Opinion ID: 3046907
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: SAMBA will have an allowed general,

Text: unsecured claim in the amount of Two M illion Five H undred Thousa nd ($2,500,000) against [SW Engineering]. .... 5. Except for the rights and obligations e x p r e s s l y p r o v i d e d o r re s e r v e d hereunder[,] SAMBA . . . hereby releases, remises and forever discharges the [Stone & Webster entities] . . . from any and all claims and causes of action . . . that SAMBA ever had, now has or may have, for acts, events or occurrences . . . based upon the Proof of Claim, the Cure Claim, the Payment Letter, or the Guarantee, or 33 C. Interest, Attorneys’ Fees and Other Litigation Costs Because we reverse the District Court’s grant of summary judgment, we must also vacate its subsequent awards to SAMBA, and against Shaw, of pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs. We nonetheless agree with the Court’s analysis of these issues had they applied to SW Engineering. With respect to the award of pre-judgment interest, we specifically agree with the District Court’s reliance on the Guaranty’s choice of New York law and its assignment of a 9% interest rate running from May 31, 2000.17 We likewise concur that were or could have been asserted by SAMBA in the Proof of Claim or the Cure Claim. Id. at A506–07; see also Saudi American Bank III, 360 B.R. at 66 (discussing the Settlement Agreement). Accordingly, SAMBA may recover no more than $2.5 million from SW Engineering through a Proof of Claim. 17 Despite the Guaranty’s statement that it “shall be governed by the laws of the State of New York,” SAMBA sought application of Delaware’s legal interest rate of 11%. See Saudi American Bank II, 354 B.R. at 689–91. Shaw argued in response that SAMBA was not entitled to receive interest on the 34 in the Court’s application of 28 U.S.C. § 1961 to establish a 3.33% post-judgment interest rate. See Saudi American Bank II, 354 B.R. at 693.18 sum because the joint venture’s “obligation to SAMBA ultimately arose under and is determined by the Credit Agreement, and . . . Payment Letter,” which are controlled by Saudi law that forbids the collection of interest. Id. at 690. The District Court concluded that the terms of the Guaranty controlled in all respects, granting SAMBA pre-judgment interest at New York’s interest rate of 9%. See id. at 690–91; N.Y. C.P.L.R. §§ 5001(a) & 5004. The Court distinguished the Guaranty from the Credit Agreement by reiterating that a guaranty “is a separate contract involving duties and responsibilities which are different from the basic contract to which it is collateral.” Saudi American Bank II, 354 B.R. at 690 (quoting FinanceAmerica, 380 A.2d at 1379). It applied New York’s interest rate because it determined that Delaware, whose law would control in the absence of the parties’ choice of law, did not have a “materially greater” interest in the subject matter than New York. Id. at 691 (quoting Hionis Int’l Enters., Inc. v. Tandy Corp., 867 F.Supp. 268, 271 (D. Del. 1994)). 18 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a) states in part: “Interest shall be allowed on any money judgment in a civil case recovered in a district court. . . . Such interest shall be calculated from the date of the entry of the judgment, at a rate equal to the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield . . . for the calendar week preceding the date of the judgment.” 35 Regarding litigation expenses, we approve the Court’s determination that the Guaranty’s promise of reimbursement for “any and all expenses incurred [by SAMBA] in enforcing [its] rights under this Guaranty” entitles SAMBA to reasonable attorneys’ fees and other costs of litigation. Saudi American Bank II, 354 B.R. at 691–3. Any reward recovered under the language of the Guaranty, however, must be limited to the fees and costs directly incurred in enforcing rights against SW Engineering under that instrument. See id. at 692.