FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ULY 5, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 91 4

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cv -2 30 78 -PCH INGASEOSAS INTERNATIONAL CO., Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us ACONCAGUA INVESTING LT D., Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ju ly 5, 20 12 ) Befo re EDMONDSON an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es , andEDENFIELD, * Dis tri ctJu dg e. PER CURI AM:

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ * Honora ble B . Avant Ede nfield, United States District Judge f or the Southern District of Geor g ia, sitting by

desig nation.Thi s i s an ap pe al fro m th e d is tri ctco ur t’s o rd er d is m is si ng a pe ti ti on to
va cat e an in te rn at io na l ar bi tra ti on awardth atha s al ready be enco nf

irmed in a fi na l jud gm en t an d fu ll y

sat is fie d i n t he Bri ti sh Virg in Isl an ds . The fac ts of t hi s ca se
are u nd is pu te d, an d o urho ld in g i s l im it edto th es e p art ic ul ar fa ct s. Aft er carefu l
rev ie w, we affi rm

th e d is tri ctco ur t’s jud gm en t.

I. In ga se os as Int ern at io na l Co . (“ IIC” ) an d Aco nc ag uaInv es ti ng Ltd . (“ AIL”) are b ot h B rit is h Vi rg inIsl an ds co m pa ni es wit h p rin ci pa l p la ces of b us in es s i n t he Bri ti sh Virg inIsl an ds . In Fe br ua ry of 2 00 8, II C ag reedto sel l AIL s ha res it
own edin an ot he r Bri ti sh Virg in Isl an ds co rp or at io n wi th Co ca-C ol a Bo tt li ng Co m pa ny franc hi se rig ht s. Th ei r st oc k p ur ch as e ag reem en t p ro vi de d t ha t II C an d AIL wou ldres ol ve an y

di sp ut es th ro ug h afin al , bi nd in g a rb it rat io n t o b e se at edin Mi am i, Fl or id a, an d g ov ern edby N ew York l aw. The tran sa ct io n c on te m pl at edby th e st oc k p ur ch as e ag reem en t d idno t cl os e as pl an ne d. In Octo be r of 20 08 , cl ai m in g b reac h o f co nt ract , AIL in it ia te d a n a rb it rat io n p ro ceed in g a ga in stIIC i n Mi am i; IIC, rep res en te d b y co un se l, fi le d aco un te rcl ai m wit h the arb it rat orag ai ns t AIL. The p art ie s p art ic ip at edin anarb it rat io n h eari ng . On Aug us t 2 0, 2 00 9, t he arb it rat oris su edhi s fi na l awa rd , requi rin g II C to pa y ap pr ox im at el y

$1 1 m il li on to AIL wit hi n t hi rty days.
2By

th e ex pi rat io n o f th e th irt y -d ay pe rio d, II C h adno t p ai d AIL t he am ou nt requi redby the arb itrat io n a ward . There fo re, o n S ep te m be r 22 , 20 09 , pu rs ua ntto th e Co nv en ti on on th e Rec og ni ti on an d En fo rcem en t o f Fo rei gn Arbi tra l Award s, op en edforsi gn atur e Ju ne 10 , 19 58 , 21 U.S.T. 251 7, 3 30 U.N.T. S. 38 (“New York Co nv en ti on ” o r “ Co nv en ti on ”), AIL ap pl ie d t o the Hig h C ou rt o f th e Bri ti sh Virg in Isl an ds (“ BVI co urt” ) to en fo rce t he awardan d i nc or po rat e itin to a jud gm en t. In re sp on se , on Octo be r 14 , 20 09 , IIC fi le d am ot io n t o v acat e th e

1 arb it rat io n a wardin th e d is tri ctco ur t. 2 IIC n ot ifi edth e BVI co urt o f th e v acaturpro ceed in gs , andin res po ns e to a reque stby IIC, th e BVI co urt s ta y edth e en fo rcem en t ac ti on for on e week , un ti l Nov em be r 12 , 20 09 . The BVI c ou rt’s o rd er s ta te d t ha t i f IIC p ro vi de d s ecu rit y in th e am ou ntof app ro xi m at el y $7 m il li on , th e st ay

“ wou ldco nt in ue un ti l t he de te rm in at io n o f [IIC ’s] Mo ti on to Vacat e th e Arb it rat io n Awar d” in th e d is tri ct
co urt. IIC ch os e n otto pa y th e se cu rit y

an d c ho se no t t o app eal th e BVI co ur t 3
It is undisput ed that AILproper ly soug ht enforc ement of the awa rd in the B VI 1 court. Unde r the ter

ms of the New

York Convention, AI L

could have filed an e nforc ement action in any

of the ove r 140 contra ctingstates, other tha n any state whe re the awa

rd wa s rende red or

wher e the a

war d is “consider ed as dome stic.” See Convention, Ar t. 1. Notably , the B VI

court ha d schedule d a hea ringon AI L ’s application to enforce 2 the awa rd for October 15, 2009. As such, I I C’s initi al vac atur pe tition was filed one day befor e the hea ringon AI L ’s enf

orce ment application. After ref using to sell the bottling c ompany stock to AI L , thus breac hing its 3 contra ct of sale with AI L , I I C sold that st ock to a third pa rty for a pproxi mately

