2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
10-10-2008 

# O t o s T ech C o Lt d v

. O GK Ame r Inc P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 07-3627

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" Ot os T e ch C o Lt d v

. O GK Ame r Inc " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 378. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/378NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL
UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

__________ N os . 07- 3627 & 07- 3775

__________ OT OS T E CH CO
. , L T D.

v. O G K A M E R IC A , IN C .; YALE KI M a / k / a Yo u n g i l Ki m,

T hi r d Par t yPl ai nt i ffs
v. O T O S O P T IC A L C O ., L T D .; M OON YO UNG HU H,

T h ird P a rtyD e f

e n d a n ts OT OS T E CH CO
. , L T D. ; OT OS OP T I CA L CO
. , L T D; M OON YO UNG HU H, A ppel l ant s i n 07- 3627 O G K A ME R I C A , I N C
. ; Y A L E K I M, A ppel l ant s i n 07- 3775

__________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt For t he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey ( C i v. N o. 03- 1979) D istric t C o u rt Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le W ill iam H . W a lls

___________ A r gued on Sept ember 22, 2008

___________ B efore: B A R R Y , A M B R O and G A R T H , C i rcui tJudg es,

( Fi l ed: O ct ober10, 2008)-2-

Pet erS. Pear l m an ( A rgued ) Jess ica V
. H en ry Coh n Li f l a n d Pe a r l ma n Herr ma n n & Kno p f LLP Par k 80 Pl aza W es tO ne Saddl e B r ook, N J 07663 A t t or ney s forPl ai nt i ff/A ppel l ant M arc D
. H ae fn er ( A rgued ) N icole B
. D o ry Con n e l l Fo l e yLLP 85 L i vi ngs t on A venue R os el and, N J 07068 A t t or ney s forD efe ndant s / A ppel l ees

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udge: Th i s a p p e a l a r i s e s o u t o f a j u r y v e r d i c t a war d i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t OG K Amer i ca, I nc. ( “O G K ”) $910, 000 on i t s count er cl ai m for br eac h of t he i m pl i ed cove nantof good fa i t h and fai r deali ng . A l t ho ug h the part i es rai se nu m erous com plai nts regar ding the tri al proceed i ng s, t he es s ence of t h e appeal i s w hethert he ver di ctw as s uppor t abl e byt he evi dence i n t he
r ecor d. Pl a i n t i f

f a r g u e s t h a t t h e v e r d i c t was a g a i n s t t h e wei g h t o f t h e e v i d e n c e , o r i n t he
a l t e r n a t i v e , t h a tt h e e v i d e n c e wa s l e g a l l yi n s u f f i c i e n t . W e wi l l a f

f i r m. I. In 1 9 9 8 , M r. M o o n Y o u n g H u h , p reside n t of O tos T ec h C o . , L td. ( “O tos” ), an d M r. Y al e K i m , pr es i dentof O G K , ent er ed i nt o an ora l agr eement under w hi ch O G K w oul d act-3-

as O t os ’ s excl us i ve age ntfors al es of w el di ng hel m et s i n t he U ni t ed St at es . I n t he fol l ow i ng y e a r s , OGK w a s i n s t ru me n t a l i n e s t a b l i s h i n g Ot o s ’ s p r e s e n c e i n t h e Un i t e d S t a t e s . OGK i ncr eas ed O t os ’ s U
. S. s al es t o $8. 2 m i l l i on, r epr es ent i ng 88. 7% of O t os ’s w o rl d w ide
r evenue s . K i m r ece i ved a co m m issi o n forhi s s er vi ces , i ni t i al l y5% i n 1998, t hen r educe d b ym u tu a l a g re e m e n t to 4 % in 1 9 9 9 a n d a g a in to 3 % in 2 0 0 1
. In D ec em b er 2 0 0 2 , K ev in L ee , a n e m p loy ee at O tos, pro p o sed red u cing K im ’s
comm i s s i on fur t hert o 2. 5%
. A ffr ont ed, K i m confr on ted H u h in hi s offi ce i n K or ea. N evert hel es s , aft err econs i der at i on, K i m faxe d a l et t ert o O t os t he fol l ow i ng m ont h acc ept i ng th e re d u c e d c o m m is s io n . B us i nes s cont i nued as nor m al unt i l February3, 2003, w hen K i m s entO t os a pr opos ed
w r i t t en comm i s s i on contr act . I n t he t ext of t he fax, K i m not ed hi s des i r e t o “c lear any
m i s t rus tbetw een us , ” and s t at ed t hatt he agr eementw as “mer el ya w r i t t en documentof w hat
w e a lr e a d ya g re e d o n .” J .A . 1 2 3
. L ee resp o n d ed o n F eb rua ry4 , 2 0 0 3 , b u t d id n o t d ir ec tl y ad d ress K im ’s req u est fo r a for m al i zed c om m i s s i on agr eement . I ns t ead, L ee a sk ed fo r m ar ket i ng pr oj ect i ons and
cu stom er inf

