First Investment Corp. of Marshall Islands v. Fujian Mawei Shipbuilding, 703 F.3d 742

First Investment seeks to confirm a London-arbitral award against Fujian FSIGC, Mawei, and PRC under the NY Convention; the award was roughly $26 million.
Arbitration occurred in London, with panel members including Harris, Wang, and Hunter; Wang was later detained in China, and a final drafting/voting process occurred with signatures in 2006.
First Investment pursued confirmation in Xiamen, China, then in the Eastern District of Louisiana; multiple enforcement obstacles and hearings occurred, including translation and counsel access issues.
The district court dismissed First Investment’s petition against the Fujian Entities for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed the petition against the PRC for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
On appeal, First Investment argues alter ego theory should bind the PRC to the arbitration; the court analyzes Bancec factors and ultimately affirms dismissal for both lack of personal jurisdiction over Fujian Entities and lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the PRC.
The court notes that, although not expressly listed as a ground in Article V of the NY Convention, personal jurisdiction is required under due process; the NY Convention does not eliminate the constitutional requirement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court properly dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction	First Investment contends foreign entities lack US due process protections.	Fujian Entities argue no US contacts; alter ego issues are separate for PRC.	Yes; dismissal affirmed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Whether NY Convention confirmation may be denied on personal jurisdiction grounds	NY Convention does not list personal jurisdiction as a ground to deny recognition.	Constitutional due process requires personal jurisdiction over defendants.	Yes; personal jurisdiction may defeat a NY Convention confirmation.
Whether Fujian FSIGC and Mawei can be considered alter egos of the PRC	Alter ego theory could bind PRC to arbitration through its instrumentality.	No sufficient control or equitable factors to overcome separateness under Bancec.	No; no alter ego relationship established; district court proper to dismiss.
Whether the PRC is subject to the arbitration agreement under FSIA	FSIA arbitration exception could bind PRC via Fujian Entities.	PRC was not a party to the arbitration agreement and alter ego not proven.	No; lack of alter ego precludes FSIA arbitration exception; no subject matter jurisdiction.

Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011) (foreign subsidiaries entitled to due process protections)
GSS Group Ltd. v. National Port Authority, 680 F.3d 805 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (presence in forum upon defense triggers due process protections)
First Nat. City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba, 462 U.S. 611 (1983) (Bancec framework for alter ego/disregard of separate status)
Glencore Grain Rotterdam B.V. v. Shivnath Rai Harnarain Co., 284 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2002) (NY Convention does not erase personal jurisdiction requirement)
Gulf Petro Trading Co. v. Nigerian Nat’l Petrol. Corp., 512 F.3d 742 (5th Cir. 2008) (for NY Convention, personal jurisdiction may be required)