$13 milli on. The 3or de r req ui rin g i t. Acco rd in gl y , th e st ay was l ift ed , andonNov em be r 12 , 20 09 , th e BVI co urt en te redanord er g ran ti ng AIL leav e to en fo rce t he fin al arb it ral awardan d ajud gm en t i n fa vo r of AIL andag ai ns t II C in th e sa m e te rm s as th at award . IIC ag ai n o pt edno t t o app eal . On Nov em be r 30 , 20 09 , AIL fil edin th e di st ric t co urt i ts op po si ti on to IIC’s m ot io n t o v acat e, as well as acro ss -m ot io n
se ek in g c on firm at io n o f th e award
. Whe n II C ref

us edto pa y

th e fi na l ju dg m en t, AIL reque st edth atth e BVI
co urt ap po in t l iq ui da to rs forIIC i n o rd er t o s ecu re p aym en t. IIC ag ai n m ov edfor a st ay of t he BVI p ro ceed in gs pe nd in g t he va catur act io n i n t he di st ric t co ur t. On 4 Ja nu ary 25 , 20 10 , th e BVI co urt d ecl in edto ord er a s ta y an d app oi nt edli qu id at or s fo r IIC. IIC di d n otap pe al th e BVI co ur t’s d en ia l o f it s s eco ndreque stfor a st ay
orth e co urt’s ap po in tm en t o f li qu id at or s. On Fe brua ry

4, 2 01 0, t he di st ric t co ur t h el d ast atus co nf eren ce “ to di sc us s ho w bes t t o p ro ceedon th e cro ss -m ot io ns to va cat e/ co nf irm th e arb itral awardin th is cas e.” The li qu id at or s h ire d n ew, in de pe nd en t co un se l wh o app eare d a t t he

amount of the bond re quired by the B VI court c orre sponded with an installment pay ment that I I C was sche duled to rec eive a t that time from the new pur chase r. There is nothing in the re cord or the par ties’ brief s to sugg est that I I C indicated 4 any rea diness to give appropr iate sec urity at that time. 4st atus co nf

eren ce o n the ir b eh al f. The l iq ui da to rs ’ co un se l i nf orm edth e d is tri ct 5
co urt o f th e li qu id at io n, ex pl ai ni ng th atth e li qu id at or s n eed edti m e to ev al ua te th e
m eri ts of I IC’s p et it io n t o v acat e th e awardin ord er t o d et erm in e whe th er i t wo ul d be wort h t he ti m e, effo rt, a ndm on ey to pu rs ue IIC’s cl ai m . Accor di ng ly, atth e reque stof t he li qu id at or s an d wi th th e co ns en t o f al l p art ie s p res en t, t he di st ric t
co urt s ta y edth e cas e in ord er t o a ll ow t he li qu id at or s t im e to de ci de ho w to pr oc eed . The d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er ex pl ai ne d t ha t t he cas e co ul d b e reo pe ne d b y
an ap pr op ria te m ot io n fr om eit he r pa rty. U

po n re vi ew, th e li qu id at or s’ cou ns el ul ti m at el y

ad vi se d t he li qu id at or s t ha t t he pro sp ect s o f su cces s o f IIC’s m ot io n t o
va cat e were “ ex ceed in gl y lo w.” As s uc h, t he li qu id at or s n ev er s ou gh t t o l iftth e st ay inth e d is tri ctco urt ca se . Rath er, t he y pro ceed ed , pu rs ua ntto th e m an da te of th e BVI co urt, t o l iq ui da te su ffi ci en t as se ts of I IC t o s at is fy IIC’s l iabi li ty to AIL. One of I IC’s s ha reh ol de rs reque st edpe rm is si on fro m th e BVI co urt t o
as su m e co nt ro l o ve r th e m ot io n t o v acat e p en di ng in th e d is tri ctco ur t. The co urt de ni edth is reque st , sp eci fic al ly not in g tha t AIL “ ho ld s an un ap pe al edjud gm en t” th atth e co urt b el ie ve d “ crea te s an est op pe l ag ai ns t t he co m pa ny in t hi s

Acc ordingto an orde r of the B VI court, I I C’s orig inal counsel, who is also the 5 company ’s cur

rent (post-liquidation) c ounsel, attempted to per suade the liquidators to refr ain from informingthe district court that I I C had bee n place d in liquidation. I t was for this reason that the liquidators secur ed re place ment counsel. I I C’s orig inal counsel ne verthe less attended the status confe renc e. 5juri sd ic ti on .” Acco rd in g t o t he BVI co ur t:

Eve n if th e co m

pa ny d idsu ccee d i n s et ti ng asi de th e awardin Fl or id a, it wou ld st il l rem ai n a jud gm en t de bt or he re. . . . No reas on is adva nc ed why th e fact t h a t th e award ha d be en se t as id e in Fl or id a sh ou ld be cap ab le of ha vi ng an y im pa ct up on th e jud gm en t ob ta i n ed he re. Any s u gg es ti on th at it m ig ht se em s to m e to be in co ns is te nt wit h th e pr in ci pl es un de rlyin g th e en fo rcem en t of New York Co nve nti on aw ard s. The co urt p oi nt edou t tha t n ob ody ha d s ug ge st edth atth e g ran ti ng of AIL’s
en fo rcem en t ap pl ic at io n was fla wed . In s um , th e BVI co ur t was un wil li ng to al lo w IIC’s s ha reh ol de r to pro se cu te th e m ot io n t o v acat e in th e d is tri ctco ur t be cau se , “ ev en on th e as su m pt io n t ha t, co nt rary to t he ad vi ce re cei ve d b y th e joi nt li qu id at or s, t he m ot io n wi ll su ccee d, . . . th at[m ot io n] wou ldha ve no im pa cton [AIL’s] st atus as ajud gm en t cr ed it or .” Neve rth el es s, i n o rd er t o e ns ur e n o 6 pr ejud ic e to IIC’s p os it io n i n t he di st ric t co ur t, t he BVI co ur t d ire ct edth e li qu id at or s n otto di sc on ti nu e th e v acat ur pro ceed in gs . Des pi te IIC’s res is ta nc e, th e li qu id at or s wer e ab le to co ll ectsu ffi ci en t 7 fu nd s t o c ov er AIL’s jud gm en t. As n ot edab ov e, aft er re fu si ng to sel l t he bo tt li ng

The B VI court noted that “if the a

war d wer e to be se t aside for fra ud or mistake” 6 the outcome c ould be diffe rent. How ever , the cour t continued to explain: “[ I I C] has not (or ha s not y et) sug g ested that.”

