Getma International v. Republic of Guinea
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12138
| D.C. Cir. | 2017Background
- Getma International (French company) and the Republic of Guinea entered a 25-year concession agreement for Conakry port; Guinea terminated the agreement after a regime change and alleged bribery.
- The contract required arbitration under the CCJA (Common Court of Justice and Arbitration) rules; parties appointed a three-arbitrator tribunal based in France.
- CCJA fixed arbitrator fees at ~€61,000; the arbitrators demanded €450,000 and threatened to withhold the award. CCJA repeatedly told arbitrators its fee schedule was binding and prohibited direct fee demands.
- The tribunal issued an award for Getma (€39M plus interest). Despite CCJA warnings, Getma paid €225,000; arbitrators sued for the remainder in French courts and obtained an order against Getma.
- Guinea petitioned the CCJA to annul the award; the CCJA annulled it (breach of mandatory fee provisions) but indicated proceedings could be reopened. Getma did not reopen.
- Getma sought enforcement of the annulled award in U.S. federal court under the FAA/New York Convention; the D.D.C. refused enforcement. This appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Getma) | Defendant's Argument (Guinea) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a foreign competent authority's annulment can be disregarded | CCJA annulment is tainted/corrupt or otherwise repugnant to U.S. fundamental notions of justice | CCJA is a competent authority; its annulment must be respected absent extraordinary circumstances | Court will not enforce annulled award; petition to enforce denied (annulment respected) |
| Whether alleged CCJA judge influence and minister statement merits overturning annulment | Minister’s televised statement and other oddities show improper influence on CCJA | Minister recanted; timing and unanimous court decision undermine allegation; no corroborating evidence | Court credited recantation and timing; no evidence of taint sufficient to disturb annulment |
| Whether parties intended to contract around CCJA fee rules | Contract parties intended to set arbitrators’ fees differently and displace CCJA fee rules | Contract expressly made arbitration subject to CCJA Rules; CCJA precedent bars private fee arrangements | Court held contract did not evince intent to displace CCJA fee rules; CCJA fee policy not repugnant to U.S. norms |
| Whether cumulative procedural errors and CCJA’s legal interpretation render annulment repugnant to U.S. public policy | Combined anomalies, flawed CCJA legal reasoning, and alleged corruption justify enforcing award | Erroneous legal reasoning alone is insufficient; scant evidence of taint; comity requires deference absent extraordinary circumstances | Court found no cumulative showing that annulment violated U.S. "most basic notions of morality and justice"; affirmed dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- TermoRio S.A. E.S.P. v. Electranta S.P., 487 F.3d 928 (D.C. Cir.) (high standard to override a competent authority’s annulment; comity and extraordinary-circumstances rule)
- Tahan v. Hodgson, 662 F.2d 862 (D.C. Cir.) (standard invoking repugnance to fundamental notions of decency and justice)
- de Csepel v. Republic of Hungary, 714 F.3d 591 (D.C. Cir.) (appellate review can affirm under either de novo or abuse-of-discretion standards)
- Karaha Bodas Co. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 364 F.3d 274 (5th Cir.) (discussion of public policy limits on enforcing annulled awards)
- Corporación Mexicana de Mantenimiento Integral v. Pemex-Exploración y Producción, 832 F.3d 92 (2d Cir.) (discusses standard of review in confirming or vacating foreign awards)
- Asignacion v. Rickmers Genoa Schiffahrtsgesellschaft mbH & Cie KG, 783 F.3d 1010 (5th Cir.) (contrasting approach on standard of review)
- In re Arbitration of Certain Controversies Between Getma Int’l & Republic of Guinea, 191 F. Supp. 3d 43 (D.D.C.) (district-court opinion refusing enforcement of the CCJA-annulled award)