EIG Energy Fund XIV, L.P. v. Petróleo Brasileiro S.A.

• Decision Date: 30 March 2017
• Docket Number: Case No. 16–cv–00333 (APM)
• Citation: 246 F.Supp.3d 52
• Parties: EIG ENERGY FUND XIV, L.P., et al., Plaintiffs, v. PETRÓLEO BRASILEIRO S.A., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

246 F.Supp.3d 52

EIG ENERGY FUND XIV, L.P., et al., Plaintiffs,

v.PETRÓLEO BRASILEIRO S.A., et al., Defendants.

Case No. 16–cv–00333 (APM)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed March 30, 2017

Daniel B. Goldman, Claudia Pak, Kerri Ann Law, Michael Jason Calb, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York, NY, Barry Coburn, Coburn & Greenbaum, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.

Adam K. Levin, Carolyn A. DeLone, David Martin Foster, Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, William A. Burck, Eric C. Lyttle, Jonathan Gordon Cooper, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Gregory S. Bruch, Bruch Hanna LLP, Jonathan F. Cohn, C. Morgan Branch, Joshua J. Fougere, Sidley Austin LLP, David W. Bowker, Washington, DC, Michael B. Carlinsky, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Peter T. Barbur, Trevor M. Broad, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY, David William Ogden, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, Hockessin, DE, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Amit P. Mehta, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

This case arises out of the largest modern political scandal in the history of Brazil. In 2014, Brazilian investigators discovered that Defendant Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. ("Petrobras"), a Brazilian state-owned oil company, was at the center of a complex web of political and corporate corruption. The investigation, now popularly known as "Operation Car Wash," revealed that Petrobras had a long-standing practice of soliciting bribes in exchange for awarding construction and service contracts. In addition to enriching its executives, Petrobras also funneled portions of those payments to officials in Brazil's majority political party—the Workers Party—presumably to curry favor with those officials. These revelations sent shockwaves through Brazil and led to the prosecution and incarceration of several high-ranking Petrobras executives and government officials. The investigation into the full scope of the scandal continues to date.

Plaintiffs are eight related U.S.-based and Cayman Islands-based investment funds, plus their investment adviser, that equity financed one of the entities entangled in the corruption scheme: Sete Brasil Participações ("Sete"). Petrobras established Sete to serve as a financing vehicle to fund the construction of a large fleet of drillships that Petrobras planned to use in developing large, newly discovered oil reserves located off the coast of Brazil. To that end, Petrobras installed three of its former officials—João Carlos de Medeiros Ferraz, Pedro José Barusco Filho, and Eduardo Costa Vaz Musa—as Sete executive officers. Through those officials, Sete then solicited bribes from various shipyards—including Defendants Odebrecht S.A., Odebrecht Participações e Engenharia S.A., Keppel Corporation Ltd., Keppel Offshore & Marine Ltd., Sembcorp Industries Ltd., Sembcorp Marine Ltd., and Jurong (collectively, the "Shipyard Defendants")—in exchange for drillship construction contracts. Those bribe payments were split amongst Ferraz, Barusco, and Musa; current Petrobras executives; and Workers Party officials.

Sete collapsed soon after investigators uncovered the bribe scheme. Sete depended on capital raised primarily through debt financing from government-backed lending institutions to pay the costs of building the drillships. After the scandal broke, however, those lenders withdrew their financing, causing Sete to default on the drillship contracts. As a result, Sete was forced into bankruptcy, where it remains today.

Plaintiffs, who lost the hundreds of millions of dollars they invested in Sete, filed this lawsuit against Petrobras and the Shipyard Defendants. In their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs advance three claims: (1) common law fraud, against Petrobras, premised on Petrobras fraudulently inducing Plaintiffs to invest in Sete; (2) aiding and abetting, against Petrobras, for providing substantial assistance to Sete in fraudulently inducing Plaintiffs to invest in Sete; and (3) civil conspiracy, against all Defendants, premised on the theory that Defendants conspired to conceal the existence of the Sete bribe scheme in an effort to fraudulently induce Plaintiffs, and other investors, to invest in Sete. Plaintiffs point to several allegedly fraudulent representations and material omissions that Petrobras and Sete made in pursuit of Plaintiffs' investment to support their claims. As a result of those misrepresentations, Plaintiffs allege that both Petrobras, individually, and all Defendants, as co-conspirators, are liable for Plaintiffs' investment losses.