Acc ordingto the BV I

court, I I C threatene d to sue the liquidators for illeg ally 7 assisting AI Land dama g ing I I C. I I C also refuse d to disclose cer tain information to the liquidators that they

wer e unconditionally

entitled to, and it attempted to persua de the ne w purcha ser of

the share s in the bottli ngcompany not to pay . 6co m

pa ny sto ckto AIL, thus bre ach in g t he co nt ractwith AIL, IIC so ldth e st oc k t o a th irdparty. T he li qu id at or s wer e ab le to co ns umm at e th atsal e, an d t he li qu id at or s re cei ve d fr om th e n ew pu rch as er s uf

fic ie ntfun ds to pa y

off IIC’s $ 11
m il li on li ab il it y

to AIL, th ereb y

sat is fy in g the BVI co ur t ju dg m en t. Aft er t he jud gm en t was pa id , IIC was tak en ou t o f li qu id at io n, as th e co m pa ny turne d o utto be so lv en t. At t ha t p oi nt , IIC’s ad m in is tra ti on was re tu rn edto it s b oa rdof di rect or s. Subs eque nt ly, on Decem

be r 7, 2 01 0, II C m ov edto reo pe n t he va catur pr oc eed in gs in th e d is tri ctco urt. AIL op po se d re op en in g t he cas e an d fi le d a
cro ss -m ot io n t o d is m is s t he pe ti ti on to va cat e th e award . AIL argu edth atth e di st ric t co urt was wit ho utsubjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er t he va catur
m ot io n a ndth atIIC was en ga gi ng in fut il e p os t-a rb it rat io n l it ig at io n. On Jan ua ry 13 , 20 11 , th e d is tri ctco urt h el d ahe ari ng on IIC’s m ot io n t o re op en th e cas e. The
co urt l ift edth e st ay ; h owe ve r, on Feb ru ary 10 , 20 11 , itgra nt edAIL’ s m ot io n t o di sm is s. Th e co urt h el d tha t, al th ou gh itwou ldha ve ha d ju ris di ct io n o ve r a
m ot io n t o e nf

or ce t he award , 9 U.S.C. § 20 3 d idno t p ro vi de subjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on ov er t he m ot io n t o v acat e it
. II. W e aff irm th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l o f th is cas e, al th ou gh we rel y up on a
7di ffer en t g ro un d. We con cl ud e th atev en ts ha ve tra ns pi redsu ch th atth e d is tri ct

co urt i s u nabl e to gra ntIIC ef fect iv e rel ie f, an d t hu s t he cas e is m oo t. See C&C Pro ds ., Inc . v. Me ss ic k, 7 00 F.2d63 5, 6 36 (11 th Cir . 19 83 ) (“ If l at er ev en ts pr ecl ud e th e g ran t o f effe ct iv e rel ie f, th e ap pe al m us t b e d is m is se d a s m oo t.”) ; In re Cl ub Ass oc s., 9 56 F.2d10 65 , 10 69 (11 th Cir . 19 92 ) (“ Cen tra l t o afin di ng of
m oo tn es s i s a d et erm in at io n b y anap pe ll at e co ur t t ha t i t ca nn otgra nteffe ct iv e jud ic ia l re li ef.”)
. Afte r AIL fil eda m ot io n t o c on firm an d e nf or ce the arb it rat io n a wardin th e BVI co urt, IIC in it ia te d t he in st an t ac ti on in th e d is tri ctco ur t b y fil in g am ot io n t o
va cat e th e award . Sub se qu en t t he ret o, h owe ve r, th e BVI co ur t p ro vi de d a n op po rtu ni ty for IIC to st ay th e en fo rcem en t p ro ceed in gs pe nd in g t he res ul ts of t he di st ric t co urt ac ti on , up on po st in g b on d. Aft er IIC fai le d t o p os t b on d, t he BVI
co urt p ro ceed edan d e nf

or cedth e award , reduc editto a jud gm en t i n fa vo r of AIL,
an d app oi nt edli qu id at or s o f IIC wh o l iq ui da te d t he ass et s o f IIC a ndth en pa idth e jud gm en t i n fu ll . IIC, whi ch was re pr es en te d b y co un se l thr ou gh ou t al l t he pr oc eed in gs be fo re the arb it rat or s an d b efo re t he BVI co urt, n ev er ap pe al edth e BVI co urt’s d eci si on s. Thu s, s ub se qu en t t o t he fil in g o f IIC’s m ot io n t o v acat e 8

To rec ap, I I C did not appeal the B VI court’s r equire ment of a bond to c ontinue a 8 stay of its proce eding s pendingthose in the district court, the amount of the bond, the enfor ceme nt of the aw ard, the appointment of liquidators, or the ultimate satisfa ction of the 8an d dur in g t he pe nd en cy of t he in st an t ac ti on , th e BVI co ur t en fo rcedth e arb it ral awardat i ss ue by ent eri ng a fi na l, u napp eal edjud gm en t ag ai ns t II C an d i n fa vo r of AIL, andth atjud gm en t—whi ch in co rp or at edth e te rm s o f th e arb itrat io n award—was ful ly sati sf

ie d b y IIC. Alt ho ug h t he m oo tn es s que st io n was li ti ga te d i n t he di st ric t co ur t an d br ie fedin th e in it ia l b rie fin g o n app eal , andde sp it e in te ns iv e que st io ni ng at o ral arg um en t an d a n o pp ortu ni ty for ad di ti on al , supp le m en ta ry bri efi ng in th is Co urt, IIC h as fai le d t o c it e an y

