Hosier v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.
858 F. Supp. 2d 1206
D. Colo.2012Background
- Petitioners Hosier, Brush Creek, and Murdock moved under Rule 59(e) to alter or amend the December 22, 2011 judgment to specify damages and to award post-judgment interest on the entire Award.
- The FINRA Arbitration Panel issued an Award with compensatory damages totaling $33,? (sum of individuals) plus punitive damages of $17,000,000, attorneys’ fees of $3,000,000, expert fees of $33,500, court costs of $13,168.29, and a nonrefundable filing fee of $600; interest on compensatory damages was 8% from the 31st day after service, with no interest on punitive damages, fees, or costs.
- Following arbitration, the Court confirmed the Award on December 21, 2011, and final judgment was entered December 22, 2011.
- On January 17, 2012, CGMI paid the Petitioners the compensatory damages and related interest/costs totaling $35,972,460.02.
- Petitioners sought an amended judgment (i) specifying exact damage amounts and (ii) awarding post-judgment interest on the entire Award at the Colorado statutory rate (8%).
- The court granted the motion, directing entry of an amended judgment specifying damages and applying the federal post-judgment interest rate (per 28 U.S.C. § 1961) to the entire Award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judgment should specify damages. | Hosier/ Petitioners | CGMI | Yes; amend judgment to specify damages. |
| Whether Petitioners are entitled to post-judgment interest on the entire Award and at what rate. | Petitioners seek 8% Colorado rate on all components. | Only on compensatory damages; federal rate otherwise. | Entitled to post-judgment interest on the entire Award, at the federal statutory rate under §1961. |
| Whether parties contract to override §1961 and apply another rate. | FINRA procedures may support a different rate. | No clear contract to override §1961. | No clear contract; federal rate applies. |
| Whether a panel may establish a post-judgment rate itself. | Panel intended 8% post-judgment on all components. | Panel cannot set post-judgment rate; only determine contracting. | Panel cannot establish its own post-judgment rate; apply §1961 rate. |
| Effect of partial payment on accrual of post-judgment interest. | Partial payment suspends accrual of interest. | Interest accrues on unpaid amounts; paid portions stop accruing. | Interest continues on unpaid portion; paid portion ceases to accrue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fidelity Federal Bank, FSB v. Durga Ma Corp., 387 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2004) (post-judgment interest rate dictates the outcome when arbitration is confirmed)
- Otis v. City of Chicago, 29 F.3d 1159 (7th Cir.1994) (judgment clarity and ascertainability of damages)
- Newmont U.S.A. Ltd. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 615 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir.2010) (arbitration awards confirmed in federal court – §1961 applies)
- Westinghouse Credit Corp. v. D’Urso, 371 F.3d 96 (2d Cir.2004) (arbitration awards – post-judgment interest rate considerations)
- F.D.I.C. v. United Pac. Ins. Co., 152 F.3d 1266 (10th Cir.1998) (post-judgment interest on arbitration awards and related considerations)