o rm ati o n , an d ask ed K im “to p ro m p tly r elaycu stom ers’ req u ests to [ O tos]” go i ng forw ard. J. A
. 12 4. L ee add ed that“t he rat e of c om m i ssi on i s cer t ai nlyno tt he m ost pr es s i ng m at t erathand. I f w e can est abl i s h m utual t rus t , t he comm i s s i on r at e w i l l notbe an is s u e .” Id
. I n r es pons e, K i m as ked:-4- W hatdoes t rus tm ean? D oes t rus tm ean t o change every t hi ng as y ou w ant w i t ho ut no t i ce? If y ou t hink com m i ssi on rat e i s not s o im p o rt a n t, w h ya re y o u c o n tin u a lly tryin g to re d u c e it? . . . I n e e d mo r e t h a n v e rb a l s t a t e me n t s o f t ru s t ; f o rmyo wn p ro tec tio n , I n e e d w ritten a g re e m e n ts. . . . O u r re latio n sh ip is m eantt o s er ve our m utual i nt er es t s ; ot herw i s e w e s houl d go our s epar at e w ay s . T her efor e, I need a fi r m w r i t t en s t at ement fr om y ou regar ding y ou r i ntent i on s. J
. A
. 125. O n February5, 2003, O t os decl i ned t o exec ut e t he contr act , ar gui ng t hati tr efl ect ed K i m ’s l ack o f t rust . O t os furt her instruct ed t hat K i m w as “not t o b e i nv olved i n the busi ness unt i l w e ca n gett oget hert o s et t l e our relat i ons hi p. ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . 6- 7; J
. A
. 119. B ut O to s’s e -m a il d id n o t c lea rlyter m in a te th e re latio n sh ip ; ra th e r, itsta ted th a t O to s w o u ld “w i l l i ngl yacc eptt he comm i s s i on r at e of 2. 5% , butw e r es er ve the r i ghtt o cons i derot her opt i ons i f t he above m at t er s ar e noti m pr oved. ” J
. A
. 119. K i m r es ponded vi a fa x t hathi s under s t andi ng w as t hat , bydecl i ni ng t o s i gn t he
c o m m iss io n a g re e m e n t, O to s w a s te rm in a tin g th e re latio n sh ip . H e c laim e d e n tit lem e n t to
comm i s s i ons on pr oj ect ed s al es fort he next fi ve y ear s under“i nt ernat i onal comm er ci al l aw and cus t om , ” J
. A
. 120, butpr opos ed thathe w as w i l l i ng t o acc eptj us tt hr ee y ear s of
c o m m iss io n s to “ se ttl e ” th e d isp u te a s p ro m p tly a s p o ss ib le. H e n o ted th a t h e w o u ld tak e th is
a mo u n to u to f a c c o u n t r e c e i v a b l e s i n t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f OGK
. Ot o s d i d n o tr e s p o n d t o Ki m, buti ns t ead i ns t ruct ed it s cust om er s t hatO G K ’ s agenc yw as t er m i nat ed by“mut ual agr eement . ” J
. A
. 121. O n F e b ru a ry1 9 , 2 0 0 3 , O to s d isc o v e re d th a t K im h a d re tain e d $ 5 8 7 ,7 5 5 .0 5 in-5-