pre ced en t o r au th or it y

th atwou lden ab le th e d is tri ctco urt to pro vi de effe ct iv e rel ie f un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces . After e xt en si ve res earc h, we to o h av e fo un d n o s uc h p rece de nt . To th e co nt rary, ourres earc h u nc ov eredth e fo ll owi ng cas e whi chho ld s t ha t a p art y can no t i dl y

st an d b y an d a ll ow an arb it rat io n a wardto be co nf irmed an d t he n s eekto th e v acat e sa m e. The S eco nd Ci rcu itde ci si on in The Har tb rid ge , 57 F.2d67 2 (2 d C ir. 1 93 2) (be fo re L. Han d, Swan n, an d Au gu stus Hand , Cir cu itJu dg es ) he ld : As we un de rs ta nd th e st atut e a m ot io n to co nf irm pu ts th e ot he r pa rty to hi s ob jecti on s. He can no t id ly st an d b y, a l l o w th e award to be co nf irmed an d jud gm en t th ereo n en te red , an d th en m ov e to va cat e th e award jus t as th ou gh no jud gm en t ex is te d.
. . . Afte r jud gm en t we th in k th e award can be va cat ed on ly if th e jud gm en t can be , an d to va cat e th e jud gm en t an ad equa te ex cu se m us t be sh own fo r no t ha vi ng pr e s e nt ed ob jecti on s t o t he awardwhen th e m ot io n t o c on firm was h eard
. judgme nt. 9Id . at 6 73
. 9

IIC d oe s n otdi sp ut e th e fac t t ha t the BVI co urt h adjuri sd ic ti on to co nf irm
an d e nf or ce t he arb itrat io n a ward . Nor d oe s II C d is pu te th e fac t t ha t Art ic le VI of th e Co nv en ti on co nf

erre d aut ho rit y

up on th e BVI co urt t o re qu ire bo ndto st ay it s pr oc eed in gs when no ti fie d o f IIC’s m ot io n t o v acat e th e awardin th e d is tri ctco urt. See C on ve nt io n, Art ic le VI. Mor eo ve r, si gn ifi can tl y , IIC h as ne ve r ch al le ng edth e
reas on ab le ne ss of t he bo ndrequi redby the BVI co ur t. In st ead , th e rec or d in di cat es th atth e am ou ntof t he bo ndwas re as on ab le , andth atIIC h adth e ab il it y to pa y same. See n ot e 3 , supr a. Noton ly didIIC fa il to ap pe al an y of t he act io ns of th e BVI co urt, b utco un se l fo r IIC a gr eedin th e d is tri ctco ur t t o s ta y th e v acat ur pr oc eed in gs , in effe ctag reei ng th atth e p ro ceed in gs pu rs ua ntto th e BVI co ur t’s
m an da te sh ou ldgo forwardan d t ak e p rece de nc e o ve r th e v acaturpro ceed in gs in th e d is tri ctco urt. IIC h adam pl e o pp or tu ni ty to s ta y

th e en fo rcem en t p ro ceed in gs 1 0
Of c ourse, The Har

tbridg e ar ose in a diff

ere nt context, i nvolving a domestic 9 arbitra l awar d that was c onfirmed unde r the provisions of the F eder al Arbitration Act. 57 F.2d at 673. That ca se did not involve an aw ard that fell under the terms of the N ew Yor k Convention. We never theless find the re asoningof The H artbridg e for cef ul give n the fa cts of the c ase at bar. At the Fe bruar

y 4, 2010, status confe renc e, counse l for I I C’s liquidators 1 0 aff irmatively

reque sted that the district court stay the vac atur proc eeding s in order to a llow time to evaluate I I C’s petition to vacate a nd deter mine how to best proce ed. Counsel for A I L consente d to the stay . Notably , counsel for I I C—the corpor ation’s pre -liquidation and curr ent counsel—wa s also prese nt at the status confe renc e. I I C’s counsel did not object to a stay or express any

conce rn whatsoever; in fa ct, the tra nscript re veals that I I C’s counsel wa s appar ently in agree ment that a stay

of the district cour

t action was a

ppropriate . At the ver

y least, I I C’s 10in th e BVI co urt i n o rd er t o p ro ceedfir stwith i ts m ot io n t o v acat e in th e d is tri ct

co urt, b utin st ead , st oo d i dl y by whi le th e arb it ral awardat i ss ue in th is cas e was
co nf irmed, en te redin to a jud gm en t, an d s at is fie d i n t he Bri ti sh Virg in Isl an ds
. IIC d oe s ar gu e th atitwas a gr eedth atNew Yorklaw wo ul d g ov ern an d t he arb it rat io n wo ul d t ak e p la ce i n M ia m i, an d d oe s p oi ntou t t ha t t he Mi am i d is tri ct
co urt wo ul d t he refo re b e co ns id ereda co urt o f “pr im ary juri sd ic ti on .” IIC t he n 1 1
va gu el y su gg es ts th at , eve n u nd er t he un iq ue cir cu m st an ces of t hi s ca se , as t he pr im ary juri sd ic ti on , th e d is tri ctco ur t h as au th or ity to si m pl y ig no re t he pre vi ou s jud gm en t o f th e BVI co urt an d o rd er eff ect iv e rel ie f no twi th st an di ng . Howev er, IIC h as cit edno cas e o r ot he r au th or it y whi ch st an ds forsu ch a pr op os it io n. Ou r
res earc h h as fou ndno ne . W e se e n ot hi ng inth e la ng ua ge of t he Co nv en ti on whi ch
su gg es ts su ch a pr op os it io n. To th e co nt rary, Arti cl e VI o f th e Co nv en ti on counsel, by

its sil ence , implicitl y

agree d to entry

of the stay . See District Court orde r, Doc ket No. 26 at 1 (“ The liquidators have reque sted that this case be held in abeyance until he [ sic] can revie w the matter

and make a business judg ment on how best to proce ed, and the parties have agreed to stay the c ase .”) ( emphasis adde d).

