In Olive Group v. Afghanistan, a commercial arbitration administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration under the 2010 UNCITRAL Rules, a sole arbitrator awarded the claimant significant damages for breach of a security services contract. The dispute, governed by Afghan law and seated in Dubai, arose from a 2018 agreement (the ANAP Contract) under which Olive Group provided aviation security services for four international airports in Afghanistan. The claimant sought over USD 24 million for multiple breaches by the Afghanistan Civil Aviation Authority (ACAA), including the wrongful withholding of payments styled as "penalties" and a 10% contractual retention, the premature termination of the contract which cut off payments for the final nine months, and delays in returning a performance guarantee. Olive Group also claimed damages for ACAA's alleged interference that led to the non-renewal of its security license, resulting in the loss of a separate contract with the Canadian Embassy. The arbitral proceedings were significantly impacted by the respondent's prolonged non-participation following the 2021 change of regime in Afghanistan. The Sole Arbitrator, Victor Leginsky, proceeded with the case despite ACAA's initial absence and subsequent difficulties in retaining counsel. The arbitrator meticulously documented the numerous opportunities afforded to the respondent to present its case, ultimately rejecting its later complaints of procedural unfairness and conducting the final hearing in its absence. On the merits, the tribunal found largely in favor of the claimant. It determined that the ACAA had wrongfully withheld USD 1.28 million in "penalties" and USD 2.75 million in retention, finding no basis for these deductions in the ANAP Contract or Afghan law. The arbitrator also held that the respondent’s unilateral reduction of the contract term constituted a premature termination and a breach of contract, entitling Olive Group to the full value of the unpaid final nine months, amounting to USD 9.18 million. Further, damages were awarded for the wrongful delay in returning the performance guarantee. However, the tribunal dismissed the claimant's claims concerning the manning cap fees and the consequential loss of its contract with the Canadian Embassy. It found no contractual duty for the ACAA to secure exemptions or guarantee the license renewal, attributing the harm to actions by other government ministries not party to the arbitration. Ultimately, the tribunal awarded Olive Group approximately USD 13.3 million in principal damages, plus pre- and post-award interest. Citing the claimant's substantial success and the respondent's conduct which delayed the proceedings, the arbitrator ordered the ACAA to bear the majority of the arbitration costs and pay the claimant's full legal fees. Following the award, Olive Group initiated enforcement proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. In June 2025, the court entered a default judgment against the ACAA, confirming the arbitral award, which with interest and costs totaled over USD 15.2 million. Olive Group then sought to garnish approximately USD 3.1 million in assets held for the ACAA by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) in a Swiss bank account. However, in a Memorandum Opinion dated May 5, 2026, Judge Sparkle Sooknanan denied the garnishment request. The court concluded that it lacked personal jurisdiction over IATA, a Canada-incorporated association. The court rejected Olive Group’s arguments that IATA’s office and activities in the District of Columbia were sufficient to establish general jurisdiction, finding them based on an outmoded “doing business” theory. The court also declined to apply judicial estoppel based on IATA’s representations in a prior lawsuit.