SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION v. HELLENIC REPUBLIC
1:13-cv-01070
D.D.C.Apr 13, 2017Background
- Leidos (formerly SAIC) successfully obtained an ICC arbitral award against the Hellenic Republic; the District Court confirmed the award on January 5, 2017 and a civil judgment was entered January 6, 2017.
- After entry, Leidos moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) and/or 59(e) to correct clerical oversights in the Clerk’s judgment entry.
- Leidos sought (1) inclusion of €162,500 in arbitral costs awarded by the tribunal, (2) post-award, pre-judgment interest at 6% per year awarded by the tribunal, (3) conversion of the entire judgment into U.S. dollars using the exchange rate on the arbitral-award date, and (4) post-judgment interest at the statutory rate under 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
- The Clerk’s original judgment omitted the arbitral fees and the tribunal-awarded 6% post-award interest; it also stated the award in euros rather than converting to U.S. dollars.
- The Hellenic Republic argued Leidos waived some of these claims (currency conversion and interest on costs); Leidos argued Rule 59(e)/54(c) permitted correcting the judgment to reflect full relief and to avoid manifest injustice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Leidos waived its request to convert the judgment to U.S. dollars | Conversion is appropriate post-judgment under Rule 59(e) and Rule 54(c); conversion makes creditor whole and prevents debtor benefit from delay | Leidos previously asked for judgment denominated in euros, so conversion request is waived | Court: No waiver; conversion to USD using exchange rate on award date ordered to avoid injustice |
| Whether the €162,500 arbitral costs should be included in the judgment | The tribunal awarded the costs and Leidos included them in proposed orders; omission was clerical and should be corrected under Rule 60(a) | Argued Leidos waived claims or procedural defects prevent adding costs | Court: Add €162,500 to the judgment as clerical oversight corrected |
| Whether post-award, pre-judgment interest at 6% should be included | Tribunal awarded 6% on awarded sums; Clerk omitted it; Rule 60(a)/59(e) permits correction to reflect court’s grant of award in full | Respondent disputes entitlement/waiver | Court: Include tribunal-awarded pre-judgment interest totaling €8,115,607.64 and $34,031.51 on fees |
| Whether post-judgment interest must be awarded at statutory rate | 28 U.S.C. § 1961 mandates post-judgment interest on money judgments from entry date until payment | No viable contrary legal argument—the statute is mandatory | Court: Award post-judgment interest at the statutory rate pursuant to § 1961 |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Jackson, 276 F.2d 501 (D.C. Cir.) (clerical correction to make judgment conform to contemporaneous intent)
- Kattan v. District of Columbia, 995 F.2d 274 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (Rule 59(e) cannot be used by a losing party to raise issues that could have been raised earlier)
- Continental Transfert Technique, Ltd. v. Government of Nigeria, [citation="603 F. App'x 1"] (D.C. Cir. 2015) (conversion of arbitral award into U.S. dollars post-judgment appropriate under Rule 54(c))
- Continental Transfert Technique, Ltd. v. Government of Nigeria, 850 F. Supp. 2d 277 (D.D.C. 2012) (failure to award post-judgment interest was a clerical mistake correctable under Rule 60(a))