The nomenc latures of

“ primaryjurisdiction” and “secondary jurisdiction” wer e 1 1 develope d by

the Fif th Circuit in Karaha

Boda s Co. v. Perusahaa

n Pertambang an Minyak Da n Gas B umi Neg ara , 335 F.3d 357, 367- 68 (5th Cir. 2003). This terminolog y is used to describe the binary scheme under the New Y ork Convention for a ddressingnon-domestic ar bitrations; the Convention assigns diff

ere nt roles to the cour

ts in the country

in which, or unde r the lawof which, an a

war d is render ed—primar y -jurisdiction courts—and the courts of a ll other signatory countries—se condar

y -jurisdiction courts. I d. at 368. In short, seconda ry -jurisdiction courts have limit ed author ity

to reviewand dec ide whethe r to enfor ce a fore ign a rbitral aw ard, while primary
jurisdiction courts have the exclusive authority to affir matively set aside or

annul the aw ard. I d.
11ex pr es sl y

co nt em pl at es a si tu at io n wh ere aco ur t o f se co nd ary juri sd ic ti on ha s a pe nd in g m ot io n t o e nf

or ce an arb it rat io n a ward , andwher e an ap pl ic at io n t o s et
as id e th e awardis m ad e to a pr im ary-j ur is di ct io n c ou rt. In th atsi tu at io n, t he Co nv en ti on pro vi de s t ha t t he sec on da ry -juri sd ic ti on co ur t “ m ay , if i t co ns id ers it pr op er” s ta y

it s p ro ceed in gs , andm ay co nd it io n s uc h ast ay

up on th e p ro vi si on of bo nd . See Co nv en ti on , Arti cl e VI. Thu s, u nd er Art ic le VI, alt ho ug h apa rty
se ek in g t o v acat e anawardin a co ur t o f pr im ary juri sd ic ti on sh ou ldha ve an op po rtu ni ty to s ta y

en fo rcem en t o f th e awardina se co nd ary-j ur is di ct io n c ou rt, i f th atpa rty decl in es to po stbo nd , th e se co nd ary-j ur is di ct io n c ou rt c le arl y ha s
au th or it y to pro ceedun in te rrupt edwit h i ts en fo rcem en t p ro ceed in gs . The im pl ic at io n o f Arti cl e VI is th ata pa rty who f ai ls to po stbo nd(an d t hu s fa il s t o pr ot ectit s p ro ceed in gs to va cat e in th e p rimary juri sd ic ti on ) ri sk s l os in g t he be ne fitof a ny sup eri orfor ce t he pri m ary juri sd ic ti on wou ldot he rwis e h av e h ad , an d t ak es it s ch an ces inth e se co nd ary-j ur is di ct io n c ou rt. II C is in th e sh oe s o f th e pa rty who d ecl in edto po stbo nd . Thu s, t he lan gu ag e o f th e Co nv en ti on carr ie s im pl ic at io ns co nt rary to II C’s va gu e su gg es ti on th atth e m ere f actof t he di st ric t
co urt’s p rimary -juri sd ic ti on st atus m ak es itsu chth atth e d is tri ctco ur t ca n p ro vi de effe ct iv e rel ie f he re n ot wit hs ta nd in g t he fin al , un ap pe al edjud gm en t en fo rci ng th e arb it rat io n a wardin th e BVI co urt.
12It i s t ru e th atth e Co nv en ti on “ en vi si on s m ul ti pl e p ro ceed in gs th atad dr es s th e sa m e su bs ta nt iv e ch al le ng es to anarb itral award .” Karah a Bo da s C o. v . Peru sa ha an Pert am

ba ng an Mi nyak Dan Gas B um i Neg ara, 3 35 F.3d35 7, 3 67 (5t h Ci r. 20 03 ). Becaus e o f th is , we can im ag in e cas es wher e a co urt o f pr im ary juri sd ic ti on co ul d p ro vi de effe ct iv e rel ie f by vaca ti ng anarb it ral award
no twi th st an di ng anin co ns is te ntpre vi ou s d eci si on of asec on da ry -juri sd ic ti on
co urt en fo rci ng th e award . For e xa m pl e, if a se co nd ary-j ur is di ct io n c ou rt r acedto a jud gm en t t o c on firm

an d e nf or ce an award , if the pa rty seek in g t o v acat e th e awardin a pr im ary-j ur is di ct io n c ou rt wa s n otgi ve n the op po rtu ni ty to p os t b on d
an d s tay th e en fo rcem en t p ro ceed in gs in a se co nd ary-j ur is di ct io n c ou rt, o r if th e juri sd ic ti on of t he pri m ary-j ur is di ct io n c ou rt i s o th erwi se us ur pe d b y a se co nd aryjuri sd ic ti on co urt, we ac kn owl ed ge th ata m uc h m or e p ers ua si ve arg um en t co ul d be m ad e an d t ha t a d iff

eren t o ut co m e co ul d b e warra nt ed . W e n eedno t— an d we do no t— ad dr es s s uc h acas e. As n ot edab ov e, th e fac ts of t he in st an t ca se are t he 1 2 po la r op po si te of any suc h p ers ua si ve cas e. The fa ct s h ere a re u ni qu e, in vo lv in g a pa rty, IIC, who rep eat ed ly fail edto pro te ctit s ri gh ts in th e BVI co ur t, an d wh o,

