UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
G.E. TRANSPORT S. P .A. and : ATHENA S.A. , : : Petitioners, : C ivil Action No.: 08

- 2 042 (RMU) : v. : Re Document No.: 11 : REPUB LIC OF ALBANIA, : MINISTRY OF PUBLIC W ORKS, : TRANSPORT AND : TELECOMMUNICATIONS , : : Respondent. : MEMORANDUM OPINION G RANTING IN P ART AND D ENYING IN P ART W ITHOUT P REJUDICE THE P ETITIONERS ’ M OTION FOR A D EFAULT J UDGMENT AND C ONFIRMAT ION OF A RBITRAL A WARD I. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the court on the petitioners’ motion for a default judgment and to confirm an arbitral award rendered against the respondent, the Republic of Albania, Mini stry of Public Works, Transport and Te lecommunications (“Albania”) , pursuant to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of June 10, 1958 (“the New York Convention”) , 21 U.S.T. 2517, T.I.A.S. No. 6997

. The petitioners, who entered into a contract with Alban ia to modernize a portion of that nation’s rail network, commenced an arbitration proceeding against Albania in the International Chamber of Commerce, International Court of Arbitration ( “the ICA ” ) , pursuant to an arbitration clause in the underlying agree ment

. At the conclusion of those proceedings, an ICA arbitral tribunal concluded that Albania had failed to fulfill its obligations under the contract and issued an arbitral award in excess of $20 million in favor of the petitioners. The petitioners comm enced this proceeding to enforce the arbitra l award2 against Albania, which has declined to respond to the petition or otherwise participate in these proceedings . Because the petitioners have established to the court’s satisfaction their entitlement to a d efault judgment and confirmation of the arbitral award , the court grants the petitioners’ request for a default judgment and confirms the arbitral award in the amount of $20,664,933.30.
T he petitioners , however, have not explained to the court’s satisfact ion the basis of the pre judgment interest award requested i n the motion; accordingly, the court denies without prejudice the petitioners ’ request for prejudgment interest

.

II. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1 This dispute arises out of a contract execu ted on September 15, 2003, under which the
p etitioners agreed to undertake the modernization of a portion of Albania’s national railway network. See Pet rs’ Mot. at 1; see generally Decl. of Henry Weisburg in Support of Petrs’ Mot. for Default J. & Confirm ation of Arbitral Award (“Weisburg Decl.”), Ex. B (“Contract Agreement”)

. The contract provided that Italian law governed its terms. Contract Agreement § 31. In addition, t he contract included an arbitra tion clause requir ing the parties to submit any di spute arising out of the contract to arbitration proceedings in Rome, Italy under the auspices of the ICA. Id. § 30.2

. The arbitration rules of the ICA provide th at any award issued by an ICA tribunal is binding upon the parties

. 2

1 Because Albania has not entered an appear ance in this case or filed a response to the petition or this motion, the court relies upon the pe titioners’ account of the f actual history of this case. See Pet rs’ Mot. at 2.

2 Article 28(6) of the ICA rules provides that “[e]very Award shall be binding on the parties” and that “[b]y submitting the dispute to arbitration under these Rules, the parties undertake to carry out any Award without delay and shall be deemed to have waived their right to any form of recourse insofar as such waiver can validly by made.” Int’l Chamber of Commerce, Rules of Arbitration, art. 28(6), http://www.iccwbo.org/uploadedFiles/Court/Arbitration/other/ rules_arb_englis h.pdf

.3 On June 1, 2006, the petitioners filed a request for arbitration with the ICA , based on their determination that Albania no longer intended to honor its obligation s under the contract

. Id . Pursuant to the aforementioned arbitration clause, an arbitratio n proceed ing was convened in
Rome

. Id. All of the parties to this action, including Albania, participated in t he proceeding , 3

On Oc tober 1, 2007, the three

- person arbitral tribun al issued a “ Partial Award ” in which it unanimously concluded that Albania had breached Article 1358 of the Italian Civil Code and was obliged to compensate the petitioners for the losses, including lost profits, caused by Albania’s breach. See Weisburg D ecl., Ex. A at 3

. On July 28, 2 008 , the arbitral tribunal issued a unanimous “ Final Award, ” in which it directed Albania to pay the petitioners €10,619,016.79 and $145,601.32 in lost profits suffered by petitioner G.E. Transportation S.p.A. , €1,995,548.91 in lost profits suffered by petitioner Athena S.A. , $328,500 in arbitration costs and €207,452.45
as reasonable d efense costs. Id. at 33. This court refers to the “Partial Award” and the “Final Award” collectively as the “Arbitral Award.” which was bifurcated into a phase on liability and a phase on damages. Id

.

