Court Opinion

ID: 9904800
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 22:00:21.181968+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:29.960008
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                       For the First Circuit

No. 22-1499

              UNIVERSAL TRADING & INVESTMENT CO., INC.,

                        Plaintiff, Appellant,

              FOUNDATION HONESTY INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

                             Plaintiff,

                                 v.

  BUREAU FOR REPRESENTING UKRAINIAN INTERESTS IN INTERNATIONAL
   AND FOREIGN COURTS; UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR GENERAL'S OFFICE;
                            UKRAINE,

                       Defendants, Appellees.

          APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
               FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

         [Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]

                               Before

                        Barron, Chief Judge,
               Howard and Montecalvo, Circuit Judges.

     Stephen F. Reardon, with whom Law Office of Stephen F. Reardon
was on brief, for appellant.
     Robert M. Shaw, with whom Ralph T. Lepore, III, and Holland
& Knight LLP were on brief, for appellees.
November 27, 2023
           MONTECALVO, Circuit Judge.       This case of international

dimensions returns to us for the second time.

           In the 1990s, Cube, Ltd. ("Cube"), a Ukrainian company,

which later was reorganized to become United Energy Systems of

Ukraine ("UESU"), hired Universal Trading & Investment Company,

Inc. ("UTICo") to help it recover lost assets.                Through the

intervention of Pavlo Lazarenko, the former Prime Minister of

Ukraine, UESU had been awarded a lucrative government contract.

But the proceeds of the contract were going missing; someone was

diverting the assets.     In connection with UTICo's work to help

Cube and UESU recover the converted assets, UTICo discovered that

Lazarenko was using Cube and UESU to siphon money into his personal

offshore   accounts.    UTICo   contacted   the   Ukrainian    Prosecutor

General's Office ("UPGO") and other Ukrainian agencies to report

the fraudulent relationship.

           Based on UTICo's helpful sharing of information, UPGO

enlisted UTICo to assist it in tracing and recovering assets that

Lazarenko and his accomplice, Petro Kiritchenko, allegedly had

stolen from Ukraine. UPGO agreed to provide UTICo a 12% commission

on certain assets "returned to Ukraine, in connection with" the

agreement.    Approximately $15 million of the siphoned assets

finally have been returned to Ukraine.1

     1    Unless expressly noted otherwise, the financial figures
in this opinion refer to U.S. dollars.

                                 - 3 -
          In the instant case, UTICo has sued Ukraine, UPGO, and

the Bureau for Representing Ukrainian Interests in International

and Foreign Courts (the "Bureau") (collectively, the "Ukrainian

defendants"), claiming that it has helped block and freeze assets

all over the world and is owed a commission for its work.           We

previously affirmed the district court's exercise of jurisdiction

over UTICo's breach-of-contract claim, finding that the Ukrainian

defendants' transactions with UTICo were exempt from immunity

under   the   Foreign    Sovereign   Immunities   Act   (the   "FSIA"),

28 U.S.C. § 1604.       Universal Trading & Inv. Co. v. Bureau for

Representing Ukrainian Ints. in Int'l & Foreign Cts. ("UTICo II"),

727 F.3d 10, 12 (1st Cir. 2013).

          Following our resolution of the appeal, the parties

engaged in discovery and additional motion practice before the

district court.     In analyzing UTICo's breach-of-contract claim,

the district court construed each asset recovery and failure to

pay a commission as a separate claim for breach of contract.

Universal Trading & Inv. Co., Inc. v. Bureau for Representing

Ukrainian Ints. in Int'l & Foreign Cts. ("UTICo III"), 605 F. Supp.

3d 273, 291 n.11 (D. Mass. 2022).     It ultimately dismissed all the

breach-of-contract claims because some were not ripe, others were

barred by the statute of limitations, and the single remaining

claim failed on the merits.    See id. at 290-99.   The district court

                                 - 4 -
also denied UTICo's motions to amend the complaint and several of

UTICo's discovery-related requests.       See id. at 286-88.