cus t om erpaym ent s t hathe had f ai l ed t o for w ar d t o O t os . U nabl e t o r ecove rt he funds fr om Ki m, Ot o s f

i l e d s u i ta l l e g i n g e mb e z z l e me n t , b r e a c h o f c o n tr a c t , a n d c o n v e r s i o n . OGK
a ss e r te d c o u n te r c la im s a g a in s t O to s f o rb r e a c h o f

c o n tr a c t, b r e a c h o f

c o m p r o m is e a g r e e m e n t, and br eac h of i m pl i ed cove nantof good fai t h and fai r deal i ng. O G K al l eged t hatt he part i es had an or al agr eementfora t erm o f 1 5 y ear s , t hatO t os pr emat ur el yt er m i nat ed the agr eement , and t hat K i m ’ s February 5, 2003 fax c ons t i tut ed a s et t l ement offe rt o w hi ch O t os
as s ent ed. T he j ur y found t hat : ( 1) O G K br eac hed the contr act , butt hatt her e w er e no damages fort he br eac h; ( 2) O G K convert ed $587, 755. 05 i n cus t om er paym ent s and ow ed thi s amount to O to s ; a n d ( 3 ) O to s w a s lia b le f o r b re a c h o f

th e im p lied c o v e n a n t o f g o o d f a ith a n d f

a ir d e a lin g a n d o w e d $ 9 1 0 ,0 0 0 in d a m a g e s to O G K
. O t os fi l ed a mot i on fo r a n ew tr i al , w hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed on A ugus t13, 2007. O t os fi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce of appea l and O G K cr os s - appea l ed. II. W e exerc ise j ur i s di ct i on under28 U
. S. C
. § 1291. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad s ubj ect
m at t erj ur isdicti o n under28 U
. S. C
. § 1332( a)
. W e r evi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of a
m ot i on fornew t r i al forabus e of di s cr et i on. M ont gom ery C ount y v. M i cr ovot e C orp. , 320 F. 3d 440, 445 ( 3d C i r . 2003)
. “D efe r ent i al r evi ew i s appr opr i at e w hen cons i der i ng w het her
a ver di cti s agai ns tt he w ei ght of t he evi dence beca us e t he di s t r i ctcour tw as abl e t o obs er ve th e w it n e ss e s a n d f

o llo w th e trial in a w a yth a t w e c a n n o t re p lica te b yre v iew in g a c o ld

### Or di nar i l y , any c l a i m ba s e d on i ns uffi c i e nc y

of the e vi de nc e i s wa i ve d whe n the 1 

### m o v an t f ailedto m o v e f

o r j u d g m en t as a m atter o f lawun d er F ed eral Ru le o f C iv il P ro cedure 5 0 b ef

o re th e j ury

retiredto d elib erate. G r eenl eaf v. G ar l ock, I nc. , 174 F. 3d -6- r ecor d. ” G r eenl eaf v. G ar l ock, I nc. , 174 F. 3d 352, 366 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons
om i t t ed)
. “[N ] ew t r i al s beca us e t he ver di ct i s agai ns t t he w ei ght of t he evi dence ar e pr oper onl yw hen the reco rd show s t hatt he j ur y ’ s ver di ctr es ul t ed i n a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce or
w h e re th e v e rd ic t, o n th e re c o rd , c ri e s o u t to b e o v e rt u rn e d o r s h o c k s o u r c o n s c ie n c e .” W ill iam so n v . C o n so l. R a il C o rp ., 9 2 6 F .2 d 1 3 4 4 , 1 3 5 3 (3 d C ir.1 9 9 1 ). A n in ter n a lly in c o n s is te n t v e rd ic t a ls o c a n b e a g ro u n d f o r o rd e ri n g a n e w tr ia l. M a lle y -D u f f & A s s o c s ., Inc
. v . C row n L ife In s. C o . , 7 3 4 F
. 2 d 1 3 3 , 1 4 5 (3d C ir
. 1 9 8 4 ). W e re v iew fo r plain e rro r w h ere a p artyfa il ed to p rese rve it s o b jecti o n s to a jury
c h a rg e o r in stru c tio n , o r to th e f a ilu re to g iv e a ju ryc h a rg e o r in stru c tio n . F ra n k lin P re sc rip tio n s, In c . v . N .Y . T im e s C o ., 4 2 4 F .3 d 3 3 6 , 3 3 9 -4 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). F o r a n a p p e llate
cour tt o corr ect a for fei t ed err or , t her e mustbe an “ err or , ” the err orm us tbe “pl ai n, ” and the pl ai n err orm us t“af

