UNITED STATES, Plаintiff-Appellant, v. GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK (also known as American National Fire Insurance Company), Defendant-Cross Appellant, and Washington International Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellee.
Nos. 2012-1462, 2012-1473.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
Dec. 27, 2013.
Thus, in this setting, this court should have remained true to its original reading of
Carter G. Phillips, Sidley Austin, LLP, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-cross appellant. With him on the brief were Mark D. Plevin and Alexander M. Schaefer, Crowell & Moring, LLP, of Washington, DC, and Theodore R. Posner, Weil Gothshal & Manges, LLP, of Washington, DC.
Herbert C. Shelley, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, of Washington, DC, for amiсus curiae. With him on the brief was Mark F. Horning.
Before PROST, PLAGER, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.
TARANTO, Circuit Judge.
The United States sued Great American Insurance Company of New York (also known as American National Fire Insurance Company) and Washington International Insurance Company in the Court of International Trade, seeking payment of antidumping duties covered by surety bonds the two companies had issued. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the government on the bonds now at issue, but denied the government‘s motion to amend the judgment to include post- and pre-judgment interest. The government appeals the denial of its motion to amend. Great American cross-appeals the grant of summary judgment of liability for the bonded amounts. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm except with regard to postjudgment interest.
BACKGROUND
On March 26, 1997, the United States Department of Commerce made a preliminary determination, pursuant to
To meet the bonding requirements of
On October 26, 2001, Commerce issued a notice that it was initiating an administrative review of the antidumping-duty order relating to freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC for the period September 1, 2000, to August 31, 2001—the period in which New Phoenix made each of the entries at issue here. Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part, 66 Fed.Reg. 54195-02, 54196 (Dep‘t Commerce Oct. 26, 2001). Liquidation of those entries continued to be suspended pending the outcome of the administrative review.
On April 21, 2003, Commerce published the final results of its administrative review for the entries relevant to this appeal, finding that the exporter for the relevant entries was not entitled to a rate different from the default rate for PRC exporters. Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People‘s Republic of China, 68 Fed.Reg. 19504-01 (Dep‘t Commerce Apr. 21, 2003) (final admin. review). Customs made its final determination of the duties applicable to (i.e., it liquidated) the entries relevant to this appeal between July 25, 2003, and August 15, 2003, and then sought payment of the duties from New Phoenix, Washington International, аnd Great American, without success.
On August 31, 2011, the trial court granted the government‘s motion for summary judgment with respect tо five of the Great American bonds and the Washington International bond, but the court was silent about pre- and postjudgment interest. United States v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 791 F.Supp.2d 1337, 1368 (Ct.Int‘l Trade 2011). The court entered judgment in the amount of the face value of the bonds, without interest. Judgment, United States v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y., Case No. 09-CV-0187 (Ct.Int‘l Trade Aug. 31, 2011), ECF No. 101.
The government moved to amend the judgment under USCIT Rule 59(e) to include postjudgment interest, as well as both prejudgment interest under
The government appeals the denial of its motion to amend, and Great American cross-appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of the government. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
DISCUSSION
A
The government seeks postjudgment interest as well as both statutory and equitable prejudgment interest in its appeal from the denial of its motion to amend the judgment. We review the trial court‘s denial of the government‘s motion to amend for any abuse of discretion. Hohenberg Bros. Co. v. United States, 301 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed.Cir.2002).
1
With respect to postjudgment interest,
In its briefing in this court, Great American did not argue that section 1585‘s incorporation of district-court “powers” excluded or moderated section 1961‘s “shall” command to district courts; nor did it seek to distinguish the ground for denial of postjudgment interest here from the grounds held inadequate in section 1961 cases like those just cited. Indeed, Great American made no argument at all contesting the government‘s entitlement to post judgment interest here, if the underlying liability is affirmed. It did not contest postjudgment interest at oral argument either. In these circumstances, and because we affirm on liability, we remand for the trial court to amend the judgment to include postjudgment interest.
2
With respect to prejudgment interest, our conclusion is different. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court‘s conclusion that the government forfeited its right to prejudgment interest by failing to present a developed and supported case for that relief before judgment, i.e., in its case for the compensation it was due on the merits, presented here through a motion for summary judgment.