           UTICo now appeals each of those decisions, arguing that

its breach-of-contract claims should survive summary judgment,

that it should be allowed to amend the complaint, and that it

should be permitted to conduct additional discovery.          Finding no

error in the district court's opinion, we affirm.

                             I. Background

                        A. Factual Background

           We assume the parties' familiarity with the factual

context of this case and focus our recitation of the facts on those

relevant to the instant appeal.          Because the primary issue on

appeal is the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor

of the Ukrainian defendants on UTICo's breach-of-contract claims,

we take the facts in the light most favorable to UTICo and draw

all   reasonable   inferences   therefrom    in   UTICo's   favor.      See

Pleasantdale Condos., LLC v. Wakefield, 37 F.4th 728, 730 (1st

Cir. 2022).

                   1. The Contractual Arrangement

           UTICo   is   a   Massachusetts    corporation    that     offers

international asset recovery services.       After UTICo informed UPGO

and other Ukrainian agencies of its discovery that Lazarenko, then

the First Deputy Prime Minister and eventually the Prime Minister

of Ukraine, was stealing money owed to the Ukrainian government,

                                 - 5 -
UPGO hired UTICo to assist it in recovering assets related to UESU

and its parent company, United Energy International, Ltd.

            On May 15, 1998, UTICo and UPGO reached their first

agreement (the "May 1998 Agreement").                   That agreement stated:

"Taking into account information and assistance that [UTICo] is

providing[,]    .   .    .   [UPGO]    has    agreed     that    [UTICo]    will   be

attributed a commission of 12 (twelve) percent on all and any above

assets to be returned to Ukraine, in connection with the Power of

Attorney" that was executed alongside the May 1998 Agreement.                      The

May 1998 Agreement further clarified that renumeration could not

be paid from the State budget of Ukraine; instead, it was payable

only "from the assets to be repatriated to Ukraine from outside of

Ukraine."

            In the months and years that followed, UPGO executed

additional agreements relating to the May 1998 Agreement and

granted     UTICo   powers     of     attorney     to    pursue     various    asset

investigations across the globe. The additional powers of attorney

contemplated work in the United States, the British Virgin Islands,

Guernsey, the Bahamas, Panama, and other countries.                     But none of

the powers of attorney contemplated work in Switzerland.

            While   UTICo      performed       work     for     UPGO,   UPGO   twice

confirmed     the       validity      of     the   contractual          arrangement.

Specifically, on October 2, 1998, UPGO sent a letter to George

Lambert, UTICo's President, "certify[ing] the previously agreed

                                       - 6 -
terms in regard to the unlawful assets outside of Ukraine."                    And

almost a year later, in August 1999, Nikolai Obikhod, then the

Deputy     Prosecutor    General    of   Ukraine,       wrote     to     Lambert,

recognizing "the work accomplished by, and the assistance from,

[UTICo]" in tracing assets and affirming that UTICo was entitled

to "12% of all funds returned to Ukraine from outside of its

borders with the assistance of UTICo."

               2. Investigation and Blocking of Assets

                          i. UTICo Investigation

            No one disputes that UTICo was instrumental in helping

the   Ukrainian    defendants    investigate      and   freeze    millions     of

dollars in assets around the world that had been expatriated from

Ukraine.

            Some   of   that   assistance   was    provided      prior    to   the

execution of the May 1998 Agreement. For example, in October 1997,

UTICo shared several documents with UPGO concerning UESU and

Somolli Enterprises Ltd. ("Somolli"), an offshore entity through

                                   - 7 -
which UESU diverted funds.2            And during an April 1998 meeting

between Obikhod and UTICo to negotiate the May 1998 Agreement,

UTICo disclosed to UPGO that (1) UESU's assets were controlled by

Bassington Ltd. ("Bassington"), an offshore entity incorporated in

the British Virgin Islands, and (2) UTICo had additional evidence

tracing the diversion of UESU assets.              Through its work, UTICo

dissected a four-tier subsidiary scheme and traced ownership of

UESU and its parent company back to Bassington.

