Commissions Import Export S.A. v. Republic of the Congo
411 U.S. App. D.C. 39
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- Commissions Import Export S.A. obtained a Paris ICC arbitral award against the Republic of the Congo and CCA in 2000 for unpaid debts.
- The company sought enforcement over eight years, including enforcement in France and recognition/enforcement in the U.K. (English Judgment) in 2009–2010.
- The English Judgment was final and enforceable in England, with enforceability extending for six years from 2010.
- In 2011–2012 the Company filed a U.S. action to recognize and enforce the English Judgment under the D.C. Recognition Act after the New York Convention recognition efforts failed.
- The district court dismissed the complaint, holding that the three-year period to confirm a foreign arbitral award under FAA Chapter 2 preempted the longer DC recognition period for foreign judgments.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed, holding FAA Chapter 2 does not preempt the DC Recognition Act’s period for enforcing foreign-money judgments and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does FAA Chapter 2 preempt the DC Recognition Act? | Commissions argues Chapter 2 blocks DC Act enforcement. | Congo maintains Chapter 2 and uniform finality compel preemption. | No preemption; Chapter 2 does not bar DC Recognition Act enforcement. |
| May a foreign-money judgment be recognized under the DC Recognition Act despite §207's three-year limit? | DC Act provides a longer enforcement window for judgments. | FAA §207 aims for finality and prevents parallel enforcement. | Yes; DC Act enforcement is available and not precluded by §207. |
| Does the New York Convention floor/ceiling limit affect state-law recognition of judgments? | Convention permits non-uniform state-law enforcement; favors parallel enforcement. | Uniform enforcement via FAA is impliedly exclusive. | Convention creates a floor, not a ceiling; state-law recognition permissible. |
| Is enforcement under DC Recognition Act compatible with FAA's objectives to promote international arbitration? | Parallel enforcement aids international trade and finality objectives. | Parallel enforcement undermines Chapter 2’s framework. | Compatible; parallel enforcement does not obstruct FAA Chapter 2 goals. |
Key Cases Cited
- Island Territory of Curaçao v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 489 F.2d 1313 (2d Cir. 1973) (recognition of foreign judgments governed by state law; not FAA Chapter 2)
- Seetransport Wiking Trader Schiffarhtsgesellschaft MBH & Co., Kommanditgesellschaft v. Navimpex Centrala Navala, 989 F.2d 572 (2d Cir. 1993) (Seetransport I; foreign judgments recognition governed by state law)
- Seetransport Wiking Trader Schiffarhtsgesellschaft MBH & Co., Kommanditgesellschaft v. Navimpex Centrala Navala, 29 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 1994) (Seetransport II; FAA §207 preemption considerations discussed)
- Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. Argonaut Insurance Co., 500 F.3d 571 (7th Cir. 2007) (textual limits of Convention implementation; international disputes narrow)
- Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (U.S. 2009) (presumption against preemption; field preemption not shown here)
- Arizona v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2492 (U.S. 2012) (preemption requires clear intent; not found in FAA Chapter 2 here)
- Bond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 2007 (U.S. 2014) (strict intent inquiry for federal-law preemption)
- Solitron Devices, Inc. v. Island Territory of Curaçao, 489 F.2d 1319 (2d Cir. 1973) (New York Convention enforcement scope; separation of awards and judgments)
- Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506 (U.S. 1974) (New York Convention framework and enforcement goals)
- TermoRio S.A. E.S.P. Grp., LLC v. Electranta S.P., 487 F.3d 928 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (conception of Convention enforcement limits and purposes)