Chowdhury v. Veon Ltd.
- John Cronan
- 1:21-cv-03527
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Chowdhury v. Veon, Judge Cronan granted both defendants’ dismissal motions, finding no jurisdiction over claims against BTRC and no standing for claims against VEON.
Nayeem A. Chowdhury’s claims against the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission and VEON Ltd. were dismissed without prejudice. BTRC was terminated from the case, while Chowdhury was given a deadline to amend his complaint against VEON.
What happened
In Chowdhury v. Veon Ltd., Nayeem A. Chowdhury alleged that Bangladesh’s telecommunications regulator auctioned spectrum that he said was licensed to WorldTel Bangladesh Limited, where he had invested, and that VEON misled investors. He sought at least $2.39 billion for alleged contract, fraud, and securities-law violations.
The court ruled that the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission, a Bangladeshi government agency, was protected from suit in U.S. courts by foreign sovereign immunity. It also ruled that Chowdhury could not sue VEON for alleged harm to WorldTel because he had not shown that he personally owned those claims, and he did not allege that he owned VEON stock for the securities claim.
Judge John P. Cronan granted both defendants’ motions to dismiss under the rule governing subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed the claims without prejudice. The court terminated the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission from the case because amendment would be futile, while allowing Chowdhury until April 29, 2022, to file an amended complaint against VEON.
The detailed version
- Chowdhury v. Veon Ltd. · No. 1:21-cv-03527
- John Cronan
- Mar. 30, 2022
Background
Nayeem A. Chowdhury, proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that he invested in WorldTel Bangladesh Limited, a Bangladeshi telecommunications company. He claimed that WorldTel held a 25-year license for 7.4 megahertz of spectrum in Bangladesh and that the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC), a telecommunications regulator and commission of the Bangladeshi government, improperly auctioned that spectrum on March 8, 2021, to Banglalink, VEON Ltd.’s Bangladeshi subsidiary. He also alleged that VEON knew about WorldTel’s claimed license and gave its investors misleading information about the auction.
The complaint alleged breach of contract and fraud against both defendants and a federal securities-law violation against VEON. Chowdhury sought at least $2.39 billion. VEON removed the case from New York state court and moved to dismiss. BTRC later moved to dismiss, and Chowdhury did not oppose BTRC’s motion.
BTRC and foreign sovereign immunity
The court treated BTRC as an agency or instrumentality of Bangladesh under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, the federal law that generally protects foreign states and their agencies from lawsuits in U.S. courts. The court held that Chowdhury did not allege or show that any statutory exception to that immunity applied. Because sovereign immunity deprived the court of subject-matter jurisdiction, the court dismissed Chowdhury’s claims against BTRC.
VEON and standing
The court also held that Chowdhury lacked standing, meaning he had not shown that he personally suffered the injuries needed to invoke federal jurisdiction. The alleged interference with the spectrum license and other alleged misconduct injured WorldTel, not Chowdhury individually. His authorization from WorldTel to bring the case did not transfer ownership of WorldTel’s claims to him, and he did not allege that WorldTel was legally unable to bring its own claims. The court therefore dismissed his contract and fraud claims against VEON.
The court separately held that Chowdhury lacked standing for the securities claim because he did not allege that he owned or had ever owned VEON stock. The court dismissed that claim as well.
Disposition
Judge John P. Cronan granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court dismissed the claims without prejudice. It terminated BTRC from the case because amendment would be futile in light of BTRC’s immunity. The court allowed Chowdhury to file an amended complaint against VEON by April 29, 2022; otherwise, absent good cause, the court would enter judgment. The Clerk was directed to close the motion at Docket Number 44 and terminate BTRC from the case.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.