                UTICo obtained and shared evidence with the Ukrainian

defendants after the May 1998 Agreement went into effect as well.

Pursuant to the numerous powers of attorney executed in connection

with the May 1998 Agreement, UTICo gathered evidence from across

the globe, obtaining additional information about Bassington and

other entities involved in Lazarenko's money-laundering scheme,

such       as   Bainfield   Co.   ("Bainfield");   Orphin   S.A.   ("Orphin");

Wilnorth, Inc. ("Wilnorth"); and GHP, Corp. ("GHP").

       2   UTICo's involvement in Ukrainian recovery projects began
in July 1993 when Cube hired UTICo to trace lost assets. At the
time, Cube had a contract with Ukraine that required Cube to
deliver ferrous metals to China. But Cube lost roughly half the
value of the first delivery of the metals. The converted funds
had passed through Indian intermediaries. UTICo traced the assets
and was able to recover $660,000 for Cube. Cube asked UTICo to
direct the recovered $660,000 to an account held in the name of
Somolli.    As UTICo continued to perform work for Cube and then
UESU   and    learned  about   Lazarenko's   involvement   in   the
organizations, UTICo developed suspicions that Cube did not report
the $660,000 recovery to Ukraine. Based on its suspicions, UTICo
promptly transferred evidence about the transaction and Somolli to
UPGO and other Ukrainian agencies.

                                       - 8 -
               UTICo performed much of its work abroad in places like

the British Virgin Islands and Panama.          But it also performed, or

at least attempted to perform, extensive work for the Ukrainian

defendants in the United States.            Specifically, in 1999, UTICo

learned that Lazarenko and Kiritchenko had used expatriated assets

to purchase real estate in California and instigated proceedings

in the United States District Court for the Northern District of

California to recover the real estate.          On April 13, 1999, acting

as amicus curiae for UTICo, UPGO sent a letter to the Northern

District of California, which purportedly assigned UPGO's claims

to the real estate to UTICo (the "1999 California Assignment").

In the letter, UPGO explained to the court that (1) Kiritchenko

was facing prosecution in Ukraine, (2) Kiritchenko purchased the

California      properties   with   expatriated      assets,    and   (3)   UPGO

supported UTICo's lawsuit to attach all Kiritchenko's realty in

the United States, which was acquired with the laundered funds.

UPGO also gave UTICo power of attorney to pursue the assets of

Lazarenko, Kiritchenko, and their co-conspirators in the United

States.

               Despite UPGO's letter, a dispute over UTICo's standing

to sue on UPGO's behalf ensued.             The district court ultimately

concluded that UTICo did not have standing because the purported

assignment of Ukraine's claims to UTICo was invalid and the various

powers    of    attorney   were   not   equivalent    to   an   assignment    of

                                    - 9 -
ownership.         Universal Trading & Inv. Co. v. Kiritchenko, No.

C-99-3073 MMC, 2007 WL 2669841, at *20-21 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 7,

2007).   The Ninth Circuit affirmed.                Universal Trading & Inv. Co.

v. Kiritchenko, 346 F. App'x 232 (9th Cir. 2009).                             Accordingly,

UTICo was unable to recover the U.S. properties.

            In addition to the evidence regarding activities in the

United States, UTICo also recovered evidence of Kiritchenko's and

Lazarenko's activities in Switzerland.                   None of the powers of

attorney between UPGO and UTICo specifically contemplated UTICo

performing work in Switzerland.              But through the course of UTICo's

investigations,           it   developed     evidence       that    Kiritchenko         and

Lazarenko held assets at various Swiss banks, including Credit

Suisse, SCS Alliance, and Banque Populaire Suisse.