fec t su b sta nt i al r i ght s . ” U ni t ed St at es v. O l ano, 507 U
. S. 725, 732- 34 ( 1993)
. Pl ai n err orr evi ew i s di s cr et i onary and s houl d onl ybe i nvoked i n t he ci vi l cont ext “‘w h ere the e rror is so se ri o u s an d flag ran t th at i t go es to the v eryin teg ri tyo f th e tri al. ’” Fas hauer v. N
. J
. T r ans i t R ai l O per at i ons , I nc. , 57 F. 3d 1269, 1289 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ( quot i ng U n it ed S tat es v . C arso n , 5 2 F
. 3 d 1 1 7 3 , 1 1 8 8 (2d C ir
. 1 9 9 5 )). III . W e ar e s at i s fi ed thatt he evi dence pr es ent ed at t r i al s uppor t s t he j ur y ’ s ver di ct . T he 13 5 2 , 

### 364- 65 ( 3d C i r . 1999) 

### . How ever , Otos argues that this wai ver was it se lf waived

b ecau se O G Kd idn o t raise it inits o p p o sitio nto O to s’s m o tio nf o r a n ewtrial un d er Ru le 59. Se e W i l l i am s v. Runyon, 130 F. 3d 568, 571- 72 ( 3d Ci r . 1997) ( fi ndi ng awa i ve r of wa i ve r whe r e aparty

fa i l e d t o obje c t

t o am ovant ’ s Rul e 50(b) m ot i on s pe c i fi c a l l y on the g ro un d s th at th e issu e w as w aiv edb y anin ad equ ate Ru le 5 0 (a) m o tio n ). We f in dit un nece ss ar

y to addres s or analy

ze this principle bec ause , by any ac coun t, ther e was m ore than s uffi c i e nt

e vi de nc e fr om

whi c h ajury

c oul d i nfe r

that Ot os wa s l i abl e for

the m ann er inw h ichit p erf

o rm edth e co n tract. -7- j ur ycoul d have a cce pt ed t he evi dence i n t he r ecor d t hat O t os i nt ended al l al ong t o excl ude K i m fr om anys i gni fi cantpr ofi t s fr om hi s s al es eff or t s , y etw i l l ful l ym i s l ed K i m as t o t he l ongevi t y of t he arr angement . N ot onl y di d O t os s t eadi l y r educe K i m ’ s comm issi o n rat es
over a per i od of four y ear s for r eas ons unr el at ed t o per for m ance , buti tal r eadyhad coopt ed th e f ir s t c lie n t K im p ro c u re d , p ro v id in g p ri o r p re c e d e n t f o r s u c h p ra c tic e s . K i m a l s o t e s t i f

i e d t h a t H u h t o l d h i m h e d i d n o tw a n tK i m t o e a r n t o o m u c h m o n e y. O t os c o n f

i r me d t h a t i t t h o u g h t i t “ n a tu r a l ” f o r Ki m’ s c o mmi s s i o n r a t e s t o d e c r e as e as t he
s al es vol um e i ncr eas ed— even t hough t he r eas ons gi ven at t he t i m e m ade no m ent i on of s al es vol um e. M o reove r , t he l as tr at e dec r eas e w as pr offe r ed bya l ow er - l evel empl oy ee r ather t han th e p reside n tof O t os , a cha nge fr om pr i orpr act i ce that , cul tur al l y , coul d have be en vi ew ed byt he j ur yas a del i ber at e s l i ght t o s om eone w hom O t os had no i nt ent i on of r et ai ni ng
a s a n a g e n t. A tt he sa m e ti m e, t he j ur yhad more t han enough e vi dence t o concl ude thatO t os
a v o id e d d isc u ss in g th e le n g th o f th e c o n tra c t ev e rytim e K im so u g h t co n f irm a tio n o f

h is
c o m m iss io n ra tes , an d th e n c e a se d d e a lin g w ith h im a s s o o n a s h e a ttem p ted to se c u re h is

