On April 27, shortly after its Deepwater Horizon rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, Defendant-Appellee BP pic. (“BP”) announced that its Board of Directors had declared a quarterly dividend of $0.84 per American Depositary Share (“ADS”) for the first quarter of 2010, to be payable on June 21 to its ADS shareholders as of May 7. On June 16, BP announced that its Board of Directors had canceled the dividend. Plaintiff-Appellant Robert R. Glenn, a citizen of Oregon, brought this putative class action against BP, a British company headquartered in London, on behalf of - himself and all other BP ADS shareholders as of May 7, 2010, arguing that BP’s Board of Directors had no legal authority to cancel the dividend under applicable law and BP’s own Articles of Association.

BP filed a motion to dismiss under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), arguing in part that dismissal was warranted under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, which “is simply *200 that a court may resist imposition upon its jurisdiction even when jurisdiction is authorized by the letter of a general venue statute.” 1 Under the Supreme Court’s framework, a plaintiffs choice of forum will only be disturbed if the court determines, in its “sound discretion,” that dismissal is fully warranted after considering “a list of ‘private interest factors’ affecting the convenience of the litigants, and a list of ‘public interest factors’ affecting the convenience of the forum.” 2

The district court granted the motion pursuant to the doctrine. 3 The court found that Mr. Glenn’s choice of forum was entitled to deference and that the private interest factors weighed only weakly in favor of dismissal, which alone would be insufficient to warrant dismissal. It concluded, however, that the public interest factors — especially the court’s need to apply uncertain English law — weighed so heavily in favor of an English forum that dismissal under the doctrine of forum non conveniens was warranted.

“The forum non conveniens determination is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court” and “may be reversed only when there has been a clear abuse of discretion.” 4 We find no such abuse of discretion here. To the contrary, the district court’s opinion is well-reasoned and provides ample support for its conclusion. Accordingly, we AFFIRM essentially for the reasons given by the district court.