                               ii. Swiss Investigation

            UTICo was not the only group to investigate Lazarenko

and Kiritchenko's international money-laundering scheme.                          Prior to

the execution of the May 1998 Agreement, the Swiss and Ukrainian

governments        also    had   been   in    communication,            and    the   Swiss

government launched its own investigation.

            Starting in January 1998, UPGO sent letters rogatory to

the   Swiss    authorities,         seeking      assistance        in    investigating

Kiritchenko and his co-conspirators.                 In a supplementary request

dated February 14, 1998, UPGO indicated that Kiritchenko was

suspected     of    money      laundering     and    that    Kiritchenko          was   the

                                        - 10 -
beneficiary   of   GHP -- an   entity   implicated   in   the   laundering

scheme.   In response, on March 6, 1998, Switzerland opened a

criminal investigation to determine whether money laundering or

other financial crimes had been committed in Geneva.

          In connection with the Swiss investigation, a Swiss

investigating judge ordered the seizure of documents concerning

bank accounts opened in Kiritchenko's name and started freezing

those accounts' assets.        A June 25, 1999 opinion by the Swiss

Federal Tribunal (the "June 1999 decision") details the Swiss

investigating judge's inquiry and the contents of UPGO's January

and February 1998 letters rogatory.

          According to the June 1999 decision, in mid-March 1998,

the Swiss investigating judge ordered SCS Alliance to supply all

documents concerning GHP's bank account and other accounts opened

in Kiritchenko's name, as well as the names of the other suspected

individuals. On March 27 and April 1, 1998, SCS Alliance responded

with information about bank accounts opened in Kiritchenko's name

as well as a bank account opened in the name of a family member.

The bank also supplied information about accounts held in the

following entities' names: Bainfield; Wilnorth; GHP; Brancross

Ltd. of Antigua ("Brancross"); European Federal Credit Bank Ltd.

("European Federal"); and Zeneta Foundation of Vaduz ("Zeneta").

Thus, the Swiss authorities got tipped off to Lazarenko's and

                                 - 11 -
Kiritchenko's involvement in these entities before UPGO and UTICo

executed their May 1998 Agreement.

            Around the same time, the Swiss investigating judge met

with an investigating judge from Kiev, Ukraine.            At a March 27,

1998 meeting between the judges, the Swiss investigating judge

provided the Ukrainian investigating judge with references to the

offshore companies that had accounts at SCS Alliance.            The Swiss

investigating judge specifically highlighted accounts for which

Kiritchenko appeared to be a beneficiary that Ukraine had not

mentioned in its prior letters rogatory -- that is, Brancross,

Wilnorth, European Federal, Zeneta, and Bainfield.

            In April 1998, UPGO continued to supplement its earlier

letters rogatory.     Those letters provided a range of additional

information, including (1) details on a contract whose proceeds

allegedly   were    paid   into   Bainfield's    Swiss   account,   (2)   an

explanation    of    Lazarenko's     suspected     involvement      in    the

money-laundering scheme, and (3) identification of other bank

accounts at SCS Alliance and Credit Suisse allegedly implicated in

the scheme.    And so, the Swiss investigating judge continued to

request information and seize accounts held in Kiritchenko's and

Lazarenko's names, as well as accounts opened by the companies

implicated in the laundering scheme, at Credit Suisse and SCS

Alliance.

                                   - 12 -
         All told, before May 15, 1998 -- the date on which UTICo

and UPGO entered their first agreement -- the Swiss investigating

judge had received information on and ordered the seizure of the

following accounts at SCS Alliance:

               •   5317, held by Kiritchenko;

               •   5383, held by Bainfield;

               •   5451, held by Wilnorth;

               •   5452, held by GHP;

               •   5482, held by Brancross;

               •   5484, held by Izabella Kiritchenko;

               •   5491, held by European Federal; and

               •   5522, held by Zeneta.

