142 F. Supp. 3d 110
D.D.C.2015Background
- Getma International and the Republic of Guinea signed a concession agreement (2008, amended 2009) to develop Conakry’s port; Guinea terminated the agreement in 2011 and signed with a different company.
- Getma initiated arbitration under the CCJA (OHADA forum) and a three‑member tribunal awarded Getma €38.5 million plus interest in May 2014.
- Guinea filed an annulment petition at the CCJA in July 2014, asserting among other things that the agreement may have been procured by corruption; the annulment proceeding remains pending.
- Getma filed in U.S. district court to confirm and enforce the CCJA arbitral award under the New York Convention (9 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.).
- Guinea moved to stay the U.S. confirmation proceeding pending resolution of the CCJA annulment; the court applied the Europcar factors and balanced comity, arbitration policy, and potential hardship.
- The court granted a stay of the U.S. enforcement action, but only until April 30, 2016 (with a promise to reassess if the CCJA decision had not issued by then).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the U.S. court should confirm/enforce the CCJA award now despite a pending CCJA annulment | Getma: Court should confirm and enforce now; foreign review timing uncertain and delay harms Getma | Guinea: Stay enforcement pending CCJA annulment because CCJA has authority and annulment may render award void | Court stayed confirmation pending CCJA decision (until Apr 30, 2016) |
| Applicability and weight of Europcar factors in deciding a stay | Getma: Factors favor enforcement; cited cases where foreign review already denied set‑aside | Guinea: Europcar factors favor adjournment because CCJA review is pending and likely to conclude soon | Court followed Europcar framework and found factors (esp. arbitration policy and status of foreign proceedings) favor stay |
| Whether the pending CCJA review indicates intent to delay or is an abusive tactic | Getma: Suggests relitigation and potential delay; worries about tactical delay | Guinea: Filing is an exercised contractual right under CCJA rules, not abusive | Court found no evidence of bad‑faith delay; CCJA remedy was a bargained‑for right, weighing for stay |
| Whether security/bond should be required from sovereign respondent when stay granted | Getma: Courts commonly require security to protect award creditor during stay | Guinea: As a solvent sovereign, should not be required to post security | Court declined to require security given sovereign status and precedent; balanced hardships favor stay |
Key Cases Cited
- Europcar Italia S.p.A. v. Maiellano Tours, Inc., 156 F.3d 310 (2d Cir. 1998) (articulating multi‑factor test for adjournment of enforcement pending foreign set‑aside proceedings)
- TermoRio S.A. E.S.P. v. Electranta S.P., 487 F.3d 928 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (enumerating New York Convention grounds for refusal or deferral of enforcement)
- Belize Social Development Ltd. v. Government of Belize, 668 F.3d 724 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (limiting indefinite stays; courts must articulate need for stays of unknown duration)
- Chevron Corp. v. Republic of Ecuador, 795 F.3d 200 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (illustrative contrast where foreign tribunals had already rejected set‑aside, affecting stay analysis)