Our opinion today

should not be construed a s holding that the judgment of a 1 2 seconda ry -jurisdiction court enf

orcingan ar

bitral awa rd automatica lly

divests courts in the seat of the a rbitration of their jur isdiction over the aw ard—i.e ., their authority to subsequently

set aside or a nnul the awa

rd. 13aft er d et erm in in g t ha t t he pro sp ect s o f su cces s o n i ts m ot io n t o v acat e were

“ ex ceed in gl y

lo w,” actua ll y

en co ur ag edth e p rece de nc e o f th e BVI co ur t pr oc eed in gs (co ns en ti ng to a st ay in th e d is tri ctco ur t, t he effe ctof wh ic h was to al lo w th e p ro ceed in gs inth e BVI co ur t t o t ak e p rece de nc e). As i n Th e Hartbr id ge , IIC s im pl y st oo d i dl y

by. 57 F.2dat 6 73 . W e can no t co nc lu de th atth e fac t t ha t th e d is tri ctco urt i s a c ou rt o f pr im ary juri sd ic ti on—wi th ou t m or e—d em on st rat es th atth ere c ou ldbe effe ct iv e jud ic ia l re li ef i n t hi s ca se . Inatt em pt in g t o d em on st rat e h ow a d is tri ctco ur t o rd er v acat in g t he award
co ul d p ro vi de effe ct iv e rel ie f, IIC m ak es a va gu e an d c on cl us ory ass ert io n t ha t, i f IIC “ were t o d ecl in e to return t he Awardpro ceed s upo n ava caturby the Trial Co urt fo ll owi ng a rem an d fr om th is Co ur t, [II C] cou ldsee k i n t he BVI co ur t an
an nu lm en t o f th e [Br it is h Vi rg inIsl an ds ] jud gm en t.” IIC fai ls to cit e an y 1 3 pr eced en t o r au th or it y

in supp ort o f th is ass ert io n. Ou r own res earc h re ve al s t ha t
se ve ral co m

m en ta to rs ha ve op in edth ata co ur t o f pr im ary juri sd ic ti on wou ldha ve th e p owe r un de r th e Co nv en ti on ’s sch em e to va cat e an arb it rat io n award
no twi th st an di ng th e fac t t ha t i t h adpre vi ou sl y be enen fo rcedby a cou rt o f

I I C’s sugg estion that a vac atur would lea d to a sec ond arbitration in which the 1 3 arbitrator could “c onsider[] money s obtained by [AI L ] t o satisfy

the Awa rd as a n element of damag es flowingfrom the pa rties’ c ontrac tual dispute” is wholly without merit and does not war rant e x tended discussion. 14se co nd ary juri sd ic ti on . Thes e co m m en ta to rs su gg es t t ha t t he pa rty, upo n 1 4 ob ta in in g s uc h ava caturjud gm en t, co ul d re tu rn to th e se co nd ary-j ur is di ct io n c ou rt
an d s eekto setasi de th e jud gm en t o f th atco ur t wh ic h h adpre vi ou sl y en fo rcedth e awardor i ns ti tu te a res ti tu ti on act io n i n t he en fo rci ng co ur t t o re co ve r am ou nt s pa idpu rs ua ntto th atjud gm en t. Forsev eral reas on s, h owe ve r, we do no t b el ie ve 1 5 th e in st an t ca se pre se nt s an y po ss ib le pro sp ectof e ffec ti ve rel ie f fo r IIC. M os t si gn ifi can tl y , th e BVI co urt h as alr ead y in di cat edth atva caturof t he awardin th e di st ric t co urt wo ul d h av e n o e ffec t o n i ts fin al , un ap pe al edjud gm en t, i n the ab se nc e o f frau d o r m is ta ke . And , des pi te am pl e o pp or tu ni ty, IIC h as pro ffer edno fact s s ug ge st in g fr au d o r m is ta ke or a ny oth er p os si bl e b as is forco ll at eral ly at ta ck in g the jud gm en t o f th e BVI co ur t. Mo reo ve r, who ll y asi de fro m

th e li qu id at or s’ cou ns el ’s est im at io n t ha t t he m ot io n t o v acat e h adan“ ex ceed in gl y lo w” pr os pe ctof s uc ces s, i n l ig htof t he ob vi ou s fa il ur e o f IIC t o p ro te ctit s ri gh ts

Importantly , howeve r, as one commentator ha s expl ained, suc h a situation “is 1 4 likely not to occur” in prac tice bec ause, when ther e ar e doubts about the va lidity of the a war d that could lead to a

setting a side, the sec ondary-jurisdiction court has the power to adjourn its decision on enf

orce ment pendinga dec ision in t he countr y of orig in. See Alber

t J an van de n Be rg , The Ne w York Arbitration Convention of 1958, at 351 (1981)
.

See, e.g ., Albert Jan van den B erg , The Ne w York Arbitration Convention of 1 5 1958, at 351 (1981); L eonar d V. Quig ley , Acc ession by the United States to the United Na tions Convention on the Recognition and Enforc ement of F oreign Arbitral Aw ards, 70 Ya le L . J . 1049, 1071 (1961); Note, Mic hael H. Strub, Jr., Resisti ngEnforc ement of F oreign Arbitral Aw ards Under Article V (1)( e) a

nd Article V Iof the Ne w York Convention: A Proposal for Effe ctive Guidelines, 68 Tex. L . Rev. 1031, 1062-63 (1990) ; W. M ichae l Tupman, Staying E nforc ement of Arbitral Aw ards unde r the Ne w York Convention, 3 Ar b. Int’l 209, 220 (1987). 15in th e BVI co urt an d i ts ex pr es s co ns en t i n t he di st ric t co urt t ha t t he BVI co ur t

pr oc eed in gs co ul d t ak e p rece de nc e o ve r th os e in th e d is tri ctco ur t, t he po ss ib il it y of IIC o bt ai ni ng a va caturis ex tre m el y rem ot e, if

