79 F. Supp. 3d 213
D.D.C.2015Background
- Petitioners (Miminco LLC and two individuals) sought confirmation in federal court of a $13,000,000 ICSID arbitral award against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).
- Petitioners filed an ex parte petition with a certified copy of the ICSID award; DRC was not served and is not a party to these proceedings.
- Petitioners requested confirmation, entry of judgment, plus pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs.
- The U.S. implements the ICSID Convention enforcement scheme via 22 U.S.C. § 1650a, vesting federal district courts with exclusive jurisdiction to enforce ICSID awards and mandating they be treated like final state-court judgments.
- The court confirmed the award as a federal judgment and ordered payment of $13,000,000 with statutory post-judgment interest, but declined to calculate the outstanding balance or award pre-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees, or costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ex parte confirmation/recognition of an ICSID award in federal court is proper | Petitioners: ex parte recognition suffices under ICSID Article 54 and § 1650a after filing certified award | DRC: (not a party here); alternative (Petitioners) argued for applying D.C. state procedures for domestication | Held: Ex parte confirmation is authorized; federal courts may recognize ICSID awards as judgments under § 1650a and Article 54 |
| Whether court should calculate outstanding balance and enter that amount now | Petitioners: ask court to enter judgment for unpaid balance (alleged ~$11.6M) | Respondent/concern: payments already made may be disputed; petition only seeks recognition | Held: Court declined to calculate outstanding balance; deferred precise accounting to enforcement/collection proceedings |
| Whether pre-judgment (post-award) interest should be awarded | Petitioners: award silent but argue parties expected interest to accrue | Respondent: not before court; award makes no provision for pre-judgment interest | Held: Denied pre-judgment interest — court will not add interest not in the award and is cautious in ex parte confirmation |
| Whether attorneys’ fees and costs should be awarded as inherent-power sanctions | Petitioners: request fees/costs due to DRC’s nonpayment | Respondent: no bad-faith litigation conduct; DRC not a party here | Held: Denied fees and costs — no clear and convincing evidence of bad faith or sanctionable conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Ministry of Def. & Support for the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. Cubic Def. Sys., 665 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2011) (confirmed that confirmation of an unmodified monetary arbitral award is a "money judgment" subject to mandatory post-judgment interest)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (federal courts may use inherent powers to sanction fraud or bad-faith litigation conduct)
- Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 815 F.2d 857 (2d Cir. 1987) (use of state domestication rules in removed actions and limits on applying state procedures in federal enforcement contexts)
- Ingersoll Milling Mach. Co. v. Granger, 833 F.2d 680 (7th Cir. 1987) (recognition of foreign judgments may include pre-judgment interest when underlying judgment explicitly provides for it)
- Duke Energy Int’l Peru Invs. No. 1 Ltd. v. Republic of Peru, 904 F. Supp. 2d 131 (D.D.C. 2012) (awarding pre-award/pre-judgment interest where the underlying arbitration award expressly provided for interest)
- Shepherd v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., 62 F.3d 1469 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (discussing standard of "clear and convincing evidence" required for inherent-power sanctions)