Angola Scales Another Hurdle In $1 Billion Law Suit.

By Ajong Mbapndah L

The Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has handed Angola another decisive victory in the $1.1 billion case brought by Aenergy for breach of contract. The decision taken on December 20,2024 basically confirms the decisions taken by previous jurisdictions that the dispute must be resolved in Angola.

“We view this ruling as complete vindication of Angola’s argument that this matter must be decided in Angola as we have consistently asserted since inception of litigation here almost 5 years ago,” says Attorney Michael D. Ehrenstein who successfully defended Angola working in tandem with Henrique Abecasis and Kiran Gore.

Fielding questions from PAV, Michael D. Ehrenstein says the decision should finally end the litigation of Aenergy’s claim in the United States. On broader ramifications, Ehrenstein thinks the decision may be important to those considering investments in Angola, because the case reconfirms that Angola provides an “adequate alternative forum” for adjudication of disputes.

“American companies should view this series of US judicial decisions as confirmation that Angola provides an adequate alternative forum—one in which investments may be adequately protected by the rule of law. I am optimistic that the ties between the United States and Angola will continue to grow. Of course, there are geopolitical reasons pushing our countries closer—but there are also common democratic and economic values which are in my view at least equally important drivers of this burgeoning relationship,” says Ehrenstein

Your firm just secured victory for Angola again Against $1B Lawsuit at a US Appeals Courts, can you shed light on this for us?

We were honored to defend the Republic of Angola and help it prevail against Aenergy’s claims seeking enormous damages in the United States’ federal courts. According to Aenergy, Angola breached and wrongfully terminated a series of its contracts for the provision of energy services valued at over 1Billion, and wrongfully expropriated Aenergy’s property by seizing certain turbines which Anergy claims to own. Of course, Angola disagrees on the merits, and accused Aenergy of improperly using Angola’s credit for Aenergy’s benefit without Angola’s permission. But the merits of the dispute were never reached by the US courts, which have repeatedly dismissed Aenergy’s claims in favor of adjudication on Angola because the case involves contracts between Angolan parties for the provision of energy services to the Angolan people in Angola, and these contracts were negotiated, executed, performed, and terminated in Angola, under Angolan law.

Aenergy started its US litigation on May 7, 2020, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Judge Cronan dismissed that case, recognizing that this uniquely Angolan matter must be resolved in Angola. Aenergy appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which affirmed Judge Cronan’s judgment. Aenergy then sought review by the United States Supreme Court, which declined to consider the case. Undeterred, Aenergy then initiated an almost identical claim for supposedly unpaid services in the United States District for the District of Columbia. Judge McFadden dismissed Aenergy’s complaint finding it barred by the prior decisions of the New York Court and the Second Circuit. Again, Aenergy appealed—this time to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. And on December 20, 2024, the DC Circuit court of appeals affirmed dismissal, again confirming that this dispute must be resolved in Angola.

For those who may not understand the case brought by AENERGY, S.A. against Angola and what does the decision mean?

This decision is important for at least two significant reasons. First, the decision should finally end the litigation of Aenergy’s claim in the United States. Second, and more broadly, the decision may be important to those considering investments in Angola, because the case reconfirms that Angola provides an “adequate alternative forum” for adjudication of disputes. Generally, US courts are loath to dismiss claims unless there is another forum available to adjudicate the dispute within the rule of law. Here, the finding that Angola provided an adequate alternative forum may provide some comfort to potential investors that Angola has substantive and procedural safeguards to fairly protect their investments

What is the mood like on the Angolan side that your represented in the case?

Our client, the Republic of Angola, is obviously happy with the result. Likewise, our team (including Ehrenstein|Sager, Henrique Abecasis and Kiran Gore) is pleased that the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed dismissal of Aenergy’s claims. We view this ruling as complete vindication of Angola’s argument that this matter must be decided in Angola as we have consistently asserted since inception of litigation here almost 5 years ago.

From the feel of things does this settle it, is AENERGY giving up or there are indications that there will keep pushing the case?

This decision should finally end the litigation of Aenergy’s claims against Angola in US courts. Aenergy may still pursue its claims elsewhere.

The case has dragged on for several years now, what impact has it had on Angola?

I am sure this case has been a time consuming and expensive distraction from Angola’s primary objective—which is to govern and serve its citizens.

The victory came on the heels of the visit of President Biden to Angola, and in a few months as well, Angola will be hosting the US-Africa Business Summit, what should American companies take from this decision, and how do you envision ties between Angola and the USA going forward?

In my view, American companies should view this series of US judicial decisions as confirmation that Angola provides an adequate alternative forum—one in which investments may be adequately protected by the rule of law. I am optimistic that the ties between the United States and Angola will continue to grow. Of course, there are geopolitical reasons pushing our countries closer—but there are also common democratic and economic values which are in my view at least equally important drivers of this burgeoning relationship.

Can you tell us about your firm and how it got involved in the case, and in follow up are cases of this nature involving US companies and African countries common?

Ehrenstein|Sager is a litigation boutique located in Miami, Florida. Though small, the firm litigates very large matters on an international scale, including matters involving sovereign representation. We became involved in this case when it was filed. Through our relationship with Henrique Abecasis, an attorney with connections to Angola and who acted as counsel for Angola with our firm in this case, we were engaged to represent Angola. While not “common”, cases involving disputes with African countries are litigated in US courts with some regularity. Many of these matters involve efforts to enforce arbitral awards or foreign judgments, some focus on commercial disputes, and still others address expropriation, human rights and related claims.