Best Medical Belgium, Inc. v. Kingdom of Belgium
913 F. Supp. 2d 230
E.D. Va.2012Background
- Best Medical Belgium, Inc. and Best Medical Belgium, S.A. (BMBSA) sue Belgium, AWEX, and individuals for contract, unlawful taking, conspiracy, and discrimination.
- Plaintiffs rely on FSIA and ATS for jurisdiction; defendants move to dismiss on jurisdiction grounds plus other defenses.
- Belgian Commercial Court ordered restructuring and eventual sale of BMBSA; court-appointed administrators were involved.
- BMBSA’s assets and actions occurred in Belgium; plaintiff alleges promotional investments and incentives promoted by AWEX.
- Court finds no FSIA commercial activity or takings basis, and no ATS violation to confer jurisdiction; claims dismissed with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does FSIA commercial activity grant jurisdiction for contract claims? | Plaintiffs allege AWEX promoted investment and offered incentives. | AWEX acts sovereignly; promotion is not private contract activity. | No jurisdiction; AWEX/Kingdom activities not commercial activity. |
| Does FSIA takings exception confer jurisdiction over the alleged taking? | BMBSA assets were taken via Belgian court sale. | Actions were judicial administration, not a taking; no nexus to US. | No jurisdiction; no taking under FSIA and no US nexus. |
| Does ATS confer jurisdiction for conspiracy and discrimination claims? | Counts V and VII arise under ATS for international-law violations. | No violation of law of nations; acts involve sovereign judicial process. | No jurisdiction under ATS; claims fail. |
Key Cases Cited
- Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, Inc., 504 U.S. 607 (U.S. 1992) (commercial activity focus on exchange, not sovereign acts; private-private analogue not applicable)
- Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (U.S. 2004) (ATS jurisdiction limited to violations of the law of nations)
- Samantar v. Yousuf, 560 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2010) (sovereign immunity and official-capacity acts; limits on jurisdiction against state actors)
- Amorrortu v. Republic of Peru, 570 F.Supp.2d 916 (S.D. Tex. 2008) (expropriation/ taking under FSIA; not applicable here)
- de Sanchez v. Banco Central de Nicaragua, 770 F.2d 1385 (5th Cir. 1985) (international-law taking concept; post-deprivation remedies context)
- In re XE Services Alien Tort Litigation, 665 F.Supp.2d 569 (E.D. Va. 2009) (ATS requires some violation of the law of nations; analysis merges with 12(b)(6))