CONTINENTAL TRANSFERT TECHNIQUE LIMITED, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF NIGERIA, Et Al., Defendants
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41292
D.D.C.2012Background
- Continental sought to enforce a 2008 arbitral award under the New York Convention and a 2009 UK High Court judgment under DC UFMJRA.
- The Court granted summary judgment against Nigeria and entered an Order and Judgment confirming the award in its entirety.
- Continental moved under Rule 60(a) to correct the judgment to reflect a total USD amount of $423,184,115.29.
- The arbitral award contained three amounts: Nigerian naira, British pounds, and US dollars; Continental seeks conversion to USD and a single total.
- Continental also seeks prejudgment interest totaling about $172.7 million and post-judgment interest on the judgment.
- The Court grants part of the motion and holds part in abeyance pending further briefing on conversion rates and prejudgment interest issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether foreign-currency awards should be converted to USD | Continental argues for conversion at arbitral rates done in summary judgment. | Nigeria did not brief or admit entitlement to such conversion; no prior ruling on rates. | Not resolved; part abeyed pending supplemental briefing. |
| Whether prejudgment interest can be added under Rule 60(a) | Continental seeks ~$172.7 million prejudgment interest at 18%. | Rule 60(a) cannot correct to include prejudgment interest; issues were not briefed. | Barred for now; part abeyed and to be addressed under briefing. |
| Whether postjudgment interest must be awarded and included | Interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a) is mandatory and should be added. | Judgment did not grant postjudgment interest; inconsistencies with arbitration. | Postjudgment interest mandatory; Court will correct to include it but pending resolution of first two issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169 (U.S. 1989) (prejudgment interest treated under Rule 59(e) when appropriate)
- Winslow v. FERC, 587 F.3d 1133 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (prejudgment interest not awarded under Rule 60(a))
- Paddington Partners v. Bouchard, 34 F.3d 1132 (2d Cir. 1994) (absence of interest in judgment aligns with Rule 60(a) limits)
- In re Frigitemp Corp., 781 F.2d 324 (2d Cir. 1986) (Rule 60(a) corrections must reflect contemporaneous intent, not new merits)
- Kosnoski v. Howley, 33 F.3d 376 (4th Cir. 1994) (ministerial task; corrections cannot alter substantive rights)
- Ministry of Defense and Support v. Cubic Defense Systems, Inc., 665 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2011) (confirmation of arbitration award creates a money judgment; postjudgment interest applies)