no t n on -ex is te nt . Fin al ly, no ne of th e ab ov e-m en ti on edco m m en ta to rs ha ve su gg es te d t he po ss ib il it y of r el ie f in a factua l s itua ti on si m il ar t o t he in st an t u ni qu e fac ts . Eve n i f th is ap pe al is no t t ech ni cal ly m oo t, we h ol d t ha t i t s ho ul d b e tr eat ed
as su ch forpru de nt ia l re as on s. See Jo rd an v. So sa , 65 4 F .3d10 12 , 10 33 (10 th Cir
. 20 11 ) (“ Eve n i f we were t o c on cl ud e th at[th e p la in ti ff’s] clai m s co ul d s urvi ve ou r
co ns ti tu ti on al -m oo tn es s i nq ui ry , we wou ldba r th os e cl ai m s o n p ru de nt ia lm oo tn es s g ro un ds .”); Uni te d S ta te s v . (Und er Se al ), 75 7 F .2d60 0, 6 03 (4t h C ir. 19 85 ) (“ Pas si ng th e p os si bl y di ffi cu ltco nc ep tu al qu es ti on of wh et he r th e ap pe al ha s b eenm oo te d i n c on st itut io na l ca se or c on tro ve rs y term s, we co nc lu de th at , in
an y ev en t, we s ho ul d t reatitas m oo t fo r prud en ti al reas on s.”) . Purs ua ntto th e do ct rin e o f prud en ti al m oo tn es s, we m ay ex erci se ou r di sc ret io n a ndde cl in e to gr an t d ecl arat ory

rel ie f in th e co nt ex t o f a co nt ro ve rs y th atha s b eco m e “ so at te nu at edth atco ns id erat io ns of p ru de nc e an d c om it y . . . co un se l t he co urt t o s ta y it s h an d, an d t o wi th ho ldrel ie f itha s the po wer t o g ran t.” Ch am be r of Co m m erce v. U.S. Dep ’t of En erg y , 62 7 F .2d28 9, 2 91 (D.C. Cir . 19 80 ). The cr it ic al qu es ti on be co m es “ whe th er ch an ge s i n c irc um st an ces th atpre va il edat t he be gi nn in g o f th e 16li ti ga ti on ha ve for es ta ll edan y oc cas io n fo r m ean in gf

ul rel ie f.” In t’l Bh d. o f Bo il erm ak ers v. Kel ly, 81 5 F .2d91 2, 9 15 (3dCir . 19 87 ). As o ne of o ursi st er ci rcu it s h as ex pl ai ne d: Whe re it is so un li ke ly th at th e co ur t’s gr an t of de cl arat ory jud gm en t wil l ac tu al ly reli ev e th e in jury, th e do ct rin e of pr

ud en ti al m oo tn es s— a face t of equi ty—co m es in to pl ay . Thi s co nc ep t i s co nc ern ed , no t with th e co urt’s po wer un de r Arti cl e III to pr ov id e rel ie f, bu t wit h th e co ur t’s di sc ret io n in ex erci si ng th at po wer. Decl arat ory rel ie f, li ke ot he r fo rm s of equi tabl e rel ie f, is di sc ret io na ry . . . . Whe r e i t i s u n c ert ai n th at de cl arat ory rel ie f wil l be ne fit th e pa rty a l l eg in g in jury, th e co ur t wil l no rm al ly refrai n fr om

ex erci si ng it s eq ui tabl e p owe rs . Pen th ou se Int ’l, Ltd. v . Mees e, 93 9 F .2d10 11 , 10 19 -2 0 (D.C . Cir . 19 91 ) (ci ta ti on s
om it te d)
. Eve n i f IIC wer e so m eh ow ab le to pe rs ua de th e d is tri ctco ur t o n re m an d t o
va cat e th e awardat i ss ue , we can no t s ee h ow an ord er fro m th atco ur t wo ul d pr ov id e IIC wit h a ny mea ni ng fu l rel ie f. Fir st , itis un cert ai n h ow II C wou ld at te m ptto pro ceedin th e ev en t t ha t i t o bt ai ne d ava caturjud gm en t fr om th e d is tri ct
co urt. As ares ul t o f it s o wn l it ig at io n d eci si on s, II C fi nd s i ts el f in th is un ique si tu at io n i n wh ic h a ny effect iv e rel ie f is so rem ot e. IIC h as cit edno au th or it y in
supp ort o f it s co nc lu so ry

ass ert io n t ha t a v acaturwou lden ab le itto see k re li ef i n th e BVI co urt; an d i t i s o nl y by ourown res earc h t ha t we h av e d is co ve red
co m m en ta to rs op in in g t ha t i t i s t he or et ic al ly pos si bl e fo r a p arty who ob ta in s a

17va caturof a n a lre ady -en fo rcedan d s at is fie d C on ve nt io n a wardto return t o t he

en fo rci ng co urt an d fi le so m e type o f res ti tu ti on act io n. See Al i v Can ge m i, 4 19 1 6 F.3 d 7 22 , 72 4 (8 th Cir . 20 05 ) (en ba nc ) (co nc lu di ng th atcas e was “prud en ti al ly
m oo t i n l ig htof t he m

yria d o f un cert ai nt ie s” ). Mo re i m po rta nt ly, itis ex tre m el y
un li ke ly—if n otim

po ss ib le —t ha t II C wou ldbe ab le to actua ll y rem edy it s al le ge d in jury by un do in g t he co ns eque nc es of t he fin al , un ap pe al ed(an d fu ll y sat is fie d) jud gm en t o f th e BVI co urt. As d is cu ss ed , IIC d idno t t ak e ad va nt ag e o f th e 1 7
Some courts have found that, pursua nt to the express terms of the Convention, a 1 6 seconda ry -jurisdiction court has discr etion to enforc e an a war d even when ther e has be en a prior annulment of the a

