Skanga Energy & Marine Ltd. v. Petróleos de Venezuela S.A., 522 F. App'x 88

PDVSA is a Venezuelan state-owned entity; Skanga sues PDVSA under FSIA to anchor jurisdiction in the US.
The district court analyzed whether the FSIA commercial activities exception (§ 1605(a)(2)) applies.
Skanga alleged an agency relationship between Arevenca S.A. and PDVSA supported jurisdiction.
Skanga provided circumstantial evidence (statements by Arrundell and a bill of lading with PDVSA’s logo).
PDVSA failed to show Arevenca lacked authority, resulting in no genuine factual dispute about agency.
The district court held PDVSA’s activities caused a direct effect in the United States; the Second Circuit affirms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an agency relationship existed between Arevenca and PDVSA.	Skanga showed agency by allegations and documents.	PDVSA produced no evidence of an agency control.	Agency shown; no factual dispute.
Whether PDVSA’s commercial activities caused a direct effect in the US under §1605(a)(2).	Undisputed allegations show a direct effect.	No direct effect established.	Direct effect shown; exemption not defeated.
Appropriate standard of review for FSIA jurisdiction findings.	District court factual findings reviewable for clear error; legal conclusions de novo.	Standard remains as stated by court.	Standard applied correctly.

Robinson v. Gov’t of Malaysia, 269 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2001) (standard: factual findings reviewed for clear error; legal conclusions de novo; burden on plaintiff to show jurisdictional facts)
USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v. Permanent Mission of the Republic of Namibia, 681 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2012) (jurisdiction requires plaintiff to show exceptions to immunity by evidence)
Rogers v. Petroleo Brasileiro, S.A., 673 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2012) (burden on plaintiff to carry burden of production on jurisdiction)
Virtual Countries, Inc. v. Republic of South Africa, 300 F.3d 230 (2d Cir. 2002) (no factual dispute where defendant offers no contrary evidence)