And at Credit Suisse, the Swiss investigating judge had received

information on and ordered the seizure of the following accounts:

               •   875.709.72,   held   by    Paddox      Industries   Ltd.

                   ("Paddox");

               •   823.896.2, held by GHP; and

               •   562.927.6, held by European Federal.

                          iii. Swiss Judgments

         The proceedings in Switzerland ultimately led to two

judgments -- one      against    Lazarenko    and   the     other   against

Kiritchenko.

                                  - 13 -
           On June 28, 2000, the Court of Police in Geneva found

Lazarenko guilty of money laundering and ordered him to pay nearly

10.7 million Swiss francs to Geneva (the "June 2000 Swiss court

judgment").         Although the judgment required Lazarenko to pay

Geneva, Switzerland ultimately transferred most of the funds to

Ukraine.

           About two months later, on August 30, 2000, the Attorney

General    of       Geneva   issued    a   condemnation   ruling   against

Kiritchenko, finding him guilty of money laundering (the "August

2000 Swiss court judgment").          As a part of Kiritchenko's penalty,

the Attorney General required Kiritchenko to pay a fine of 1

million Swiss francs and ordered the transfer of certain assets

held at Credit Suisse and SCS Alliance to Ukraine.3         Specifically,

the August 2000 Swiss court judgment ordered the transfer of assets

deposited in the following accounts at SCS Alliance:

                •   5317, held by Kiritchenko4;

     3    The condemnation ruling also transferred some assets to
Geneva, specifically those held in account 5491 at SCS Alliance
and those held in account 562.927 at Credit Suisse.
     4    Somewhat confusingly, the August 2000 Swiss court
judgment states that account 5317 was "apparently not used to
receive or channel the benefits of any illicit activity by . . .
Lazarenko or any other third party," see Appellant's App. at 2115,
but then orders a portion of the deposits held at account 5317 to
be transferred to Ukraine, see id. at 2118 (permitting the release
of the seizure on account 5317 after the transfer to Ukraine of
roughly $3.1 million held in the account).     Apparently, just a
portion of the funds in account 5317 were connected to the scheme.

                                      - 14 -
              •   5383, held by Bainfield;

              •   5451, held by Wilnorth;

              •   5452, held by GHP;

              •   5482, held by Brancross; and

              •   5522, held by Zeneta.

And it further ordered the transfer of assets deposited in the

following accounts at Credit Suisse:

              •   875.709.72, held by Paddox;

              •   823.896.22, held by GHP; and

              •   21383, held by Kiritchenko.

The fine of 1 million Swiss francs was to be paid from account

5484, held by an entity named May at SCS Alliance.

            Nearly all the accounts listed in the August 2000 Swiss

court judgment overlap with those identified and investigated by

Switzerland as a part of its investigation.        See supra Part

I.A.2.ii.    Only account 21383, held in the name of Kiritchenko at

Credit Suisse, was not explicitly named in the June 1999 decision.

Although the account was not explicitly named in the June 1999

decision, the decision indicates that the Swiss investigating

judge had requested information for all accounts that "had been

opened in the name[] of . . . Kiritchenko" and "ordered the seizure

of [those] accounts."

                                - 15 -
             iv. Transfer of Swiss Assets to Ukraine

          The two Swiss proceedings ultimately resulted in the

transfer of roughly $15 million to Ukraine.5            Those funds made

their way to Ukraine in three tranches:

            •   Approximately 10.6 million Swiss francs ("tranche

                one") seized in connection with the June 2000 Swiss

                court judgment were transferred to UPGO's escrow

                account in October 2000.      In March 2001, the funds

                were transferred to the Ukrainian treasury.

            •   Approximately $4,058,000 ("tranche two") seized in

                connection    with   the   August   2000      Swiss     court

                judgment were transferred to UPGO's escrow account

                in October 2000.     In March 2009, the funds were

                transferred to the Ukrainian treasury.

