LLC SPC Stileks v. Republic of Moldova
985 F.3d 871
| D.C. Cir. | 2021Background
- Energoalliance (via a chain of transfers involving BVI entity Derimen) sold electricity to Moldovan state utility Moldtranselectro; Moldtranselectro defaulted and Energoalliance pursued remedies.
- Energoalliance initiated arbitration under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) and UNCITRAL rules; the tribunal awarded ~593 million Moldovan lei plus $540,000 in fees.
- Moldova sought annulment in French courts; the Paris Court of Appeal annulled the award, and France’s Court of Cassation later reinstated it and remanded.
- Komstroy (Energoalliance’s successor) sought confirmation of the award in D.D.C.; the district court lifted a stay, confirmed the award, awarded prejudgment interest, and converted the judgment to U.S. dollars.
- Moldova appealed, arguing lack of jurisdiction under the FSIA, improper confirmation while foreign proceedings were pending, error in awarding prejudgment interest, and that judgment should be in Moldovan lei not U.S. dollars.
- The D.C. Circuit affirmed confirmation and the prejudgment interest award, but vacated the USD conversion and remanded for the district court to evaluate whether Moldova had a settled expectation that any judgment would be payable in lei.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FSIA jurisdiction under the arbitration exception (§1605(a)(6)) | Stileks: ECT + award + documents establish arbitration exception; U.S. courts have jurisdiction to confirm. | Moldova: The dispute was not an "investment" under the ECT; the award was not truly "made pursuant to" the ECT, so FSIA exception doesn't apply. | Affirmed — arbitration exception applies; arbitrability was delegated to the tribunal under UNCITRAL rules, so courts defer per Chevron and Henry Schein. |
| Whether district court abused discretion by lifting stay while French proceedings remained | Stileks: Long delays justified lifting stay to avoid further protracted enforcement delay. | Moldova: Paris proceedings could still overturn the award; lifting stay was premature. | Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; district court reasonably weighed delay and enforcement interests (Europcar factors). |
| Awarding prejudgment interest | Stileks: Prejudgment interest compensates for time value of money and is consistent with U.S. law. | Moldova: Arbitral award already fully compensates; additional prejudgment interest is unnecessary. | Affirmed — prejudgment interest is discretionary and appropriate to fully compensate under U.S. law. |
| Currency denomination of final judgment (USD vs lei) | Stileks: Conversion to USD is standard practice and requested before judgment. | Moldova: Award and earlier requests were lei-denominated, creating a settled expectation and reliance; converting to USD unfairly shifts forex loss to Moldova. | Vacated with respect to currency conversion — remanded for district court to assess Moldova’s settled-expectation/reliance regarding lei denomination (Leidos logic). |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron Corp. v. Republic of Ecuador, 795 F.3d 200 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (FSIA arbitration-exception requires establishing jurisdictional facts)
- BG Group, PLC v. Republic of Argentina, 572 U.S. 25 (2014) (courts normally decide arbitrability absent clear delegation)
- Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 524 (2019) (if parties clearly delegate arbitrability, courts cannot decide it)
- Leidos, Inc. v. Hellenic Republic, 881 F.3d 213 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (party’s requests and prior currency posture can create a settled expectation about judgment currency)
- Europcar Italia S.p.A. v. Maiellano Tours, Inc., 156 F.3d 310 (2d Cir. 1998) (factors for adjournment/stay of confirmation under New York Convention)
- Creighton Ltd. v. Government of State of Qatar, 181 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (requirements to invoke FSIA arbitration exception)
- West Virginia v. United States, 479 U.S. 305 (1987) (prejudgment interest as element of complete compensation)