1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

Case No.: 1:20-cv-23278-MGC 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7505 AND 7171 

FOREST LANE, DALLAS, TEXAS 75230, WITH ALL 

APPURTENANCES, IMPROVEMENTS, AND 

ATTACHMENTS THEREON, AND ANY RIGHT TO 

COLLECT AND RECEIVE ANY PROFIT, RENT, 

INCOME, AND PROCEEDS THEREFROM, 

Defendant, 

____________________________________________/ 

CLAIMANTS MORDECHAI KORF AND URIEL LABER’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION 

Claimants Mordechai Korf and Uriel Laber move pursuant to the Convention on the 

Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of June 10, 1958 (the “New York 

Convention”),1 incorporated into Chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), to compel 

arbitration pursuant to the Treaty Between the United States of America and Ukraine Concerning 

the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment (the “U.S.-Ukraine BIT”) of all 

claims in this matter pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 206, and hereby adopt and join in the Motion to Compel 

Arbitration filed by Claimants Optima Ventures, LLC (“Optima Ventures”) and Optima 7171, 

LLC (“Optima 7171”) (ECF #36) incorporated herein by reference. 

 

1

 Both the United States and Ukraine are parties to the New York Convention. 

See https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/arbitration/conventions/foreign_arbitral_awards/status2

Case 1:20-cv-23278-MGC Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 1 of 8
2 

In the alternative to compelling arbitration of Korf and Laber’s claims, the Court should 

stay those claims pending the outcome of the arbitration pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 3 and the Court’s 

inherent power to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and 

effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants, as the claims of Optima Ventures and Optima 7171 

will render moot, and otherwise be dispositive of, Korf and Laber’s claims. 

ARGUMENT 

1. The Court Should Compel the United States to Arbitrate Against Korf and Laber 

This Court should compel arbitration because the United States is alleging that Korf and 

Laber are engaged in interdependent and concerted misconduct with Ukrainian investors Ihor 

Kolomoisky and Gennadiy Boholyubov. It is well established that “Chapter 1 of the FAA permits 

a nonsignatory to rely on state-law equitable estoppel doctrines to enforce an arbitration 

agreement.” GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS, Corp. v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC, 

140 S. Ct. 1637, 1644 (2020) (citing Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, 556 U.S. 624, 631-32 

(2009)). “Equitable estoppel allows a nonsignatory to enforce the provisions of a contract against 

a signatory . . . when the signatory raises allegations of interdependent and concerted misconduct 

by both the nonsignatory and one or more of the signatories to the contract.” Bailey v. ERG 

Enterprises, LP, 705 F.3d 1311, 1320 (11th Cir. 2013). “[T]he New York Convention does not 

conflict with the enforcement of arbitration agreements by nonsignatories under domestic-law 

equitable estoppel doctrines.” Id. at 1648. 

The Verified Complaint alleges that: 

Kolomoisky and Boholiubov recruited their American counterparts, Korf and Laber 

. . . . Korf and Laber established a complex system of entities in order to facilitate 

the laundering of the misappropriated funds, and to invest the funds in property and 

businesses in the United States. 

Case 1:20-cv-23278-MGC Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 2 of 8
3 

. . . 

Optima Ventures was owned by Kolomoisky, Boholiubov, Korf, and Laber. It was 

the primary vehicle used to acquire property in the United States with 

misappropriated funds from PrivatBank. . . . Korf and Laber established many 

entities under Optima Ventures, with which they acquired property using funds 

misappropriated from PrivatBank, including: 

. . . 

Optima 7171, LLC (“Optima 7171”), used, as discussed in detail below, to acquire 

the CompuCom Campus located at 7505 and 7171 Forest Lane in Dallas, Texas. 

ECF #1, ¶¶ 84, 86. Based on this allegation of “interdependent and concerted misconduct” with 

Kolomoisky and Boholiubov, the United States seeks to forfeit Korf and Laber’s interests in the 

defendant-in-rem, and alleges that “[t]he interests of Mordechai Korf, Uriel Laber, Ihor 

Kolomoisky, and Gennadiy Boholiubov may be adversely affected by these proceedings.” Id. at ¶ 

15. 

Because the United States has raised “allegations of interdependent and concerted 

misconduct by both the nonsignator[ies]” (i.e., Korf and Laber), “and one or more of the” parties 

consenting in writing to the arbitration (i.e., Optima Ventures and Optima 7171), the United States 

should be compelled pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 206 to arbitrate its claims against Korf and Laber with 

those of Optima Ventures, LLC and Optima 7171, LLC. See ECF #36 (Motion to Compel 

Arbitration by Optima Ventures and Optima 7171, filed contemporaneously herewith); 

Outokumpu, 140 S. Ct. at 1644-47, 1648. 

2. The Court Should Alternatively Stay Korf and Laber’s Claims Under Section 3 of the 

FAA Because Resolution of the Arbitration Claims of Optima Ventures and Optima 

7171 May Moot Korf and Laber’s Claims and Conserve Judicial Resources 

A court’s power to stay proceedings is “incidental to the power inherent in every court to 

control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 

Case 1:20-cv-23278-MGC Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 3 of 8
4 

counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Trial courts are 

afforded “broad discretion” in determining whether to stay a proceeding. I.A. Durbin, Inc. v. 

Jefferson Nat’l Bank, 793 F.2d 1541, 1551-52 (11th Cir. 1986). The Eleventh Circuit reviews a 

district court’s decision whether to stay proceedings under an abuse of discretion standard. 