            •   Approximately   $1,744,980     ("tranche      three")    were

                transferred to the Ukrainian treasury in April

                2002.    The     parties     disagree    as    to     whether

                Kiritchenko    voluntarily    returned   this       money   or

     5    Technically, the returned funds sum to only about 12.3
million U.S. dollars because the 10.6 million Swiss francs returned
in tranche one equated to roughly 6.5 million U.S. dollars at the
time the June 2000 Swiss court judgment was issued. Throughout
this litigation, however, the parties and the district court have
referred to the returned funds as the $15 million in Swiss assets.
For consistency, we will do the same.

                                - 16 -
                  returned it pursuant to the August 2000 Swiss court

                  judgment.

                       v. Blocking of Other Assets

           The Swiss assets are not the only assets to have been

blocked.   The parties agree that nearly $270 million of assets

connected to the money-laundering scheme have been blocked in

Switzerland and beyond.        But the Ukrainian defendants represent

that only the above-mentioned Swiss assets have been returned to

Ukraine.

                          B. Procedural History

           On    November     26,    2010,    UTICo6   sued    the     Ukrainian

defendants, alleging that the Ukrainian defendants breached their

contractual duties under the May 1998 Agreement.                      UTICo also

alleged that the Ukrainian defendants breached the 1999 California

Assignment,     were   unjustly     enriched,   breached      their    fiduciary

duties to UTICo, made misrepresentations to UTICo, and negligently

failed to convey certain information to UTICo.             It also asked the

court to declare that: (1) UTICo is not subject to Ukrainian

jurisdiction; (2) Ukrainian court decisions concerning UTICo would

     6    Foundation Honesty International, Inc. initially sued
alongside UTICo. But following the Ukrainian defendants' motion
to dismiss, the district court dismissed Foundation Honesty
International, Inc. as a plaintiff. Universal Trading & Inv. Co.
v. Bureau for Representing Ukrainian Ints. in Int'l & Foreign Cts.
("UTICo I"), 898 F. Supp. 2d 301, 326 (D. Mass. 2012).

                                     - 17 -
not be recognized in Massachusetts; and (3) a power of attorney

executed on April 30, 1999, was in effect until June 5, 2010, when

the Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari on a

petition   related    to   the   California      litigation,   see   Universal

Trading & Inv. Co. v. Kiritchenko, 561 U.S. 1038 (2010) (mem.).

           The Ukrainian defendants moved to dismiss the complaint

in its entirety, arguing that (1) they were immune from suit; (2)

Massachusetts was an improper venue for the suit; and (3) UTICo

failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted.

           The district court granted in part and denied in part

the   Ukrainian    defendants'    motion    to    dismiss.     UTICo   I,   898

F. Supp. 2d at 326.        Specifically, the district court concluded

that it could assert jurisdiction over UTICo's breach-of-contract

claim relating to the May 1998 agreement under the commercial

activity exception to the FSIA and that UTICo had adequately pled

this claim.       Id. at 316-17, 319-21.         The court also determined

that venue was proper in Massachusetts.             Id. at 317-18.     But the

district court dismissed the majority of UTICo's other claims

                                   - 18 -
because it found that each claim failed to state a claim for which

relief could be granted.7   See id. at 318-25.

          The Ukrainian defendants appealed the district court's

assertion of jurisdiction, and we affirmed.        UTICo II, 727 F.3d at

12. Like the district court, we found that the commercial activity

exception to the FSIA permitted the court to exercise jurisdiction

over the May 1998 Agreement breach-of-contract claim, reasoning

that the "asset recovery services . . . described in UTICo's

complaint [were] exactly the sort for which private citizens

contract," id. at 20, and that the May 1998 Agreement did "not

impinge on Ukraine's sovereignty because [it] d[id] not . . .

require [Ukraine] to reappropriate any assets into the Ukrainian

treasury that [the] defendants decide[d] not to reappropriate,"

id. at 22.

