Argued September 6, 2024 Decided December 20, 2024

No. 23-7160

AENERGY, S.A., APPELLANT

v.

REPUBLIC OF ANGOLA, ET AL., APPELLEES

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:22-cv-02514)

Vincent Levy argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Kevin D. Benish.

Michael D. Ehrenstein argued the cause for appellees. With him on the briefs was Kiran N. Gore.

Before: HENDERSON, PILLARD and CHILDS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON.

KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge: Aenergy, S.A. (Aenergy) seeks damages from Angola for unpaid work 2 in a breach-of-contract suit over power turbines to be installed in Angola. Aenergy earlier sued in the Southern District of New York, which dismissed its case on forum non conveniens grounds. Following an unsuccessful appeal to the Second Circuit, Aenergy tried its luck again in this jurisdiction after trimming its complaint to drop various defendants and claims. The district court dismissed Aenergy’s suit on issue preclusion grounds and, alternatively, under a fresh forum non conveniens analysis.

The issue in this case remains the same—whether Aenergy may litigate the subject matter of the dispute in Angola, providing it with at least some relief. Aenergy’s having trimmed certain claims and defendants from its complaint only reinforces that Angola is the proper forum for this quarrel. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal based on issue preclusion.

I. BACKGROUND

This background is taken from Aenergy’s complaint, documents attached to or incorporated in the complaint and matters of which the Court may take judicial notice, including public records referred to in the complaint and integral to Aenergy’s claim. See Langeman v. Garland, 88 F.4th 289, 291–92 (D.C. Cir. 2023). “Because this case was resolved on a motion to dismiss, we accept the amended complaint’s factual allegations as true and construe all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff[’]s[] favor.” Valambhia v. United Republic of Tanzania, 964 F.3d 1135, 1137 (D.C. Cir. 2020).

A.

Aenergy is an Angolan energy company owned by a Portuguese citizen. Aenergy entered into contracts worth over $1 billion with utility subsidiaries of the Angolan Ministry of 3 Energy and Water (MINEA) to construct, supply and maintain power plants and water infrastructure in Angola. To fulfill these contracts, the parties worked with General Electric Company (GE). Aenergy agreed to install turbines manufactured by GE Packaged Power, Inc. (GE Power) and Angola obtained an over $1 billion credit line from GE Capital EFS Financing, Inc. (GE Capital) to finance the projects. Although the MINEA contracts called for eight turbines, Aenergy contracted to buy fourteen turbines from GE in anticipation of future contracts with Angola. To simplify the transfer of funds, the credit line provided for direct payments from GE Capital to Aenergy and GE Power.

Aenergy began performance and, in December 2017, Angola drew $644 million on the credit facility to satisfy invoices from Aenergy. However, the relationship soon soured, which Aenergy alleges was due to “a ‘lie’ based on a GE accounting error.” Aenergy, S.A. v. Republic of Angola (Aenergy III), 678 F. Supp. 3d 147, 157 (D.D.C. 2023). Aenergy laid out the alleged lie in more detail in its earlier suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY). There, Aenergy claimed that a risk calculation error by GE led to two GE executives forging letters that purported to amend the Aenergy-MINEA contracts to include four more turbines. Aenergy, S.A. v. Republ