Unlike postjudgment interest, which is collateral to the judgment itself, prejudgment interest “traditionally has been considered part of the compensation due plaintiff” and raises “matters encompassed within the merits of the underlying action,” such as (at least for equitable prejudgment interest) “the degree of personal wrongdoing on the part of the defendant, the availability of alternative investment opportunities to the plaintiff, whether the plaintiff delayed in bringing or prosecuting the action, and other fundamental considerations of fairness.” Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 175-76 (1989). As the Seventh Circuit held in another setting, because prejudgment interest is “an element of the judgment itself,” it generally must be sought before judgment, with the support and development needed for other elements of the requested judgment. Uphoff v. Elegant Bath, Ltd., 176 F.3d 399, 410 (7th Cir.1999) (quotation marks omitted). The logic of that general requirement applies regardless of whether the source of the prejudgment interest claim is section 580 or a background “equitable” principle.
Practical considerations reinforce application of that requirement here. The equitable considerations that affect equitable prejudgment interest raise obvious issues for development through evidence and argument. An award under section 580, at least under current law, raises issues requiring development as well. In United States v. Federal Insurance Co., 857 F.2d 1457 (Fed.Cir.1988), we described section 580 interest as mandatory in hold-
Federal Insurance had no occasion to consider what range of equitable considerations might affect the application of section 580 where it applies. And Federal Insurance did not involve antidumping duties at all. In fact, this court has never considered whether section 580 applies to antidumping or countervailing duties. The government has informed us that only recently did it even begin to invoke section 580 in cases involving antidumping (or, apparently, countervailing) duties—a seemingly major change in the government‘s asserted position on the scope and relationship of old laws.1 In at least one other context, based on widely applicable doctrines about the relationship between specific statutory schemes and more general statutory language, the Court of International Trade has relied on the detailed statutory regime for antidumping and countervailing duties to distinguish them from general “duties” covered under other provisions of Title 19, saying: “It seems that antidumping and countervailing duties were never intended to be regular or general duties.” Dynacraft Indus., Inc. v. United States, 118 F.Supp.2d 1286, 1291 (Ct.Int‘l Trade 2000); id. at 1291-92. In several respects, then, the government‘s invocation of section 580 here presented anything but a ministerial matter; it raised significant issues that the trial court could properly view as calling for development before judgment.
In seeking to apply section 580 here, the government contends that, unlike equitable prejudgment interest, interest under section 580 is not compensatory, but rather is a “statutory exaction” in the nature of a penalty and, for that reason, applies in addition to equitable prejudgment interest. On the question of failure to preserve the point, that characterization, whatever its merits, does not help the government, which identifies no precedent or principle suggesting that a penalty characterization would license waiting until after judgment to develop the claim under section 580 (let alone as a part of claim for dual-source interest). Penalties are commonly part of the merits relief sought, not something collateral to a judgment. See, e.g., Uphoff, 176 F.3d at 410 (request for penalty under state minimum-wage law had to be raised before judgment). Moreover, the characterization of section 580 as a penalty hardly makes it a ministerial matter—and not just because the correctness of the characterization is a substantial issue. The characterization leaves, rather than disposes of, questions about whether section 580 applies to antidumping duties at all and whether, if so, case-specific equitable considerations are relevant to its application, as is common under other, variously worded authorizations to apply penalties.2 Thus, it remains
The trial court could reasonably find that the government did not sufficiently develop, or therefore preserve, a claim for prejudgment interest. In its summary-judgment filings, the government did no more than end its brief with a prayer for the relief requested in the complaint and attach a proposed order that included interest calculated under section 580. It is well established that arguments that are not appropriately developed in a party‘s briefing may be deemed waived. See, e.g., SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1320 (Fed. Cir.2006) (collecting cases); United States v. Charles, 469 F.3d 402, 408 (5th Cir.2006) (“Inadequately briefed issues are deemed abandoned.“). That principle makes particular sense where the claim at issue raises substantial issues. That is the case here, because the government‘s request for prejudgment interest raises significant questions about, for examрle, the equitable considerations attending equitable interest and/or section 580 interest, the novelty of application of section 580 to antidumping duties, and the soundness of the theory that both types of interest should be awarded.
