Supreme Court of the United States ————

———— On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ————

There is none.

Nonetheless, the tribunal’s 46 affiliation with two sovereigns is maintained within the Treaty, which delegates governmental power to assert liability upon sovereign states.

Dave Jackson, Being duly sworn, deposes and says that deponent is not party to the action, and is over 18 years of age.

Case No. 21-401 Caption: ZF Automotive US, Inc., Gerald Dekker and Christophe Marnat v. Luxshare, Ltd. As required by Supreme Court Rule 33. l(h), I certify that the document contains 12,768 words, excluding the parts of the document that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.l(d).

I declare under penalty of perjury that the fore- going is true and correct.

Executed on February 23, 2022.

Nicole Garcia Record Press, Inc.

Notary Public, State of New York No. 01WI6397949 Qualified in Queens County ission Expires Sept b) 16, 2023

As required by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(h), I certify that the document contains 12,719 words, excluding the parts of the document that are exempted by Supreme Court Rule 33.1(d).

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on February 23, 2022

Counsel of Record ALSTON & BIRD LLP

Corroborating that § 1782(a) does not threaten the benefits of cross-border commercial arbitration, no major commercial arbitral institution has amended its rules to preclude § 1782(a) discovery, and none has appeared before this Court ...

None of those other statutes uses the “foreign or international tribunal” phrase in § 1782(a).

Howard Daniels being duly sworn, deposes and says that deponent is not party to the action, and is over 18 years of age.

That on the 23rd day of February 2022 deponent served 3 copies of the within

declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and .d:d. \.

executed on February 23, 2022. pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 28.5(c).

{{jl~ · · Howard Daniels Sworn to me this February 23, 2022 Jasmine Williams Notary Public, State of New York No. 0 I WI6397949 ualified in Queens County · sion Expires September 16, 2023 Case Name: ZF Automotive LIS, Petitioners v. Luxshare, Ltd. Docket/Case No. 21-401

... with the written consent of [ESO Partners.]” Id. The Fund’s Performance B. The complaint alleges that the Fund did not perform to expectations; that ESO Partners failed to reach its target for the Fund’s first closing; that none ...

Whether the District Court erred in holding that the successor liability claim satisfied the “mere continuation” exception despite that none of the following requirements for the exception were met: no continuity of ownership or control ...

However, official records of the English government that Snowbridge Advisors and Snowbridge Securities submitted to the District Court show that none of Soho Square’s members or control people – past or present– are or have been ...

... Snowbridge Securities submitted to the District Court under penalty of perjury in opposition to Soho Square’s motion to dismiss, particularly because Snowbridge Securities (the party resisting judicial 10 According to those records, none ...

The Fund has argued that the investor-state arbitration at issue constitutes an “international tribunal” for purposes of Section 1782, and the district court and Second Circuit granted its discovery request.

Here, the Second Circuit applied its multi-factor test and held that the arbitration at issue triggers Section 1782 discovery because it “is between an investor and a foreign State party to a bilateral investment treaty.” AlixPartners Pet. App. 33a.

27 n.15 (incorporating ZF petitioners’ arguments that the “meaning, legislative context, and policy underpinnings” limit Section 1782’s scope to “governmental bodies of one or more sovereign states”); id. at 29-39 (focusing in detail on why the AlixPartners arbitral panel does not wield governmental authority).

All four sets of parties to these cases—along with the United States—agree that the proposal for oral argument described above is fair and will best assist the Court in resolving the proper meaning and application of Section 1782.

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Counsel for Petitioners ZF Automotive US, Inc., Gerald Dekker, and Christophe Marnat in No. 21-401

These cases concern 28 U.S.C. 1782, which is the culmination of “congressional efforts,” dating back more than 165 years, “to provide federal-court assistance in gathering evidence for use in foreign tribunals.” Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 247 (2004).

“Congress understood that change to provide the possibility of U.S. judicial assistance in connection with administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings abroad.” Intel, 542 U.S. at 258 (brackets, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted).

The revision also brought within Section 1782’s scope proceedings before certain “intergovernmental tribunals,” such as state-to- state claims commissions, that previously had been addressed by separate statutes, which the 1964 legislation repealed.

In these cases, the United States has filed a brief as amicus curiae in this Court supporting petitioners, contending that Section 1782 authorizes discovery assistance only in aid of a proceeding before a governmental body, and the phrase “proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal,” 28 U.S.C. 1782(a), does not encompass arbitration, before a nongovernmental panel, to which the parties have consented, whether that consent is manifested in a contract or in a treaty or other international agreement.

In light of the substantial federal interest in the scope of Section 1782, the government’s participation in oral argument could materially assist the Court in its consideration of these cases.

February 3, 2022 Scott S. Harris Clerk of Court Supreme Court of the United States One First Street, NE Washington, DC 20543 Re: ZF Automotive US, Inc., et al. v. Luxshare, Ltd., No. 21-401; AlixPartners, LLP, et al. v. The Fund for Protection of Investors’ Rights in Foreign States, No. 21- Dear Mr. Harris: On behalf of The Fund for Protection of Investors’ Rights in Foreign States, Respondent in the above-captioned case, I hereby consent to the filing of any briefs of amici curiae that are timely filed in this case.

Sincerely,

Alexander A. Yanos Counsel of Record for The Fund for Protection of Investors’ Rights in Foreign States

cc: Andrew Rhys Davies Counsel of Record for Respondent in No. 21-401 Roman Martinez Counsel of Record for Petitioners in No. 21-401 Mark T. Stancil Counsel of Record for Petitioners in No. 21-518 Joseph T. Baio Counsel of Record for Petitioners in No. 21-518