the federal suit for lack of personal jurisdiction and, alternatively, on forum non conveniens grounds, finding Russia an adequate forum and that Russian law would govern significant contract issues.
The district court concluded private factors slightly favored Archangel but public factors (administrative burdens, local interest, applicable law) weighed heavily for Lukoil and that Lukoil consented to Russian jurisdiction and waived SOL defenses.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s forum non conveniens dismissal, exercising deference to the district court’s balancing and declining to reach personal jurisdiction issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Russia is an adequate and available alternative forum	Russia inadequate because Archangel could not obtain litigation funding there	Russia adequate; Lukoil consents to Russian jurisdiction and waives statute-of-limitations defense	Russia is an adequate and available forum; threshold satisfied
Whether foreign law controls such that forum non conveniens is appropriate	Swedish law governs (Stockholm arbitration clause); some U.S. law claims (RICO/COCCA) require U.S. forum	Russian law governs contract and license issues; foreign law will apply to substantial aspects	Russian law governs key contract/license issues; mixed law but foreign law predominates
Whether inclusion of RICO/COCCA bars forum non conveniens dismissal	RICO/COCCA and Colorado law require U.S. adjudication; domestic claims preclude dismissal	Presence of U.S. claims does not automatically preclude dismissal; foreign remedies suffice	Inclusion of RICO/COCCA does not per se defeat forum non conveniens; dismissal remains available
Balancing private/public interest factors for dismissal	Private factors strongly favor Archangel (documents/witnesses in U.S.; funding concerns)	Private factors marginal; public factors favor Russia (local interest, applying Russian law, administrative burdens)	Private factors slightly favor Archangel; public factors heavily favor Lukoil; overall dismissal proper

Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (establishes forum non conveniens framework and deference to trial court balancing)
Sinochem Int’l Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (court may dismiss on forum non conveniens without deciding jurisdiction)
Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Thyssen Mining Constr. of Can., Ltd., 703 F.3d 488 (10th Cir.) (threshold requirements for forum non conveniens and review standard)
Gschwind v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 161 F.3d 602 (10th Cir.) (private/public interest factors for dismissal)
Yavuz v. 61 MM, Ltd., 576 F.3d 1166 (10th Cir.) (forum non conveniens may apply even where some U.S. law claims exist)
Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Access Indus., Inc., 416 F.3d 146 (2d Cir.) (availability of alternate forum does not require identical causes of action, applied to RICO context)
Rivendell Forest Prods., Ltd. v. Canadian Pac. Ltd., 2 F.3d 990 (10th Cir.) (discusses forum non conveniens and applicability when American law controls)
Windt v. Qwest Commc’ns Int’l, Inc., 529 F.3d 183 (3d Cir.) (RICO claims receive no special protection in forum non conveniens inquiries)
Koster v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518 (discusses oppressive or vexatious burdens justifying dismissal)