Foll owing the issuance of the Arbitral Award, Albania filed an application for the correction and interpretation of the awa rd wi th the arbitral tribunal, which was denied. Petrs’ Mot. at 3. Albania subsequently filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal s in Rome seeking to overturn the Arbitral Award. Id . As an interim measure, Albania requested that the Court of Appeal s suspend th e Arbitral Award and declare it null and void under Italian law

. Id. Approximately two weeks after Albania commenced the Italian appeal proceedings, the petitioners commenced this action seeking an order confirming the Arbitral Award pursuant to the New York Convention. Petrs’ Mot. at 3; s ee generally Pet. to Confirm Arbitration Award.

3 The record indicates that an evidentiary hearing was conducted on May 21, 2007, during which both parties offered the testimony of expert witnesses. Weisburg Decl. ¶ 9. The parties submitted post

- hearing memoranda based on the testimony adduc ed at the hearing. Id

.4 The petitioners filed an amended petition on December 3, 2008. See generally Am. Pet. to Confirm Arbitration Award. After Albania failed to resp ond within sixty days o f service of the amended petition , the Clerk of the Court entered default on March 26, 2009. See Entry of Default (Mar. 26, 2009). The petitioners filed this motion on April 17, 2009, requesting that the court confirm the Arbitral Award and enter default judgment against Albania. See generally Petrs’ Mot. Albania has declined to file any opposition to the motion. As of the date the petitioners filed their motion, Albania had not paid any portion of the Arbitral Award. Petrs’
Mot. at 3. On February 26, 2010, this court ordered the petitioners to submit a status report reflecting the current stat e o f the Italian appeal proceedings , including whether the Italian court had granted Albania’s request for interim relief. See Minute Order (Feb. 26, 2010). Th e petitioners responded on March 2, 2010 , report ing that on January 26, 2010, the Court of Appeals in Rome had denied Albania’s request to suspend enforcement of the Arbitral Award and remanded the case for a hearing on Albania’s appeal on June 11, 2011. Petrs’ Status Report (Mar. 2, 2010). 4 The petitioners state that “[b] ased on this remand, and the extremely slow pace of legal proceedings in Italy, Petitioners’ Italian counsel now expects the proceedings initiated by Albania to continue until approximat ely 2014.” Id

.

III. ANALYSIS A. Legal Standard for Default Judgment Against a Foreign State A court shall not enter a default judgment against a foreign state “unless the claimant establishes his claim or right to relief by evid ence satisfactory to the court.” 28 U.S.C. §

4 The petitioners attached to their status report a copy of the January 26, 2010 ruling of the Italian court, together with a certified translation of the decretal portion of that ruling. See Petrs’ Status Report & Attach. A (Mar . 2, 2010).5 1608(e); see also Roeder v. Islamic Republic of Iran , 333 F.3d 228, 232 (D.C. Cir. 2003). This “satisfactory to the court” standard is identical to the standard for entry of default judgments against the Unite d States under Federal R ule of Civil Procedure 55(d). Hill v. Republic of Iraq , 328 F.3d 680, 684 (D.C. Cir. 2003). In eval uating the plaintiffs’ proof, the court may “accept as true the plaintiff[s’] uncontroverted evidence,” Elahi v. Islamic Republic o f Iran , 124 F. Supp. 2d 97, 100 (D.D.C. 2000), including proof by affidavit, Weinstein v. Islamic Republic of Iran , 184
F. Supp. 2d 13, 19 (D.D.C. 2002). B. The Peti tioners Have Demonstrated Their Entitlement to Confirmation of the Arbitral Award
1 . Th e Court Has Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under t he Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”) , “a foreign state is presumptively immune from the jurisdiction of United States courts; unless a specified exception applies, a federal court lacks subject

- matter jurisdiction over a claim against a foreign state.” Saudi Arabia v. Nelson , 507 U.S. 349, 355 (1993) (citing Verlinden B.V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480, 488

