Forstech Technical Nigeria Limited v. The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited (SPDC)
1:24-cv-07629
S.D.N.Y.May 19, 2025Background
- Forstech Technical Nigeria Limited and its lead consultant, Chidi Adabanya (Forstech), are Nigerian entities involved in construction consulting.
- Forstech had an agreement with the Government of Bayelsa State, Nigeria, to process permit applications for oil and gas facilities, and was to receive processing fees from permit applicants.
- The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited (SPDC), also a Nigerian entity, applied for a permit and allegedly paid some, but not all, required fees to Forstech, later paying the balance directly to Bayelsa State instead of Forstech.
- Forstech alleged the payment to Bayelsa State constituted a bribe and tortious interference with its contract, suing SPDC, its project manager, and managing director in the Southern District of New York under the Alien Tort Claims Act.
- SPDC moved to dismiss on several grounds, with the court addressing only the issue of personal jurisdiction.
- The court dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding insufficient contacts between SPDC and New York.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| General jurisdiction | SPDC has a significant U.S./NY presence due to exports | No continuous, systematic business ties to New York | No general jurisdiction in New York |
| Specific jurisdiction | SPDC’s U.S. exports tie its actions to NY | All conduct relevant to claims occurred in Nigeria | No specific jurisdiction in New York |
| Subject matter jurisdiction (ATCA) | ATCA provides jurisdiction for international tort claims | No U.S. nexus; claim doesn’t meet ATCA standards | Not addressed due to threshold decision |
| Venue and service | Not specifically addressed by court | Nigeria is proper forum; insufficient service alleged | Not addressed due to threshold decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (establishes stringent test for general jurisdiction; contacts must render defendant "at home" in forum state)
- Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004) (Alien Tort Claims Act is purely jurisdictional, creates no new causes of action)
- Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 814 F.3d 619 (2d Cir. 2016) (general jurisdiction only when corporation is essentially at home in forum)
- Penguin Grp. (USA) Inc. v. Am. Buddha, 609 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2010) (standard for plaintiff’s burden in establishing personal jurisdiction)
- In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 714 F.3d 659 (2d Cir. 2013) (minimum contacts and reasonableness requirement for personal jurisdiction)