Notice: We are currently performing maintenance to improve the italaw platform. The site remains fully accessible. Thank you for your patience.

italaw180975 - NextEra v. Spain, Supplemental Brief of Respondent Blasket Renewable Investments, June 8, 2026.pdf

8 Jun 2026
NextEra Energy Global Holdings B.V. and NextEra Energy Spain Holdings B.V. v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/14/11
View case details
Supplemental Brief of Respondent Blasket Renewable Investments
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Supplemental Brief of Respondent Blasket Renewable Investments
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Judges
Claimant's counsel
Matthew S. Rozen, Jeff Liu, Aaron Hauptman, Alexander Kazam, Michael S. Taintor
Claimant's law firm
Respondent's counsel
Respondent's law firm
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Claimant's expert firm
Respondent's expert
Respondent's expert firm
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Third-party funder
Entities
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, King & Spalding, Blasket Renewable Investments, NextEra Energy Global Holdings B.V., 9REN, Spain
Country
United States
Print reporter
Document Summary
Supplemental Brief of Respondent Blasket Renewable Investments
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

This document is a supplemental brief filed by Respondent Blasket Renewable Investments, LLC (“Blasket”) before the Supreme Court of the United States, urging the denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by the Kingdom of Spain. The case concerns the enforcement of an arbitral award and addresses the interpretation of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and the applicability of the forum non conveniens doctrine.

Interpretation of the FSIA Arbitration Exception

Blasket argues that the D.C. Circuit correctly interpreted the FSIA's arbitration exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6). The brief contends that jurisdiction is established when a foreign state has agreed to arbitrate disputes with “a private party,” as Spain did through the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). According to Blasket, whether the specific plaintiff before the court is a proper party to that arbitration agreement is a question of scope that goes to the merits of enforcement, not a threshold jurisdictional issue to be decided de novo by the court. Blasket asserts that Spain’s contrary position would improperly convert routine merits-based defenses concerning treaty coverage into jurisdictional challenges, thereby undermining the efficiency and predictability of international arbitration. The brief refutes policy arguments raised by Spain and the U.S. government (as amicus curiae), characterizing them as extra-textual and inconsistent with the established framework for enforcing international awards under the New York and ICSID Conventions.

Forum Non Conveniens

The brief further contends that the second question presented in Spain's petition, concerning a circuit split on the applicability of forum non conveniens to award enforcement actions, does not warrant the Court's review. Blasket characterizes the split as “shallow” and “inconsequential,” arguing that the doctrine is unlikely to result in the dismissal of an enforcement action against a foreign state in any circuit. It posits that the factors relevant to a forum non conveniens analysis, particularly in the context of summary confirmation proceedings, would almost invariably favor retaining jurisdiction in the United States. Consequently, Blasket concludes that the petition for certiorari should be denied.