A federal court in Washington D.C. has rejected Bolivia’s attempt to dismiss a major enforcement action brought by Glencore Finance (Bermuda) Ltd., ruling that the mining giant correctly followed complex international service rules when suing the South American nation. The ruling allows Glencore to proceed with its effort to enforce a $253 million arbitration award against the Plurinational State of Bolivia.
The core of the dispute was not about the validity of the underlying arbitration—which found Bolivia liable for nationalizing Glencore’s mining assets between 2007 and 2012—but rather a highly technical argument over which government office should have received the initial legal documents.
The $253 Million Award
The case stems from Bolivia’s nationalization of four key mining assets owned by Glencore. After a lengthy arbitration process under a UK-Bolivia investment treaty, an international tribunal determined in September 2023 that Bolivia had violated the agreement by failing to compensate Glencore. The resulting award required Bolivia to pay over $253 million plus interest.
When Glencore sought to enforce this award in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, it immediately ran into the procedural hurdles required when suing a foreign sovereign. Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), service of process on a foreign state must follow specific, tiered procedures.
The Service Showdown: IACAP vs. FSIA
Glencore first attempted service under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(2), utilizing the Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory and Additional Protocol (IACAP), as this was the applicable international agreement between the U.S. and Bolivia. This method requires the court to issue a *Letter Rogatory*—a formal request for judicial assistance—which is then routed through designated central authorities.
Glencore followed this path, obtaining a court order for the Letter Rogatory and sending the documents to ABC Legal Services, the contractor designated by the U.S. Central Authority for IACAP service. ABC Legal then dispatched the materials via DHL to Bolivia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Bolivia immediately challenged this service, appearing specially (meaning only to contest jurisdiction, not the underlying merits). Bolivia argued that Glencore had failed a “box-checking exercise,” claiming the Letter Rogatory was addressed to the wrong entity. Specifically, Bolivia contended that while the documents named the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as the recipient, they were specifically directed to the “Director of Legal Affairs,” which Bolivia claimed was not the proper “Responding Authority” under the IACAP rules.
Court Finds Glencore Followed Instructions
Judge Christopher R. Cooper firmly rejected Bolivia’s argument, finding that Glencore had meticulously adhered to the procedures dictated by Bolivia itself.
The court noted that when Bolivia designated its central authority under the IACAP, it listed the *Body/National Entity* as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but specified the *Department/Office* as the General Directorate of Legal Affairs.
“Form A and the DHL package list both entities and provide the correct address in its entirety,” Judge Cooper wrote. “In short, Glencore followed Bolivia’s specific instructions for addressing letters rogatory, and nothing more was required under the IACAP.”
The court further pointed out that Bolivia’s own Supreme Court of Justice, when it later reviewed the matter, acknowledged that the Director General of Legal Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs *is* the Responding Authority.
The Confusion in La Paz
The situation became more complicated when the Letter Rogatory, after reaching the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, was forwarded internally to Bolivia’s Supreme Court of Justice. In June 2024, the Supreme Court issued an “Official Letter,” suggesting that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs itself claimed it lacked the jurisdiction to “ensure and defend the interests of the State,” and asked the U.S. court to clarify the final recipient.
Bolivia argued that this Official Letter put Glencore on notice that service was deficient, and Glencore’s failure to resolve this deficiency rendered the service invalid under FSIA.
Judge Cooper found this argument unpersuasive for two main reasons. First, the Supreme Court’s letter sought clarification on the *ultimate recipient* of the notification within Bolivia, not the designated *Central Authority* for receiving IACAP requests—which Glencore had correctly identified. Second, and crucially, there was no evidence that Glencore or the U.S. Court ever actually received the Bolivian Supreme Court’s Official Letter. Attempts by Bolivian authorities to forward the letter to U.S. officials were confusingly handled, and the court determined Glencore could not be penalized for failing to respond to a notice it never received.
Service Moves to the Next Step
Because Bolivia’s Central Authority failed to certify execution of the Letter Rogatory (a reciprocal obligation under the convention), Glencore was permitted under FSIA to move to the next step: direct service under § 1608(a)(3).
Glencore sent a copy of the summons and petition directly to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs via FedEx, which was received on May 6, 2025.
Concluding that service was proper under the FSIA through this secondary method, the court denied Bolivia’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The denial allows the case to move forward. The parties are now ordered to submit a joint status report within 30 days to propose a briefing schedule for Bolivia to formally oppose the merits of Glencore’s petition to enforce the $253 million award.