CONTINENTAL TRANSFERT TECHNIQUE LIMITED, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF NIGERIA Et Al., Defendants
932 F. Supp. 2d 153
D.D.C.2013Background
- Continental seeks to amend the August 3, 2011 Order and Judgment confirming a UK arbitral award and enforcing a UK High Court judgment under FAA and UFMJRA.
- The Court previously held some requests in abeyance and asked for briefing on currency conversion, prejudgment interest, and postjudgment interest.
- Continental requested conversion of foreign-currency amounts to USD, prejudgment interest at 18%, and postjudgment interest.
- Court ruled that conversion to USD was proper with breach-date rates, and that prejudgment/postjudgment interest may be addressed under Rule 59(e).
- This opinion grants in part Continental’s Rule 59(e) requests, converting currency at the breach date (award date) and awarding prejudgment and postjudgment interest.
- Amended Judgment totals $276,111,640.96 plus postjudgment interest, with prejudgment interest computed at a prime-rate-based rate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether foreign-currency awards should be converted to USD | Continental seeks USD conversion of non-dollar amounts. | Nigeria opposes or advances alternative conversion rules. | Yes; convert to USD using breach-date rates. |
| Whether the breach-date vs. judgment-date rule governs conversion rates | Breaching date (award date) yields fair value given depreciation. | Judgment-date rule should apply because obligation arose under foreign law. | Breach-day rule applies; use August 14, 2008 rates. |
| Whether prejudgment interest should be awarded under Rule 59(e) | Prejudgment interest is warranted to compensate for use of funds. | Not clearly warranted under Rule 59(e) or standard; might be denied. | Grant prejudgment interest; necessary to prevent manifest injustice. |
| What rate and method to compute prejudgment interest | Eighteen percent per arbitral panel; compounding yearly. | Prime rate or other standard permissible rates; no monthly compounding. | Use the prime rate (3.375% avg) with annual compounding; 3.375% rate applied. |
| Whether to amend the judgment to reflect these changes | Amend to reflect USD conversion and prejudgment interest. | Amendment would be procedural; no substantive opposition noted. | Amendment granted; entry of Amended Order and Judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hicks v. Guinness, 269 U.S. 71 (1925) (breach-day rule for currency conversion)
- Deutsche Bank Filiale Nürnberg v. Humphrey, 272 U.S. 517 (1926) (judgment-day rule alternative framework)
- ReliaStar Life Ins. Co. v. IOA Re, Inc., 303 F.3d 874 (8th Cir. 2002) (guides choice between breach-day and judgment-day rules)
- G.E. Transport S.P.A. v. Republic of Albania, 693 F. Supp. 2d 132 (D.D.C. 2010) (Restatement-based approach to currency conversion in arbitral-award context)
- McKesson Corp. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 116 F. Supp. 2d 13 (D.D.C. 2000) (Restatement-based discussion on exchange rates (reconsidered on appeal))
- Elite Entertainment, Inc. v. Khela Bros. Entertainment Inc., 396 F. Supp. 2d 680 (E.D. Va. 2005) (judgment-denomination preference for foreign awards)
- In re Good Hope Chem. Corp., 747 F.2d 806 (1st Cir. 1984) (relationship between breach and governing law in rule application)
- Ventas, Inc. v. HCP, Inc., 647 F.3d 291 (6th Cir. 2011) (considerations of currency fluctuation in conversion timing)
- Jamaica Nutrition Holdings, Ltd. v. United Shipping Co., Ltd., 643 F.2d 376 (5th Cir. 1981) (supporting use of U.S. law concepts in NY Convention context)
- Conte v. Flota Mercante Del Estado, 277 F.2d 664 (2d Cir. 1960) (early discussion of foreign-currency judgments)
- Pugh v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, 530 F. Supp. 2d 216 (D.D.C. 2008) (prejudgment-interest computation standards)