- 89 (1983) ). One of the FSIA’s specified exception s concerns a ctions to confirm certa in arbitration awards. See 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6). Specifically, the FSIA provides that [a] foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case . . . in which the action is brought . . . to confirm an award made pursuant to such an agreement to arbitrate, if . . . the agreement or award is or may be governed by a treaty or other international agreement in force for the United States calling for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awa rds. Id. The arbitration exception to the FSIA applies to actions arising under the New York Convention , a multi lateral treaty ratified by the United States which provides for the recognition6 and enforcement of certain foreign arbitral awards. 5

Th e petitioners base their request for relief on the New York Convention, s ee generally
Am. Pet

. , to which Italy (t he place of the arbitration), the United States (the place where recognition is so ught) and Albania are all contracting parties

. S ee U.S. D EP ’ T OF S TATE , T REATIES IN F ORCE : A L IST OF T REATIES AND O THER I NTERNATIONAL A GREEMENTS OF THE U NITED S TATES IN F ORCE ON J ANUARY 1, 2007 , § 2 (Multilateral Agreements) at 12 , a vailable at http://www .state.gov/documents/organization/89668.pdf. Accordingly, the petitioners’ claims arise under, and are governed by, the New York Convention. Cf. Creighton Ltd. , 181 F.3d at 121 (observing that “the critical element is the place of the award: if that plac e is in the territory of a party to the Convention, all other Convention states are required to recognize and enforce the award, regardless of the citizenship or domicile of the parties to the arbitration” ) (quoting
R ESTATEMENT (T HIRD ) OF F OREIGN R ELATIONS L AW § 487 cmt. b) . As a result , the FSIA’s arbitration exception applies and provides the court with subject matter jurisdiction over the case

. See 28 U.S.C. § 1330(a) (providing that “d istrict courts shall have original jurisdiction without regard to a mount in controversy of any nonjury civil action against a foreign state

. . . with respect to which the foreign state is not entitled to immunity either under sections 1605

- 1607 of this title or under any applicable international agreement ” ); see also 9 U .S.C. § 203 (providing See Creighton Ltd. v. Gov’t of the State of Qatar , 181 F.3d 118 , 124 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (observing that “ the New York Convention ‘ is exactly the sort of treaty Congress intended to include in the arbitration exception ’ ” ) (quoting Cargill
Int ’ l S.A. v. M/T Pavel Dybenko , 991 F.2d 1012, 1018 (2d Cir. 1993) ) ; Termorio S.A. E.S.P. v. Electrificadora Del Atlantico S.A. E.S.P. , 421 F. Supp. 2d 87, 9 3

- 9 4 (D.D.C. 2006) (determining that the court had jurisdiction pursuant to the FSIA’s arbitration exce ption over claims brought under the New York Convention )

.

5 The New York Convention is codified domestically at 9 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq.7 that the district courts have jurisdiction over actions arising under the New York Convention regardless of the amount in controversy)

. 2. The Court Has Personal Jurisdiction Over Albania District courts may exercise personal jurisd iction over foreign states so long as subject matter jurisdiction exists over the claims at issue and service has been properly effected pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1608. 28 U.S.C. § 1330(b). As discussed above, the first prong of this test is satisfied beca use this court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the FSIA’s arbitration exception. See supra Part III.B.1. As for the second prong, § 1608 provides that service upon a foreign state can be made by delivering pleadings to the state “ in accordanc e with any special arrangement for service between the plaintiff and the foreign state or political subdivision.” Id. § 1608(a )(1). In the contract at issue here , the parties set forth a special arrangement for service on Albania , which provided that “[a ]ny noti c e to be given to [Albania] . . . shall be in writing, and shall be sent by personal delivery, air post, special courier, cable, telegraph, telex or facsimile transmission to or left at [Albania’s] address.” Contract Agreement § 29.2; see also Int ’l Road Fed’n v. Embassy of the Dem

. Rep

. Congo , 131 F. Supp. 2d 248, 251 (D.D.C. 2001) (observing that a contract provision specifying the method of providing notice constituted a “special arrangement for servic e” for purposes of § 1608(a)(1) (citing Marl owe v. Argentine Naval
Comm’n , 604 F. Supp. 703, 708 (D.D.C. 1985))

. In accordance with the contract’s notice provision, the petitioners served Albania with a copy of the Amended Petition and Notice of Petition on March 17, 2 009 by DHL courier. See8 A ff. i n Supp

. of Default, Ex. A.; 6

3 . The New York Convention Authorizes Confirmation of the Arbitral Award see also Compagnie D’Enterprises CFE, S.A. v. Republic of
Yemen , 180 F. Supp. 2d 12, 14 (D.D.C. 2001) (concluding that the plaintiffs properly served the defendant under § 1608(a)(1) by delivering the summons and complaint to the defendant by DHL courier). The petitioners also delivered additional copies of the pleadings to Albania through U.S. mail on December 3, 2008. See Aff. in Supp of Default, Ex. B . Because the petitioners properly served Albania pursuant to § 1608 (a)(1), and because the court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action, the court has personal jurisdiction over Albania. See 28 U.S.C. § 1330(b).