It may be (we need not say) that the government could have preserved its claim by making a short affirmative presentation in its initial brief requesting summary judgment; doing so would have given Great American clear notice of its obligation to present its legal and evidentiary responses to the government‘s novel claim, and the government then would have presented its full answers in reply. But the government did not do even that. We know of no general rule that, as a matter of law, excuses a movant from presenting a claim in its merits discussion, just because an opening presentation could be short. Here it was reasonable for the trial court to conclude that the argument for prejudgment interest should have been, but was not, actually developed before judgment.
A Rule 59(e) motion “cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued.” Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir.1990). Thus, the court acted within its discretion in concluding that the government‘s arguments in support of prejudgment interest, briefed for the first time in its motion to amend, came too late. See First State Bank of Monticello v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 555 F.3d 564, 572 (7th Cir.2009). Preservation principles are important to a well-functioning litigation system, particularly, perhaps, for regular litigants like the government. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in invoking those principles here to deny prejudgment interest.
B
In its cross-appeal, Great American argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment enforcing the bonds. Great American argues that the government‘s failure to notify Great American of the suspension of liquidation of the entries at issue bars its recovery on two separate grounds. It also argues that the bonds are unenforceablе because they exceed Mr. Davis‘s $1 million authority. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. Int‘l Trading Co. v. United States, 412 F.3d 1303, 1307 (Fed.Cir.2005).
1
Great American raises two defenses based on the government‘s failure to notify it that liquidation of the entries at issue had been suspended. First, it contends that the failure to notify it as required by
a
When liquidation of an entry has been suspended,
Although section 1504(c) does not set out any specific remedy for its violation, the absence of a specified remedy does not itself mean that the notice requirement is merely advisory or that failure to provide the required notice is without consequence, as the government contends. The Supreme Court has indicated that, in at least some circumstances, it “presume[s] the availability of all appropriate remedies unless Congress has expressly indicated otherwise.” Franklin v. Gwinnett Cnty. Pub. Schs., 503 U.S. 60, 66 (1992). We need not explore the remedial issue broadly, though, because the only issue presented here is whether the trial court properly rejected (on summary judgment) the particular remedy Great Ameriсan seeks—invalidation of the suspension, with certain alleged consequences for the bonds’ enforceability.
We have held that “[a]n agency‘s violation of a statutory procedural requirement does not necessarily invalidate the agency action, especially where Congress has not expressed any consequences for such a procedural violation.” Diaz v. Dep‘t of Air Force, 63 F.3d 1107, 1109 (Fed.Cir.1995). The Supreme Court has said: “We would be most reluctant to conclude that every failure of an agency to observe a procedural requirement voids subsequent agency action, especially when important public rights are at stake.” Brock v. Pierce Cnty., 476 U.S. 253, 259-60 (1986). No more should Customs‘s procedural error, in failing to provide a statutorily required notification, necessarily invalidate a suspension of liquidation that, like the suspension here, occurred automatically by operation of law.
Rather, in accordance with the Administrative Proсedure Act, which governs the trial court‘s review as well as our own, we must take “due account ... of the rule of prejudicial error” in reviewing Customs‘s failure to notify Great American that liquidation had been suspended.
