Argentine Republic v. National Grid PLC.
394 U.S. App. D.C. 431
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- Arbitration under a Bilateral Investment Treaty led to an award against Argentina for about $53 million plus costs and interest.
- Argentina received the award on November 13, 2008, triggering a three-month window to challenge by motion to vacate or modify under the FAA.
- Argentina filed a motion to vacate on February 6, 2009 and, three days before the deadline, a motion to extend time to serve was filed under Rule 6(b).
- National Grid agreed to accept service via a stipulation, despite preserving defenses, and the district court dismissed the extension motion as moot and denied the vacatur, then granted the cross-motion to confirm the award.
- Argentina appealed, arguing forfeiture of timeliness defense, error in treating the extension as moot, and failure to allow Convention defenses in the confirmation ruling.
- The panel held that Rule 6(b) cannot extend statutory deadlines, the timeliness defense was preserved, and Convention defenses were not required to be entertained separately at confirmation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May Rule 6(b) extend a statutory deadline? | Argentina argues Rule 6(b) extends statutory deadlines for service. | National Grid contends Rule 6(b) only extends court rules/time, not statutory deadlines. | Rule 6(b) cannot extend statutory time limits. |
| Was National Grid's timeliness defense forfeited? | Argentina claims Grid forfeited by not raising earlier. | Grid preserved the defense in the stipulation and first responsive pleading. | No forfeiture; timeliness defense preserved. |
| Did the district court err by granting confirmation without Convention defenses? | Argentina should have opportunity to raise Convention defenses at confirmation. | Argentina had opportunity in its opposition to the cross-motion; confirmation is summary. | Affirmed cross-motion for recognition; no separate Convention defenses required at that stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dalal v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 541 F. Supp. 2d 72 (D.D.C. 2008) (FAA notice deadline is strict; no statutory exceptions)
- Dalal v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 575 F.3d 725 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (affirmed strict notice deadline under FAA)
- Smith v. District of Columbia, 430 F.3d 450 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (Rule 6(b) abuse-of-discretion standard for extension decisions)
- Webster v. A.T. Kearney, Inc., 507 F.3d 568 (7th Cir. 2007) (Rule 6(b) extensions limited to Rule-based time, not statutory deadlines)