Commissions Import Export S.A. v. Republic of the Congo
916 F. Supp. 2d 48
D.D.C.2013Background
- Commisimpex sues the Republic of the Congo and CCA over debts under a 1992 ICC arbitration agreement.
- Commitment letters in 1992 waived defendants’ immunity, rendering Congo and CCA subject to suit as foreign-state entities.
- The ICC arbitration in Paris issued a 2000 award in Commisimpex’s favor for over $31 million.
- In 2009, the English Court of Justice enforced the 2000 award, adding penalties and costs.
- Two years later Commisimpex sought to recognize the English judgment in DC under the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act, arguing to enforce the award indirectly.
- Commisimpex acknowledges that enforcing the award directly would be time-barred under 9 U.S.C. § 207, the FAA Chapter 2 limit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does FAA Chapter 2 preempt using DC Recognition Act to enforce an untimely foreign arbitral award? | Commisimpex contends DC recognition aids enforcement despite §207's deadline. | Defendants argue preemption because recognition would thwart §207 and uniform federal procedures. | Preempted; the maneuver is barred. |
| Are Congo and CCA properly within FSIA jurisdiction for recognition proceedings? | Waiver of immunity allows recognition action against foreign state and instrumentality. | Immunity and jurisdiction are challenged, but waiver exists through the 1992 letters. | Yes; FSIA provides sole basis for jurisdiction; waiver found. |
| Does the Supremacy Clause permit preemption of state-law recognition actions when pursuing an untimely award? | FAA Chapter 2 does not address foreign judgments directly; therefore no preemption argument. | FAA Chapter 2 aims for uniform federal procedures; DC Recognition Act would undermine uniformity and finality. | Preemption established; state-law recognition is barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012) (federal preemption under the Supremacy Clause; conflict with federal scheme)
- Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009) (illustrates preemption-related analysis in federal regulation vs. state claims)
- TermoRio S.A. E.S.P. v. Electranta S.P., 487 F.3d 928 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (interpretation of New York Convention framework and Article III/XI relevance)
- Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000) (analyzes scope of preemption by examining entire federal statute scheme)
- AKM LLC dba Volks Constructors v. Sec’y of Labor, 675 F.3d 752 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (finality and statutory limits in the regulatory context)
- Seetransport Wiking Trader Schiffahrtsgesellschaft MBH & Co., Kommanditgesellschaft v. Navimpex Centrala Navala, 989 F.2d 572 (2d Cir. 1993) (addressed enforcement of foreign judgments related to arbitral awards)
- Island Territory of Curaçao v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 489 F.2d 1313 (2d Cir. 1973) (FAA preemption considerations; recognition vs. direct enforcement of awards)
- Continental Transfert Technique, Ltd. v. Fed. Gov’t of Nigeria, 800 F. Supp. 2d 161 (D.D.C. 2011) (enforcing foreign judgments under DC Recognition Act; preemption analysis context)