While those admissions would not themselves automatically preclude Great American from showing that it would have acted in this case, it was incumbent upon Great American to come forward with evidence that in this case—unlike prior cases—notification would likely have led it to take action, with some relevant probability of averting the alleged harm. Sanders, 556 U.S. at 408 (conclusion as to harmless error must rest “on the facts and circumstances of the particular case“); id. at 409 (“[T]he burden of showing that an error is harmful normally falls upon the party attacking the agency‘s determination.“). Great American did not do so. It claimed generally that it could have minimized its risk by participating in the rate review (which it has never done before), but it did not identify any evidence or arguments that were missing from the administrative record or show how they could have altered the outcome of the review. Great Am. Ins., 791 F.Supp.2d at 1358.4 Although counsel for Great American suggested at oral argument before this court that this case was different because the amount in controversy was much greater than in any prior case, Oral Argument 23:53-24:56, Great American did not present that argument in the trial court with supporting facts. Its summary-judgment opposition suggested only that the government should have considered “whether Great American ... had ever received suspension notices for entries with dollar amounts as large as the amounts at issue in this case.” Great Am.‘s Opp. to Pl.‘s Mot. Summ. J. at 9, United States v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y., Case No. 09-CV-0187 (Ct.Int‘l Trade Oct. 22, 2010), ECF No. 82. That suggestion about what the government might consider is no substitute, on summary judgment, for presentation of evidence—here, evidence of other actual bonds and how their amounts compare to those of the present bonds. Thus, Great American did not present the trial court with any supported reason that notice would likely hаve spurred it, in a departure from its historical practice, to take harm-avoiding action in this case.
The trial court‘s conclusion is reinforced by the fact that Great American was not without any notice of the suspension in this case. Great American recognizes that suspension of liquidation began when Commerce made its preliminary determination of dumping, see
In short, the record is devoid of sufficient evidence that omitting the additional notice required by section 1504(c) robbed Great Amеrican of the opportunity to take loss-mitigating actions it otherwise would have been likely to take in this case. Because Great American did not present evi-
b
Great American also argues that Customs, by failing to provide notice pursuant to section 1504(c), impaired Great American‘s suretyship, i.e., fundamentally altered its risk of loss, with the result that it is discharged from liability under the bonds. For reasons similar to those just discussed, we affirm the trial court‘s conclusion that Great American did not present sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact on its defense of impairment of suretyship.
Offered no reasоn to do otherwise, we rely on the Restatement (Third) of Suretyship & Guaranty § 37(1) (1996) in considering this defense. Section 37(1) provides:
If the obligee acts to increase the secondary obligor‘s risk of loss by increasing its potential cost of performance or decreasing its potential ability to cause the principal obligor to bear the cost of performance, the secondary obligor is discharged as described in subsections (2) and (3), and the secondary obligor has a claim against the obligee as described in subsection (4). An act that increases the secondary obligor‘s risk of loss by increasing its potential cost of performance or decreasing its potential ability to cause the principal obligor to bear the cost of performance is an “impairment of suretyship status.”
Under that standard, in order for Great American to be discharged from its bond obligations, the government must have fundamentally altered the risks imposed on Great American, as detailed in section 37(2), or impaired Great American‘s recourse against New Phoenix, as detailed in section 37(3). Because there is no claim that the government impaired Great American‘s recourse against New Phoenix, Great American‘s defense depends on whether the government‘s failure of notice fundamentally altered its risk. For the reasons discussed above with respect to lack of prejudice, we conclude that the trial court properly determined that Great American failed to show that the record created a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment.
In order to be discharged from its obligations under the bond, Great American would have to show that the lack of section 1504(c) notice materially modified the contract to which it originally agreed by substantially increasing its risk. See, e.g., Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. United States, 654 F.3d 1305, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir.2011); United States v. King, 349 F.3d 964, 967 (7th Cir.2003) (material modification is one that “significantly augments the [surety‘s] risk“). But because, as just discussed, Great American did not allege facts sufficient to show that either its own conduct or the ultimate outcome would have been different had it received the required notice, there is no evidence that its risk was increased by the government‘s error—let alone substantially increased. See King, 349 F.3d at 968 (surety not discharged where it failed to demonstrate that liability was attributable to “the incremental risk associated with the change in conditions, as opposed to the original risk associated with posting bond“). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court‘s conclusion that the facts supporting Great American‘s impairment-of-suretyship defense, even when viewed in the light most favorable to Great American, are insufficient to preclude summary judgment in favor of the government.