The New York Conventio n a uthorizes the recipient of a foreign arbitral award to seek confirmation of the award in federal court. See 9 U.S.C. § 207. The Convention provides that the court “shall confirm the award unless it finds one of the grounds for refusal or deferral of

reco gnition or enforcement of the award specified in the said Convention.” Id

. Such gr ounds include the following: incapacity of the parties; invalidity of the underlying agreement; an award beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement; improper composition of the arbitration panel; and an award that has not yet become binding, or has been set aside or sus pended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made. TermoRio S.A. E.S.P. v. Electranta S.P. , 487 F.3d 928, 934

- 35 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (citing New York Convention , art. V). Based on the court’s review of the record presented , none of the grounds for refusal or deferral of recognition specified in Article V of the Convention are present in this

case.

6 The petitioners delivered their pleadings to “Ministry of Public Works, Transport and Telecommunication, Republic of Albania, Sheshi ‘Skenderbej’ No. 5, Tirana, Albania.” See Aff. in Supp. of Default, Exs. A, B. This address corresponds with the address listed on the website of the Albanian Ministry of Transport & Telecommunication, http: //www.mpptt.gov.al (the n follow the “Kontakto” hyperlink).9 Artic l e VI of the Convention, however, provides th e court the discretion to defer confirmation of an arbitration award if there is a pending action in another jurisdiction to set aside the award, such as the action commenced by Albania before the Court of Appeal s in
Rome. 7

[i] f an application for the setting aside or suspension of the award has been made to a competent authority

. . . the authority before which the award is sought to be relied upon may, if it considers it prope r, adjourn the decision on the enforcement of the award and may also, on the application of the party claiming enforcement of the award, or der the other party to give suitable security.

See Europcar Italia, S.p.A. v. Maiellano Tours, Inc. , 156 F.3d 310, 317 (2d Cir. 1998) (citing New York Convention, art. VI). Article VI states that

New York Convention, art. VI (emphasis added). Although this Circuit has yet to address the scope of the court’s discretion under Article VI, o ther Circuit s have stressed that in exercising this discretion , the court must “balance the Convention’s policy favoring confirmation or a r bitral awards against the principle of international comity embraced by the C onvention.” Four Seasons Hotels & Resorts, B.V. v.
Consorcio Barr S.A. , 377 F.3d 1164, 1172 (11th Cir . 2004) (citing Europcar Italia , 156 F.3d at
317

- 18). The Second Circuit has articulated a non

- exhaustive list of six factors that a district court should consider when deciding whether to adjourn confirmation proceedings pursuant to Article VI of the Con vention: ( 1) the ge neral objectives of arbitration

– the expeditious resolution of disputes and the avoidance of protracted and expensive litigation; (2) the status of the foreign proceedings and the estimated time for those proceedings to be resolved; (3) whether the award sought to be enforced will receive greater scrutiny in the foreign proceedings under a less deferential standard of review;

7 The petitioner does not dispute that the action commenced by Albania in Rome is “an application for the setting a side or suspension of the award” made to a “competent authority.” See Petrs’ Mot. at 8

- 10.10 (4) the characteristics of the foreign proceedings including (i) whether they were brought to enforce an a ward (which would tend to weigh in favor of a stay) or to set the award aside (which would tend to weigh in favor of enforcement); (ii) whether they were initiated before the underlying enforcement proceeding so as to raise concerns of international comity ; (iii) whether they were initiated by the party now seeking to enforce the award in federal court; and (iv) whether they were initiated under circumstances indicating an intent to hinder or delay resolution of the dispute; (5) a balance of the possible hardships to each of the parties, keeping in mind that if enforcement is postponed under Article VI of the Convention, the party seeking enforcement may receive “suitable security” and that, under Article V of the Convention, an award should not be enforce d if it is set aside or suspended in the originating country . . . ; and (6) any other circumstances that could tend to shift the balance in favor of or against adjournment. Europcar Italia , 156 F.3d at 317