Claimants Optima Ventures and Optima 7171 are arbitrating their claims against the United 

States before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”). In the 

ICSID arbitration, Optima Ventures and Optima 7171 – both of which are ultimately majority 

owned and controlled by Ukrainian investors Kolomoisky and Boholiubov – claim that the United 

States’ deprivation of their investment, i.e., the CompuCom Campus (which is the defendant-inrem in this case), and the actions taken by the United States, violate the bilateral investment treaty 

between the United States and Ukraine. Claimants Optima Ventures and Optima 7171 are seeking 

from the United States full compensation for the United States’ actions with respect to the 

CompuCom Campus. 

In this case, Claimants Korf and Laber claim an interest in the defendant-in-rem through 

their respective 16.665% interests in Optima Ventures. See ECF#s 12, 13. Optima Ventures holds 

a 100% ownership interest in Optima 7171, and Optima 7171 in turn holds as its asset 100% 

ownership of the defendant-in-rem. Simply put, if Optima Ventures and Optima 7171 prevail in 

the ICSID arbitration, Claimants Korf and Laber will be made completely whole, obviating the 

need for their claims to proceed on a parallel track in this Court. Judicial economy therefore weighs 

in favor of staying this action pending resolution of the ICSID arbitration. 

In fact, section 3 of the FAA clearly states, without exception, that whenever suit is brought 

on an arbitrable claim, the Court “shall” upon application stay the litigation until arbitration has 

been concluded. 9 U.S.C. § 3. “A nonsignatory or non-party to an arbitration agreement may be 

Case 1:20-cv-23278-MGC Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 4 of 8
5 

entitled to a stay of claims pending arbitration if the claims against it . . . are ‘based on the same 

operative facts and are inherently inseparable from the claims against’ a party or signatory.” 

Hudson Glob. Res. Mgmt., Inc. v. Beck, No. 805CV1446T27TBM, 2006 WL 1722353, at *6 (M.D. 

Fla. June 20, 2006) (quoting Harvey v. Joyce, 199 F.3d 790, 795 (5th Cir. 2000)). “While a 

nonsignatory or non-party to an arbitration agreement may have no right to enforce arbitration 

itself, if its potential liability derives from the conduct or potential liability of a party or signatory, 

it is entitled to a stay pending arbitration.” Hudson Glob, No 2006 WL 1722353, at *6. Here, the 

United States is claiming that Korf and Laber are liable to lose millions of dollars in equity, based 

on the conduct or potential liability of Ukrainian investors Kolomoisky and Boholiubov, and 

whether the United States is able to impose that liability will be decided in ongoing arbitration. In 

this circumstance, Korf and Laber are entitled to have their claims stayed pending resolution of 

arbitration. 

In conjunction with 9 U.S.C. § 3, “[a]bstention principles” permit the Court to “postpone[] 

adjudication of the dispute” by “enter[ing] a stay order.” Ortega Trujillo v. Conover & Co. 

Commc’ns, 221 F.3d 1262, 1264 (11th Cir. 2000) “[A]n order merely staying the action ‘does not 

constitute abnegation of judicial duty. On the contrary, it is a wise and productive discharge of it. 

There is only postponement of decision for its best fruition.’” Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 

517 U.S. 706, 721 (1996) (quoting Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux, 360 U.S. 

25, 29 (1959)). As set forth in the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed 

contemporaneously herewith, and as set forth also in Case No. 20-cv-23279, in the alternative to 

compelling arbitration, the Court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction and stay this matter 

pending resolution of the arbitration claims and the declaratory judgment actions in Ukraine, where 

courts have already issued decisions holding that many of the loans at issue were properly and 

Case 1:20-cv-23278-MGC Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 5 of 8
6 

lawfully repaid and satisfied with full performance. At a minimum, the stay should be granted for 

several months, at which point the arbitral tribunal will have issued a procedural order scheduling 

the arbitration for resolution on the merits, enabling the Court to consider the appropriate duration 

of the potential stay. 

 WHEREFORE, Claimants Korf and Laber respectfully request that the Court compel 

arbitration and exercise its discretion pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 206 to dismiss the matter or 

alternatively stay the action pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 3 until arbitration is completed. 

Dated: February 5, 2021 

Respectfully submitted, 

Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. 

201 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1300 

Miami, FL 33131 

Tel: (305) 371-6421 

Fax: (305) 371-6322 

By: /s/ Howard M. Srebnick 

Howard M. Srebnick 

Florida Bar No. 919063 

Robert T. Dunlap 

Florida Bar No. 11950 

HSrebnick@RoyBlack.com 

RDunlap@RoyBlack.com 

Attorneys for Claimants Korf and the 

Corporate Entities 

Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP 

1633 Broadway 

New York, New York 10019 

(212) 506-1700

Marc E. Kasowitz

Mark P. Ressler

Ronald R. Rossi

Sarmad M. Khojasteh

Case 1:20-cv-23278-MGC Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 6 of 8
7 

Joshua Paul 

Pro Hac Vice Anticipated

MKasowitz@kasowitz.com 

MRessler@kasowitz.com 

RRossi@kasowitz.com 

SKhojasteh@kasowitz.com 

JPaul@kasowitz.com 

Attorneys for Claimants Korf and the 

Corporate Entities 

/s/ Scott A. Srebnick

Scott A. Srebnick, P.A. 

201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 

1210 

Miami, FL 33131 

Telephone: (305) 285-9019 

Facsimile: (305) 377-9937 

Scott@srebnicklaw.com 

Attorney for Claimant Laber

Case 1:20-cv-23278-MGC Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 7 of 8
8 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on February 5, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing document 

with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being 

served this day on all counsel of record in the manner specified, either via transmission of 

Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those 

parties who are not authorized to receive Notices of Filing electronically. 

/s/ Howard M. Srebnick 

Howard M. Srebnick 

Case 1:20-cv-23278-MGC Document 37 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 8 of 8