This matter is before the court on Motions to Dismiss. Petrobras and the Shipyard Defendants each filed separate Motions. Read together, Defendants seek dismissal under (1) Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because (a) Plaintiffs do not have Article III standing and (b) Petrobras is immune from suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act; (2) Rule 12(b)(6), for failing to adequately state their claims; and (3) Rule 12(b)(2), for lack of personal jurisdiction over the Shipyard Defendants. Alternatively, certain Defendants, most prominently Petrobras, urge the court to dismiss this matter under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

The court rules as follows. First, all Plaintiffs other than EIG Management Company, LLC—the Funds' investment manager—have standing to assert claims against Petrobras. Second, the court will not dismiss this matter on forum non conveniens grounds because Petrobras and other movants have not met their burden to show that this court is an inconvenient forum in which to address Plaintiffs' claims. Third, the court has jurisdiction over Petrobras under the "commercial activity exception" to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Fourth, Plaintiffs have alleged plausible claims against Petrobras, under District of Columbia law, for fraud and aiding and abetting fraud. Fifth, this court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Shipyard Defendants, both under the District of Columbia long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. And, sixth, Plaintiffs failed to plead a plausible claim of conspiracy against any Defendant.

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed in greater detail below, the court grants in part and denies in part Defendant Petrobras' Motion. The court grants the Shipyard Defendants' Motions and will dismiss them from this case.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

1. The Creation of Sete Brasil

Defendant Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. ("Petrobras") is a Brazilian state-owned energy company. Am. Compl., ECF No. 11 [hereinafter Am. Compl.], ¶¶ 1, 19. In or around 2006, Petrobras publicly announced the discovery of significant new oil reserves off the coast of Brazil, containing an estimated 50 billion barrels of oil (the "Pre–Salt Reserves"). Id. ¶ 31. In 2010, Petrobras endeavored to construct a fleet of 28 deep-water drillships to extract the oil in the Pre–Salt Reserves. Id. ¶¶ 3, 32–33. In light of the high cost of constructing that fleet—approximately $20 billion, in total—Petrobras formed an independent entity, Sete Brasil Participações ("Sete"), to finance the project. Id. ¶¶ 32–35. This financing plan was devised by two senior Petrobras employees—João Carlos de Medeiros Ferraz ("Ferraz") and Pedro José Barusco Filho ("Barusco")—and allowed Petrobras to shift the large capital expenditure required to build the drillships off its balance sheet and onto Sete's balance sheet. Id. ¶¶ 31–32. Petrobras subsequently "installed" Ferraz as Sete's Chief Executive Officer; Barusco as its Chief Operating Officer; and a third Petrobras executive, Eduardo Costa Vaz Musa, as its Engineering Director. Id. ¶ 35.

Petrobras and Sete raised the capital required to fund Sete's operations through both debt and equity financing sources. Id. ¶¶ 3–4. Sete's primary source of capital came from bank credit lines, including from the Brazilian state-owned development bank, Banco Nacional de Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social. Id. ¶ 34. In addition, the companies sought out equity investors in the United States and elsewhere. Id. ¶ 36. Once it secured that capital, Sete entered into contracts with several Brazil-based shipyards, including the Shipyard Defendants and their subsidiaries, to build the drillship fleet. Sete planned to lease those ships to Petrobras for use in developing the Pre–Salt Reserves. Id. ¶¶ 2–3. Sete anticipated that the lease proceeds would cover its operating costs, repay its loans, and provide a return to its investors. Id. ¶¶ 3, 33, 60.

2. Plaintiffs' Investment in Sete

Plaintiffs are eight related energy investment funds (the "Funds") and their investment manager, EIG Management Company, LLC ("EIG Management"), through which the Funds invested in Sete (collectively, "Plaintiffs"). Id. ¶¶ 1, 10–18. Six of the Funds are limited partnerships organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and two are limited partnerships organized under the laws of the Cayman Islands. Id. ¶¶ 10–17. EIG Management is incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business in Washington, D.C. Id. ¶ 18.

Beginning in 2010, Petrobras and Sete provided various promotional materials to EIG Management, including in Washington, D.C., in an effort to solicit the Funds' investment. Id. ¶¶ 36–44, 47. In January 2010, Petrobras sent EIG Management—the Amended Complaint does not specific precisely to which EIG Management office¹ —a "Confidential Informational Memorandum" (the "Petrobras Memorandum") describing the strategic details and investment outlook of the Sete project. Id. ¶ 36. The Petrobras Memorandum included specific disclosures regarding several project-related risk factors—e.g., cost overruns, engineering defects, and environmental concerns—as well as favorable financial projections associated with investing in Sete. Id. ¶ 37. It also contained representations that Sete would enter into shipbuilding contracts that complied with...