UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE DI STRI CT OF COLUMBIA

__________________________________________ ) CONTI NENTAL TRANSFERT TECHNI QUE ) L I MI TED, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-2026 ( PL F) ) FED ERAL

GOVERNMENT OF N I GERIA, et al. , ) ) Def endants. ) __________________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON This is an action to enfor ce a n arbitra l awar d issued in the United King dom under Nig eria n law. On July

12, 2010, Plaintiff Conti nental Tra nsfer t Technique L imited (“Continental”) moved for summar y judgme nt ag ainst the defe ndants, the F eder al Gover nment of Nig eria , the Attorney

Gene ral of N ige ria, a

nd the Minister of the Interior of Nig eria (collec tively , “Nig eria ”). U

pon consideration of the parties’ paper s, the rele vant leg al authorities, and the entire r ecor d in this case, the Court will g rant Continental’s motion for summary judgme nt. 1

T he p ape rs fi le d i n co nne ct ion wit h t his m at te r i ncl ude : Co nti nen ta l’ s motio n f or 1 summ ary j udgm ent (“ Mo t.” ); Nigeri a’ s op pos it ion to Cont ine nta l’ s motio n ( “Opp. ”) ; Co nti nen ta l’ s r epl y to Nigeri a’ s op pos it ion (“ Repl y”); andth e s ta tus re por t f il ed b y Conti nen ta l o n J anu ary 11, 201 1 ( “St atus Repo rt ”)
. Continental’s motion for summary judgme nt is accompa

nied by a dec laration from Continental’s counsel. Sever al documents a re attached a s exhi bits to t hat dec laration. The Court ref ers to those doc uments as exhibit s to the motion i tself.I . BA CKGROUND The de tailed fa ctual bac kg round of this ca se is summarized in this Court’s prior Opinion denying Continental’s motion for de fault judg ment and Nig eria ’s motion to dis miss Continental’s petition. S ee Continental Tr ansfe rt Tec hnique Ltd. v. Fede ral Gove rnment of Nig eria , 697 F. Supp. 2d 46, 52-55 (D .D.C. 2010). A more concise statement of r eleva nt fac ts will suffice he re to e x plain the Court’s dec ision on the pendingmotion for summary judgme nt. In 2007, Continental and Nig eria enter ed ar

bitration to resolve a

contra ct dispute. Mot., Ex . 4 (the a

rbitral aw ard) ¶ 25. On August 14, 2008, the arbitrators issued their dec ision,
awa rdingContinental 29.6 bill ion Nige rian naira . I d. ¶ 139. Nig eria was a lso ordere d to pay Continental’s costs and 95% of the costs of a

rbitration. I d. On Dec ember

9, 2008, Continental applied to have the arbitra l awar d rec og nized in the United King dom. See Mot., Ex . 6. The United K ingdom’ s Hig h Court of J ustice (“ the Eng lish court”) issued a

n order confirmingthe ar

bitral awa rd as f inal and enf

orce able ( “the Eng lish judgment”) on J une 24, 2009. See Mot., Ex. 10. On November 23, 2009, Nig eria applied to the Eng lish court to set aside or stay the orde r of June 24, arguing that beca use Nig eria
was c halleng ing the awa

rd in Nig eria ’s Fe dera l High Court ( “the Nig eria n court” ), see infra a

t 3, all other proc eeding s should be stay ed pendinga fina l determination by the Nig eria

n court. See Mot., Ex . 12 ¶ 6. On Mar ch 30, 2010, the Eng lish court stated that “a ll the various discre tionary fac tors [t o be we ighe d in decidingwhether to stay enfor ceme nt of a judg ment] . . . come down heavily on the side of [Continental] .” I d. ¶ 31. Ne verthe less, the Eng lish court stay ed enfor ceme nt of the judgment on the condition that Nig eria provide sec urity

of £100 million

2within 28 day s. I d. ¶ 32. Continental claims, and Nig eria does not dispute, that the re quired bond was ne ver posted. Mot. at 9.

On Novembe r 24, 2008, Continental filed in this Court it s complaint to enforc e the ar bitral awa rd under the Fe dera l Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. , and the Convention on the Recognition and Enforc ement of F oreign Arbitral Aw ards, opened for signature J une 10, 1958, 21 U.S.T. 2517, reprinted in 9 U.S.C. § 201 (historical and statutory notes) (“ the New York Convention”) . On Novembe r 18, 2009, Continental amende d its complaint, adding a claim for e nforc ement of the Eng lish court’s J une 2009 judg ment pursuant to the District of Columbi a’s Unif

orm For eig n-Money

J udg ments Recognition Act, D.C. C O D E §§ 15-381 et seq . Concurre nt with the actions in the United States and the United King dom, Nige ria initiated proce eding s befor e the Nig eria n court to vac ate the a

rbitral aw ard a

nd to restra in Continental from attemptingto enforc e it in the meantime. While that action was pe nding be fore the Nig eria

n court, Nig eria

moved to dismiss Continental’s amende d complaint befor e this Court, arguing pr imarily

that enfor ceme nt would be inappropr iate in light of the ong oing attempt to
vacate the aw ard in Nig eria . See Continental Tra nsfer t Technique L td. v. Fede ral Gove rnment of Nig eria , 697 F. Supp. 2d at 55. This Court denied that motion on Marc h 23, 2010.

