Continental Casualty Co. v. Argentine Republic
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129535
| E.D. Va. | 2012Background
- Continental Casualty Company seeks recognition of an ICSID arbitral award issued against the Argentine Republic in the amount of 2.8 million dollars with interest.
- The award arose from Continental's investment in an Argentine worker's compensation insurer and alleged government actions violating the U.S.–Argentina investment treaty.
- The ICSID tribunal issued the award, which was rectified and later subjected to annulment proceedings; stays and eventual dismissals followed, ending the arbitral proceedings.
- Continental filed suit in federal court seeking recognition/confirmation of the award, not enforcement, and Argentina challenged jurisdiction and venue.
- The court analyzes subject matter jurisdiction under the FSIA, personal jurisdiction, and proper venue, and ultimately orders transfer to a proper forum.
- The court denies the venue challenge and transfers the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject matter jurisdiction under FSIA | Continental relies on § 1605(a)(6)(B) and § 1330. | Argues lack of jurisdiction absent proper bases; disputes on treatment of ICSID awards. | Subject matter jurisdiction exists under FSIA with § 1605(a)(6)(B). |
| Personal jurisdiction | FSIA allows jurisdiction where subject matter and service exist. | Argentina did not challenge service; argues immunity bars jurisdiction otherwise. | Personal jurisdiction exists given subject matter jurisdiction and proper service. |
| Venue | Recognition/confirmation could be pursued in any federal court; venue arbitrary. | Recognition/confirmation is not a federal mechanism separate from enforcement; venue proper where actions relate to enforcing a state-court judgment. | Venue in the Eastern District of Virginia is improper; transfer to the District of Columbia is appropriate. |
| Nature of relief (recognition/confirmation vs enforcement) and procedures | Seeks recognition/confirmation under ICSID implementing statute. | Treats ICSID awards as enforceable like state-court judgments; no federal recognition procedure exists. | ICSID awards are enforced as if state judgments; recognition/registration in federal court is not proper. |
| Transferability of venue | Case could be heard in any suitable forum. | Transfer to a proper venue is warranted to avoid dismissal and refiling costs. | Transfer to the District of Columbia under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) is proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Amerada Hess Shipping Corp. v. Argentine Republic, 488 U.S. 428 (1989) (FSIA governs subject matter jurisdiction over foreign states)
- Verlinden B.V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480 (1983) (FSIA standards apply; detailed federal-law standards govern exceptions)
- Creighton Ltd. v. Government of State of Qatar, 181 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (recognition/endorsement of ICSID-like awards via § 1605(a)(6) framework)
- S. & Davis Int’l, Inc. v. The Republic of Yemen, 218 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2000) (treats arbitration treaties as basis for jurisdiction and enforcement)
- Liberian East Timber Corp. v. Government of Republic of Liberia, 650 F. Supp. 73 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (waiver of sovereign immunity for ICSID arbitration awards)