- 18. The court observed that “[b] ecause the p rimary goal of the Convention is to facilitate the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, the first and second factors on the list should weigh more heavily in the district court’s determination.” Id . at 318. Furthermore, the court cautioned tha t “[a] stay of confirmation should not be lightly granted lest it encourage abusive tactics by the party that lost in arbitration.” Id . at 317 (citing Hewlett

- Packard Co. v. Berg , 61 F.3d 101, 106 (1st Cir. 1995))

. The first Europcar factor considers whe ther imposing a stay of the proceedings would undermine the objectives of arbitration

– namely, the prompt and inexpensive resolution of disputes. See id. In this case, Albania agreed to binding arbitration. See Contract Agreement § 29.2. The arbitrati on proceeding, in which Albania fully participated, resulted in a n arbitral award in favor of the petitioners. See generally Weisburg Decl., Ex. A. The arbitral tribunal noted that the Arbitral Award resulted from “a complex international arbitration . . . [that] involved almost three years of preparation and work.” Id . at 32. Albania pursued a post

arbitration appeal in the ICA, which was rejected. See Petrs’ Mot. at 3. Despite these favorable11 rulings in the forum agreed to by Albania , t he petitioner s have yet t o receive any satisfaction, nearly four years after commencing arbitration

. See id. at 1

- 3. Accordingly, the first Europcar factor plainly weighs in favor of confirmation rather than a n adjournment

. See In re Arbitration Between Interdigital Commc ’ ns Corp. & Samsung Elecs

. Co. , 528 F. Supp. 2d 340, 361

- 62 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) ( concluding that the first Europcar factor weighed “overwhelmingly” in favor of enforcement because “it [was] beyond doubt that adjourning enforcement of the Award while this Court awaits the conclusion of what is likely to be yet another protracted and fiercely contested arbitration proceeding would seriously undermine” the objectives of arbitration). The second Europcar factor also weighs in favor of confirmat ion. The pet itioners assert that the Italian appeal proceedings are likely to last until 2014

. See Weisburg Decl. ¶ 15 ; Petrs’ Status Report (Mar. 2, 2010). In the absence of any counter

- assertion from Albania, the court credits the petitioners’ estimation of the du ration of these proceedings

. See Gates v. Syrian Arab Republic , 580 F. Supp. 2d 53, 63 (D.D.C. 2008) (observing that in evaluating a motion for default judgment against a foreign state, the court may accept as true the plaintiffs’ uncontroverted evidence , including evidence by affidavit ) (citing Elahi , 124 F. Supp. 2d at 100 ). Furthermore, the court notes that the Court of Appeal s in Rome declined to set aside the Arbitral Award on an interim basis. See Petrs’ Status Report (Mar. 2, 2010); see also MGM Prods. Group, Inc. v. Aeroflot Russian Airlines , 573 F. Supp. 2d 772, 778 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (observing that a Swedish court’s denial of interim relief strengthened the court’s determination that a stay was unwarranted). T he court also takes notice of the fa ct that the foreign proceeding was commenced by Albania to set aside the Arbitral Award

. See Europcar Italia , 156 F.3d at
317

- 18 ; Sarhank Group v. Oracle Corp. , 2002 WL 31268635, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 9, 2002) (noting that “[t]he fact that the pending fore ign appeal seeks to set aside, not enforce, the award12 weighs in favor of enforcement in spite of the parallel proceedings ong oing in the originating country”), vacated on other grounds , 404 F.3d 657 (2d Cir. 2005). Because the balance of the relevant facto rs 8

C . T he Court Adopts the Petitioners’ Calculation of the Amount of the A rbitral A ward weighs in favor of immediate enforcement,

a n adjournment of thes e proceedings is unwarranted. Thus, the court is persuaded that the New York Convention authorizes confirmation of the Arbitral Award.