### I n hi s t e s t i m ony , Ki m s t at e d that

he t ol d Huh that

the a ge of 60 woul d be 2 

### su f f icien t. -8- lega l r igh ts i n w ri ti n g . K im test ifi ed that an y att em p ts to d iscu ss the c o m m issi o n rate w ere
r e p e a t e d l yd o wn p l a y e d
. I n s t e a d , h e wa s t o l d t h a t “ [ t ] h e i mp o r t a n t t h i n g i s wh e t h e rt h e ADF h el m etcan b e sol d o r not , ” J. A
. 31 2, and t hat a cl ose rel at i on shi p b ased on “m utual tru st”
w a s m o re im p o rta n t th a n th e sp e c if ic c o m m iss io n ra te, J .A . 2 9 1 , 3 4 2
. In d e e d , O to s a c tiv e ly
r eas s ur ed K i m t hatt heyw oul d w or k t ogetherunt i l K i m r eac hed hi s 70s
. Y et , as s oon as 2 K i m at t empt ed t o confi r m t hi s under s t andi ng i n w r i t i ng, O t os r efus ed t o s i gn anyagr eement and advi s ed hi m t hatt hi s eff or tconvey ed a “ l ack of t rus t . ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . 6. I n as s es s i ng t he w ei ghtof t he evi dence , w e do not fi nd t hatt he ver di ctof $910, 000 i n favorof O G K s hocks t he cons ci ence , norw as it internal l yi ncons i s t ent . See Sons of T hunder , I nc. v. B or den, I nc. , 690 A
. 2d 575 ( N
. J
. 1997) ; B ak- A
- L um C orp. of A m er i ca v. A l coa Bl dg. Pr ods
. , I nc. , 351 A
. 2d 349 ( N
. J
. 1976)
. A l t hough di ffe r entver di ct s m i ghthave been r eac hed ori m agi ned, a d amages ver di ctw i l l be af fi r m ed i f “ther e i s anyvi ew of t he
c a s e w h ich re c o n c ile s th e [ ju ry’s ] v a ri o u s a n s w e rs .” M c A d a m v . D e a n W itte r R e yn o ld s , In c ., 896 F. 2d 750, 763 ( 3d C i r . 1990) ( quot i ng B r adfor d- W hi t e C orp. v. E r ns t& W hi nney , 872 F. 2d 1153, 1159 ( 3d C i r . 1989) ( emphasi s added) )
. H er e, t her e w as s uffi ci entevi dence of O G K havi ng es t abl i s hed O t os ’ s pr oducti n t he U ni t ed St at es ; O G K havi ng r epr es ent ed O t os fory ear s ; and O G K ’ s ant i ci pat i on of com m i s s i ons i n futur e y ear s . A ccor di ngl y , w e do not f in d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in d e n y in g O to s’s m o tio n f o r a n e w trial.-9-

O t os al s o ar gues t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our t err ed i n i t s char ge t o t he j ur y . O t os cont ends t hatt he cha r ge mi s l ed the j ur y t o bel i eve i t coul d fi nd bot h a br eac h of i m pl i ed cove nantand
a b re a c h o f

c o n tra c t b a se d o n th e s a m e c o n d u c t: th e ter m in a tio n o f th e c o n tra c t. A l t ernat i vel y , O t os s t at es thatt he cha r ge fa i l ed t o i ns t ructt he j ur yon t he nee d t o fi nd “bad f a ith .” T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d noter ri n i t s char ge orrul i ngs . H ence , w e ar e sat i s fi ed thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tJ udge’ s char ge di d not cons t i tut e pl ai n err or . A l t hough t he cl ai m s forbr eac h of i m pl i ed covena nt and br eac h of contr act w er e cl os el yr el at ed, t he j ur yw as i ns t ruct ed that p e rf o rm a n c e is d istin c t f

