Opinion ID: 497333
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Exchange Rate

Text: 70 Ingersoll also challenges the choice of the exchange rate applied by the district court to the Belgian judgment. That judgment was, of course, originally denominated in Belgian francs. The district court applied the judgment-day rule; it applied the exchange rate of Belgian francs to U.S. dollars on the day of the entry of its judgment, July 3, 1986. 71 We agree with the district court that, on this issue, it must apply the currency conversion rule employed by the courts of the state in which the action was brought. Newmont Mines Ltd. v. Hanover Ins. Co., 784 F.2d 127, 138 (2d Cir.1986). The parties were unable to cite any Illinois authority with respect to the appropriate conversion rate to the district court. Under these circumstances, we can hardly fault the district court for assuming that Illinois would follow the widely accepted practice of employing the judgment-day rule when, as here, the breach occurred in the foreign country and the cause of action originally accrued there. See Shaw, Savill, Albion & Co. v. The Fredericksburg, 189 F.2d 952, 955 (2d Cir.1951); Cronel Watch, S.A. v. Peterson State Bank, 565 F.Supp. 259, 262 n. 3 (N.D.Ill.1983); Laminoirs-Trefileries-Cableries De Lens, S.A. v. Southwire Co., 484 F.Supp. 1063, 1070 (N.D.Ga.1980). See generally In re Good Hope Chem. Corp., 747 F.2d 806, 812 (1st Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1102, 105 S.Ct. 2328, 85 L.Ed.2d 845 (1985). 72