war d in the primary-jurisdiction court. See, e .g ., Kar aha B odas Co. v. Perusaha an Pertambang an Minyak Da n Gas B umi Neg ara , 335 F.3d 357, 369 ( 5th Cir. 2003) (“A s an enf

orce ment jurisdiction, our courts have discretion under the Convention to enforc e an awa rd despite a

nnulment in another c ountry , and have exercised that discr etion in the past.”). The a uthorities are split on t his point. S ee 2 G ary B. B orn, International Comm erc ial Arbitration 2675-99 (2009) (laying out split of authority amongcourts and c ommentators and a naly zing streng th of various a

pproac hes); Te rmorio S.A. v. Electra nta S.P., 487 F.3d 928, 936 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (c oncludingthat Convention includes a “principal pre cept” that “an a rbitration awa

rd does not exi st to be enfor ced in other ContractingStates if it has been la wfully ‘set aside ’ by

a competent a

uthority in the State in which it was made ”); Chromalloy Aer oservice s. v. Arab Republic of Egy

pt, 939 F. Supp. 907, 909 (D.D.C. 1996) ( holding that, a s a sec ondary
jurisdiction court, court ha d discretion to re cognize and enfor ce a n arbitra l awar d notwithstanding a

previous set-a side of the a war d by a cour t in the seat of the a

rbitration). Whether a se condar

y -jurisdiction court has discr etion to enforc e an a war d that has alre ady

been set aside in the pr imary

jurisdiction, or under what circumstanc es enf orce ment of an a lrea dy
vacated awa

rd could be appropr iate, ar e questions that ar e not bef ore us. Ne verthe less, the notion that the Convention may grant the B VI

court discr etion to enforc e an a war d vacated in the primary jurisdiction—even whe re, unlike this ca se, the va catur prece des the enf orce ment application—adds a

n additional layer of

uncer tainty to any eff ective r elief f

or I I C. We note this Court’s prior statement in B.L . Har bert International, L L C v. 1 7 Her cules Steel Co., 441 F.3d 905 ( 11th Cir. 2006): “When a par ty who loses an a

rbitration awa rd assumes a

never -say-die attitude and drag s the dispute throug h the cour t sy stem without an objectively

rea sonable be lief it will prevail, the promise of arbitration is broken. Arbitration’s allure is depe ndent upon the ar bitrator beingthe last dec ision maker in all but the most unusual

18op po rtu ni ty to o bt ai n ast ay of t he en fo rcem en t p ro ceed in gs pe nd in g ade ci si on on it s m ot io n t o v acat e an d a ctua ll y en co ur ag edth e en fo rcem en t p ro ceed in gs in th e BVI co urt t o t ak e p rece de nc e; an d fu rth erm or e, th e BVI co urt h as alr ead y in di cat edth ata subs eque ntva caturof t he awardin th e d is tri ctco urt wo ul d n ot ha ve an y im pa cton th atco urt’s jud gm en t o r AIL’s st atus as ajud gm en t cr ed it or . 1 8 Und er t he cir cu m st an ces , itis pl ai nl y “ un cert ai n tha t d ecl arat ory rel ie f wil l b en efi t th e p art y all eg in g i nju ry .” Pen th ou se , 93 9 F .2dat 1 02 0. Co ns id erat io ns of in te rn at io na l co m it y

an d p ru de nc e co un se l t ha t we s ta y ou r ha ndan d wi th ho ld IIC’s re qu es te d d ecl arat ory rel ie f, an d we h ol d t ha t t he in st an t ca se is pru de nt ia ll y
m oo t.

case s. The more case s there a re, like this one, in which the arbitrator is only the first stop along the way , the less ar

bitration there w ill be. I f ar bitration is to be a meaning ful alternative to litigation, the par

ties must be able to trust that the ar bitrator’s de cision will be honored soone r instead of late r.” I d. at 913.

Our c oncer

ns para llel those that ty

pically arise in the c ontextof a ba nkruptcy 1 8 appea l in which a cour

t is asked to deter

mine whether

a “r eorg anization plan has bee n so substantially

consummated that e ffe ctive re lief is no longe r ava ilable.” In re Club Assocs., 956 F.2d 1065, 1069 ( 11th Cir. 1992) (quotations omitt ed). I n that context, “[ t] he mootness inquiry nece ssarily

involves many

subsidiary

questions,” includingwhether a stay pendingappea l has been obta ined, and if not, why not. I d. at 1069 n.11. Althoug h the fa ilure to obtain a stay pendingappea l in the bankruptcy court will not nece ssarily prec lude appe llate re view, we have held that it is relevant to the c ourt’s “e quities determination which unde rlay the mootness inquiry .” I d. at 1070; see a lso In re Winn-Dixi e Store, I nc., 286 F ed. App’ x 619, 622-23 (11th Cir. 2008) (unpublished) ( consideringparty ’s fa ilure to seek a stay of conf irmation order

pending appea l when ana ly

zing the doctrine of “ equitable mootness”) ; In re H ealthco I nt’l, Inc., 136 F .3d 45, 48 (1st Cir. 1998) (“T he ‘e quitable’ mootness test inquires whe ther a n unwar rante d or repe ated f ailure to re quest a stay

enable d developments to evolve in relianc e on the ba nkruptcy court orde r to the degree that their re mediation has bec ome imprac ticable or impossibl e.”)
. 19III.

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, u nd er t he pa rti cu la r an d u ni qu e fac ts of t he in st an t ca se , we can no t co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco ur t ca n p ro vi de effe ct iv e jud ic ia l re li ef t o II C. W e th eref or e h ol d t ha t t he cas e is m oo t. AFFIR MED.

20