Great American challenges the summary judgment in favor of the government on one additional ground. It argues that the bonds in question are unenforceable because each bond was for an amount that exceeded the issuing agent‘s alleged $1 million authority by $219,458. Great American advanced this argument in the trial court as an affirmative defense to the government‘s recovery, both in response to the government‘s motion for summary judgment and in its own cross-motion for summary judgment. Great Am.‘s Mot. Summ. J. at 24-40, Great Am. Ins., Case No. 09-CV-0187 (Ct.Int‘l Trade Sep. 24, 2010), ECF No. 72-1; Great Am.‘s Opp. to Pl.‘s Mot. Summ. J. at 15-27.5
Great American relies for this contention almost exclusively on a Customs regulation. For context, we note first a regulation that Great American does not invoke:
Rather, the provision invoked by Great American is one concerning a surety corporation‘s grant of a power of attorney to an agent acting on its behalf in posting bonds. Section 113.37(g) provides that corporate sureties “may execute powers of attorney to act in their behalf” by filing Customs Form 5297.
The government‘s records conflict with Great American‘s as to the authorization amount on file with Customs for Mr. Davis, the agent whо signed the bonds in question. The government‘s records listed Mr. Davis as having authority up to the surety‘s own limit as published in the annual circular ($2,694,000 at the time Mr. Davis‘s authority was revoked). J.A. 257-58. Great American, on the other hand, produced a partial copy of a Form 5297 listing Mr. Davis‘s authority as $1 million, which it contends was filed with Customs in 1996. J.A. 256. Given the dispute, the trial court assumed for purposes of summary judgment that Great American filed a Form 5297 with Customs limiting Mr. Davis‘s authority to $1 million. Great Am. Ins., 791 F.Supp.2d at 1348. Even on that assumption, however, the court concluded that the government was entitled to a summary judgment, on the record here, that Great American‘s actions provided appar-
As defined in Restatement (Third) Of Agency § 2.03 (2006),
[a]pparent authority is the power held by an agent or other actor to affect a principal‘s legal relations with third parties when a third party reasonably believes the actor has authority to act on behalf of the principal and that belief is traceable to the principal‘s manifestations.
The principal‘s manifestations need not be conveyed through words or actions. Rather, “[s]ilence may constitute a manifestation when, in light of all the circumstances, a reasonable person would express dissent to the inference that other persons will draw from silence. Failure then to express dissent will be taken as a manifestation of affirmance.” Id. § 1.03 cmt. b. The trial court here considered the issue of apparent authority from the perspectives of both New Phoenix and the government, and it determined that each reasonably believed that Mr. Davis had authority to issue the bonds. Great Am. Ins., 791 F.Supp.2d at 1347-49. Great American does not challenge the finding with respect to New Phoenix, but it argues that, given the provisions of section 113.37(g)(5), the government could not reasonably believe that Mr. Davis‘s $1 million authority could be increased by any means other than the filing of a new Form 5297.
Great American‘s position rests on an unwarranted view of the regulation‘s effect on apparent authority. The central premise of apparent authority is that legally effective authority can in fact go beyond an expressly stated grant of actual authority. Whether the government should have known that Mr. Davis‘s previously stated actual authority was limited to $1 million is not dispositive. Although, as a general matter, “[a]n agent does not act with apparent authority when a third party has reason to know that the agent acts without actual authority,” Restatement (Third) Of Agency § 6.11 cmt. b (2006), the course of dealing between the parties may naturally alter what the third party has reason to know, and a manifestation that gives rise to apparent authority “may be made by conduct alone or by conduct that carries meaning at odds with words expressed previously ...,” id. § 1.03 cmt. e. Accordingly, a principal‘s manifestations may lead a third party reasonably to believe that an agent has authority to act, even where the principal‘s previous written statement indicated that the agent‘s authority was more limited. See, e.g., Linkage Corp. v. Trustees of Boston Univ., 425 Mass. 1, 17, 679 N.E.2d 191 (1997) (holding that it was reasonable for a third party to believe that an agent had authority to sign an agreement, despite the third party‘s having received a directive that the principal‘s approval was required for such expenditures, because other payments had been authorized without the required approval even after the directive was issued).