ro m ter m in a ti o n , a n d it d id n o t co n f late th e tw o c o n c e p ts in
c o n c lu d in g th a t O G K b re a c h e d th e c o n tr a c t w h ile O to s b re a c h e d th e im p lied c o v e n a n t. M or eover , al t hough t he D i s t r i ctC ourt d id noti ns t ructt he j ur yt hati tneede d t o fi nd an aff i r m at i ve ac tof bad f

ai t h o r u n consci onabl e beha vi or , t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d gi ve an i ns t ruct i on t hatcomport ed w ith t he def i ni t i on of “good f

ai t h” i n t he U C C
. See W ade v. K essler In sti tute, 7 7 8 A
. 2 d 5 8 0 , 5 8 9 (N
. J. S u p er. C t. A p p . D iv. 20 0 1 ). O to s ra ise s a h o st o f

o th e r c o m p lain ts, in c lu d in g th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in deny i ng s um m aryj udgm enton O G K ’ s cl ai m forbr eac h of i m pl i ed cove nant ; t hatt he D i s t r i ct C our terr ed i n del ay i ng t he di s m i s s al of O G K ’ s cl ai m t hat K i m ’ s February 5, 2003 fax w as
a s et t l ement offe r , w hi ch al l ow ed day s of t es t i m ony t hat t he j ur y coul d not i gnor e; t hatt he
cur at i ve i ns t ruct i on w as i nadequa t e; and that O G K n evert hel es s us ed exc l uded evi dence regar ding t his set t l em ent offer atcl osi ng argum ent. W e fi nd no m eri ti n these cl ai m s.

### OG K als o argues that the Distri ct Co urt e rr ed in fail ing to d is m is s Otos’ s 3 

### conv er si oncl ai m . W e find n o m erit in this argum ent. We need no t a ddre ss OG K’s third c r os s - c l a i m

a s t o whe the r

i t s c l a i m r e gar di ng the s e tt l e m e nt

offe r s houl d be a l l owe d on retrial b ecau se w e d o n o t rem an df o r a n ewtrial. O G Karg u es th at O to s already receiv edp o st-j u d g m en t interest o na dup licate 4 

### j u d g m en t inK o rea, an dth eref o re sh o u ldn o t receiv e p o st-j u d g m en t interest h ere. Be c aus e the i s s ue of dupl i c at e judgm e nt i s not be for e us and i s not

r e fl e c t e d i n the r e c or d, we de c l i ne OGK’ s i nvi t at i on t o a ddr e s s the i s s ue of dupl i c at e pos t - judgm e nt in terest. -10- O n cross- app eal , O G K request s that the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s j ud gm ent be am end ed as a
m a tter o f law to in c lu d e p o st-ju d g m e n t in ter e st o n th e $ 9 1 0 ,0 0 0
. O to s d o e s n o t o p p o se th is 3 cl ai m butm er el y sta t es t hati tal s o i s ent i t l ed t o pos t - j udgm enti nt er es ton i t s aw ar d of $587, 755. 05. W e agr ee thatpos t - j udgm enti nt erest is a d d ed as a mat t erof l aw . D unn v. H O V IC , 1 3 F .3 d 5 8 , 6 1 -6 2 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 3 ) (“ [ P ]o st-ju d g m e n t in ter e st is a w a rd e d b ysta tu te
as a m att er o f law so itis au tom ati ca ll yad d ed , w h ethe r or n o t the d istri ct c o u rto rde rs i t. ”). A ccordi ng l y , w e w i l l rem and t o the D i stri ctC ou rtt o ad d an aw ard of p ost -j ud gm ent i nter est t o O G K on t he amount of $322, 244. 95— t he di ffe r ence betw een $910, 000 and $587, 755. 05. 4 I V. For t he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or derfi l ed A ugus t13, 2007 as t o t he pr i nci pal amount s , an d rem an d t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tt o add pos t - j udgm ent in ter e st.