The Restatement provides that [i]f, in a case arising out of a foreign currency obligation, the court gives judgment in dollars, the conversion from foreign currency to dollars is to be made at such rate as to make the creditor whole and to avoid rewarding a debtor who has delayed in carrying out the obligation.
R ESTATEMENT (T HIRD ) OF F OREIGN R ELATIONS L AW § 823; see also McKesson Corp. v. Islamic Republic of Iran , 116 F. Supp. 2d 13, 38 (D.D.C. 2000) (adopting the Res tatement approach), rev’d in part on other grounds , McKesson HBOC, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran , 271 F.3d 1101 (D.C. Cir. 2001). Thus, “if the foreign currency has depreciated since the injury or breach, judgment should be given at the rate of exchang e applicable on the date of injury or breach.”
R ESTATEMENT (T HIRD ) OF F OREIGN R ELATIONS L AW § 823 cmt. c. If, on the other hand, “the foreign currency has appreciated since the injury or breach, judgment should be given at the rate of exchange applicable on the date of judgment or the date of payment.” Id. C ourts will ordinarily apply the exchange rate prevailing at the forum

. Id

. The Arbitral Award awarded the petitioners a total of €12,822,018.15 and $474,101.32.
See Weisburg Decl., Ex. A at 33. The petitioner s represent that the Euro has depreciated since the Arbitral Award was issued , when the obligation at issue here arose. See Petrs’ Mot. at 12

8 The court has been presented with nothing to indicate that the balance of hardships, the level of scrutiny that the Arbitral Award will receive in the Italian ap peal proceedings or any other consideration tips the balance in favor of adjournment. See generally Petrs’ Mot.13 n.3. Accordingly, the court will convert the portion of the Arbitral Award awarded in Euros in to dollars by applying an exchange rate of 1.5747, which was the New York Federal Reserve’s
Euro

- to

- Dollar exchange rate on July 28, 2008, the date of the Arbitral Award. See Federal Reserve Statistical Release, Foreign Exchange Rates, http://www.federalreserve.gov/ releases/ h10/Hist/dat00_eu.txt ; s ee also Fridlund v. Spychaj

- Fridlund , 2009 WL 4168192, at *2 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 23, 2009) (calculatin g damages using the exchange rate reported by the Federal Reserve); Jackson v. People’s Republic of China , 550 F. Supp. 869, 874 (N.D. Ala. 1982) (converting damages suffered in British pounds to dollars using th e Federal R eserve exchange rate). As a resu lt, the court confirms the Arbitral Award in the total amount of $20,664,933.30.
D . The Court Denies Without Prejudice the Petitioners’ Request for Prejudgment Interest
T his Circuit has stated that “[w]hether pre

- judgment interest is to be awarded is subject to the discretion of the court and equitable considerations.” Oldham v. Korean Air Lines Co. , 127 F.3d 43, 54 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (quoting Motion Picture Ass’n of Am., Inc. v. Oman , 969 F.2d 1154, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1992)). “The purpose of such awards is to compensate the plaintiff for any delay in payment resulting from the litigation.” Id

. The “decision on how to compute prejudgment interest is discretion ary with the district
court.” Forman v. Korean Air Lines Co. , 84 F.3d 446, 450 (D.C. Cir. 199 6). The Circuit has expressly approved the use of the prime rate for determining prejudgment interest. See id. (noting the Circuit’s agreement “with many of our sister circuits that the use of the prime rate for determining prejudgment interest is well w ithin the district court’s discretion” ). Court s in this district have also applied the annual Treasury Bill Rate to calculate prejudgment interest. See Pugh v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya , 530 F. Supp. 2d 216, 265 (D.D.C. 2008)14 (applying th e average annual Treasury Bill Rate to calculate prejudgment interest but noting that “an average of the prime rate[] also would have been justified”). The petitioners have reques ted an interest award of $344,300.44, representing compound
interest calcu lated at 2.33% from July 28, 2008 to the date they filed their motion. See Petrs’
Mot. at 12 n.3. The court is persuaded that an award of prejudgment interest in this case would be fully consistent with the accepted purposes of such an a ward

. See Oldham , 127 F.3d at 54 ; see also Pugh , 530 F. Supp. 2d at 265 (observing that an award of “prejudgment interest [was] particularly appropriate in this case because of the substantial delay in judgment for these plaintiffs caused by Libya’s persistent delay tacti cs over the course of this litigation”). The petitioners, however, have failed to explain why a compound interest rate of 2.33% is an appropriate measure of prejudgment interest in this case. See generally Petrs’ Mot. Accordingly, the court denies witho ut prejudice the petitioners’ request for prejudgment interest.

IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the court grants in part and denies in part without prejudice the petitioners’ motion for default judgment and confirmation of arbitral award a nd confirms the
Ar bitral Award in the amount of $20,664,933.30. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is separately and contemporaneously issued this 16th day of March, 2010.

RICARDO M. URBINA United States District Judge