On J uly 12, 2010, Continental filed its mot ion for summary judgme nt. Whi le that motion was pending , Continental filed a status re port in which it indicated that the N ige rian c ourt had rule d on the validity

of the a rbitral aw ard. Status Report at 1- 2. Continental attache d to the Status Report a copy

of the Nig eria

n court’s judg ment, in which that cour t found that the ar

bitral
awa rd “c annot be se t aside” a nd “is VAL I D and EN FORCEAB L E.” Status Report, Ex. A at 4

3(empha sis in original). B eca use Nig eria

has not responde d to Conti nental’s Status Report in any way , the Court presumes that Conti nental has a ccur ately repr esente d the finding s of the Nig eria n court.
I I . ENF ORCEMENT OF T HE ARB I TRALAWARD

The Ne w York Convention “pr ovides that signatory nations are to rec ognize and enfor ce a rbitral aw ards r ender ed in other nations.” Termorio S.A. E.S.P. v. Electra nta S.P., 487 F.3d 928, 933 ( D.C. Cir. 2007); see Ne w York Convention, ar t. I I I . A cour

t “must gr ant [a] [p] etition to [ r]ecognize and [e] nforc e [an] arbitral awa rd unless it finds one of the grounds for ref usal . . . of re cog nition or enforc ement of the awa rd spec ified in the . . . Convention.” I n re Chromalloy

Aer oservice s, Inc., 939 F .Supp. 907, 909 (D.D.C. 1996) (c itation and internal quotation marks omitted). “The hear ing on [a pe tition t o enfor ce a n awa rd under the New York Convention takes] the form of a summar y proce dure in the na

ture of f eder al motion practice .” Termor io S.A. E.S.P . v. Electra nta S.P., 487 F.3d at 940; see Jiangsu Chang long Che ms., Co. v. Bur lington B io-Med. & Scientific Corp., 399 F .Supp.2d 165, 168 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (statingthat enfor ceme nt of an a

rbitral aw ard “ is chara cter ized as a ‘summary proce eding ’ that mere ly
conver ts what is alrea dy

a fina l decision into a judg ment of a c ourt.”). “ Summary judgme nt under Rule 56 is appropriate wher e the plea dings a nd the re cord ‘ show that there is no ge nuine issue as to any materia l fac t and that the movingparty is entitled to judgment as a matter of la

w.’” Termor io S.A. E.S.P . v. Electra nta S.P., 487 F.3d at 941 (quotingKing man Park Civic Ass' n v. Wil liams, 348 F.3d 1033, 1041 (D.C. Cir. 2003))
.

4Nig eria argues that either

these proc eeding s should be stay ed or the amende d complaint should be dismissed because (1) the N ige rian proc eeding s will li kely lead to a va catur of the a war d; (2) Nig eria

cannot c halleng e the substanc e of the awa rd elsewhere ; and (3) inter national comity

weig hs in favor of

a stay . Opp. at 6, 9-10. The se ar guments are unpersua sive for two pr imary rea sons. First, the Court has a lrea dy considere d and re

jected Nig eria ’s argument that this matter should be stay ed or dismissed on forum non c onveniens g rounds or in lig ht of the Nig eria n court’s c onsideration of N ige ria’s c halleng e to the ar bitral
awa rd. See Continental Tra

nsfer t Technique L td. v. Fede ral Gove rnment of Nig eria , 697 F. Supp. 2d at 58, 61-62. Sec ond, the pre mise underlying N ige ria’s a rguments no longe r exists : the Nig eria

n proce eding s have nowbeen r esolved in favor of Continental. Status Report at 1-2 & Ex . B at 141. As a re sult, there is no rea son to refuse to enforc e the a war d.
I I I . ENF ORCEMENT OF E NGL I SH J UDGMENT The Unifor

m Fore ign- Money

J udg ment Recognition Act (“UF MJ RA”) pr ovides that a satisfa ctory

“for eig n-money

judgme nt is enforc eable in the same manne r as the judgment of a sister jur isdiction which is entitled to full faith and cre dit.” D.C.C O D E § 15-382. A“ fore ignmoney judgme nt” is “any

judgme nt of a for eig n state g rantingor deny ing r ecove ry

of a sum of money .” D.C.C O D E § 15-381(2)
. The UF MJ RA “applies to any fore ign- money

judgme nt that is final and c onclusive and e nforc eable wher e re ndere d even though an appe al there from is pending or it is subject to appea l.” D.C.C O D E § 15-387.

Nig eria has fa iled to contest Continental’s claim that the orde r ente red on June 24, 2009 by the Eng lish court is enforc eable by this court under the UFMJRA; i ndeed, N ige ria’s

5memorandum in opposition to C ontinental’s motion for summary judgme nt does not even mention Conti nental’s UF MJ RA claim. The Eng lish court order ed on June 24, 2009, that “judg ment be ente red a g ainst [Nigeria]” in the amounts set down in the arbitra l awar d. Mot., Ex
. 10. Although a

stay was grante d by

the Eng lish court on the condition that Nig eria would provide £100 million in security pendingthe final outcome of the Nig eria n proce eding s, the
rec ord conta ins no evidence , and Nig eria does not claim, that the re quired bond wa s ever posted. Consequently , the Eng lish order re mains enfor cea ble under the UF MJ RA.
IV. CONCLUSI ON For the fore g oing r easons, Continental’s motion for summary judgme nt is gra

nted. An Orde r consistent with this Memorandum Opinion shall issue this same day
.
/s/ PAULL . FRI EDMAN United States District J udg e DATE: August 3, 2011

6