Against that background,
The question, then, is not whether Great American told the government that
Here, the dispositive facts are not in dispute, and without Great American‘s mistaken view of the effect of the regulation, the facts properly support summary judgment of apparent authority. According to Great American‘s admissions, on more than one occasion between the years 1996 and 2001, Great American received reports listing bonds issued by Mr. Davis‘s agency with face values in excess of $1 million, and in at least one instance it specifically approved a request by the agency to issue a bond in excess of $1 million. J.A. 332h-j. The record also includes a report received by Great American that listed thirty-one “excessive bonds” (bonds exceeding the agent‘s authority) issued by Mr. Davis‘s agency between June 1996 and October 2000, along with copies of thirteen such bonds, nine of which bear Mr. Davis‘s signature. Great American has not disputed the accuraсy of the report or the bonds, but argues that before 2003 it was unaware that some of the bonds existed and it is unclear how many were actually presented to Customs. At least two of the bonds for which copies were produced, however, include bond numbers assigned by Customs, indicating that they were filed with Customs. There is no evidence that Great American ever objected to the government‘s acceptance of bonds in excess of $1 million from Mr. Davis‘s agency, or that Great American gave Customs any other indication that such bonds were not authorized.
As explained in the Restatement (Third) Of Agency § 3.03 cmt. b (2006),
[a] principal‘s inaction creates apparent authority when it provides a basis for a third party reasonably to believe the principal intentionally acquiesces in the agent‘s representations or actions.... If the third party has observed prior interactions between the agent and the principal, the third рarty may reasonably believe that a subsequent act or representation by the agent is authorized because it conforms to the prior pattern observed by the third party. The belief is thus traceable to the principal‘s participation in the pattern and failure to inform the third party that no inferences about the agent‘s authority should be based upon it.
It is undisputed that, before issuing the New Phoenix bonds at issue in this appeal, Mr. Davis and his agency issued multiple Great American bonds that exceeded the issuing agent‘s authority, with no objection from Great American. Thus, even if the government should have known that Mr. Davis‘s power of attorney listed his authority as capped at $1 million, the pattern of agents exceeding their authority with no objection from Great American would lead a reasonable person in the government‘s position to believe that such acts were authorized.
Because its admissions as to the pattern of excessive bonds issued by Mr. Davis‘s
Despite its clear admissions, Great American contends that the trial court erred by finding that Great American was on notice that its agents (including Mr. Davis) were issuing bonds in excess of $1 million, and that its silence was therefore not indicative that it approved Mr. Davis‘s excessive bonds. But Great American cites only testimony concerning what individual executives actually knew, confusing notice with knowledge. Id. § 1.04(4) (“A person has notice of a fact if the person knows the fact, has reason to know the fact, has received an effective notification of the fact, or should know the fact to fulfill a duty owed to another person.“) (emphasis added). Moreover, it does not matter whether Great American was silent because it actually acquiesced in thе bonds’ issuance (as it admits it did in at least one instance) or because it remained ignorant of their existence due to oversight deficiencies that the government reasonably need not account for. In either event, the evidence can support only one finding on the legally relevant question: it was reasonable for the government to interpret the pattern of bond postings as conferring the requisite authority on Mr. Davis. See Kenealy, 72 F.3d at 268-69 (rejecting Great American‘s contention that “a consumer who deals with a putative agent has the duty to determine the scope of the agent‘s authority, and that the alleged principal can be liable only if it had knowledge of the agent‘s representation and failed to repudiate it” and concluding that Great American “should bear the burden of monitoring the apparent authority of a putative agent“).
Based on the undisputed facts regarding Great American‘s conduсt, a reasonable person in the government‘s position would believe that Mr. Davis had the authority to issue the bonds at issue in this appeal. Thus, the trial court did not err in holding that there was no material factual dispute that “Great American‘s conduct demonstrated that [Mr.] Davis had authority to enter into these bonds.” Great Am. Ins., 791 F.Supp.2d at 1349. See Deere & Co. v. Int‘l Trade Comm‘n, 605 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed.Cir.2010) (principal may silently act in a manner that gives an agent a reasonable appearance of authority).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court‘s determination that the bonds at issue were not unenforceable as exceeding Mr. Davis‘s alleged $1 million authority.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Court of International Trade‘s grant of summary judgment in favor of the government, affirm its denial of the government‘s motion to amend the judgment to include prejudgment interest,
No costs.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.