          Back in the district court, the parties engaged in

limited   discovery   relating    to      the   timeliness   of   UTICo's

breach-of-contract claim.   Both parties filed motions for summary

judgment on the statute-of-limitations question.             Following a

     7    In addition to the breach-of-contract claim relating to
the May 1998 Agreement, the district court permitted UTICo's
request for a declaration of the duration of the April 30, 1999
power of attorney to proceed. UTICo I, 898 F. Supp. 2d at 326.
But the district court's allowance of UTICo's request for
declaratory relief was limited: the district court allowed it to
proceed only insofar as the duration of the April 30, 1999 power
of   attorney  might   be  implicated   in   resolution  of   the
breach-of-contract claim. Id.

                                 - 19 -
February   18,    2015   hearing     on    the   cross-motions   for   summary

judgment, the district court denied UTICo's motion.

           On May 16, 2018, the district court held a second hearing

on the Ukrainian defendants' motion for summary judgment.                 The

district court ultimately denied the Ukrainian defendants' motion.

But during the hearing, it also narrowed the scope of the claims

before it.       It determined that UTICo's claims for breach of

contract became ripe only when the relevant assets were actually

repatriated to Ukraine.          And because only the roughly $15 million

in assets connected to the June 2000 Swiss court judgment and the

August 2000 Swiss court judgment (the "Swiss assets") had been

repatriated      to   Ukraine,    the     district   court   limited   UTICo's

breach-of-contract claim in the case to the Swiss assets.

           In the time between the two hearings, UTICo had moved to

amend its complaint. The district court also addressed this motion

at the May 16, 2018 hearing.         It denied the motion, reasoning that

to the extent UTICo was attempting to add allegations that the

Ukrainian defendants breached the duty of good faith and fair

dealing, UTICo had failed to meaningfully explain these theories

of recovery.     It also emphasized UTICo's delay in seeking to amend

the complaint and how UTICo did not even attach a proposed amended

complaint to its motion.          See UTICo III, 605 F. Supp. 3d at 285.

           After additional discovery, on February 8, 2019, the

Ukrainian defendants moved for summary judgment a second time,

                                     - 20 -
arguing that the remaining breach-of-contract claims were barred

by the statute of limitations and that, in any event, the claims

failed on the merits.      In response, UTICo moved under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 56(d) to conduct additional discovery, arguing

that it lacked sufficient discovery to defend against the Ukrainian

defendants' motion.       While the Ukrainian defendants' motion for

summary judgment and UTICo's Rule 56(d) motion remained pending,

the parties also prepared for trial, filing proposed findings of

fact, proposed conclusions of law, and trial memoranda.               UTICo

then belatedly moved to amend the complaint and cross-moved for

partial summary judgment.

              In a detailed decision issued on June 1, 2022, the

district court granted the Ukrainian defendants' second motion for

summary judgment, finding that UTICo's breach-of-contract claims

connected to the two tranches of Swiss assets repatriated to

Ukraine in 2001 and 2002 -- that is, tranches 1 and 3 -- were

barred by the statute of limitations and that the remaining claim

failed on the merits.          UTICo III, 605 F. Supp. 3d at 280, 293,

299.    The court also denied UTICo's other motions, reasoning that

the    Rule   56(d)   motion   simply   sought   to   relitigate   discovery

disputes to no avail and that the motion to amend was both late

and futile.     Id. at 286-88.

              On June 1, 2022, the district court entered judgment in

favor of the Ukrainian defendants.           This timely appeal followed.

                                    - 21 -
                                II. Discussion

           On appeal, UTICo challenges each of the district court's

rulings in the June 1, 2022 decision.           UTICo also seeks review of

the district court's determination that UTICo's breach-of-contract

claim was ripe only as it related to the $15 million of Swiss

assets that have been transferred to the Ukrainian treasury.

Finally, UTICo argues that the district court abused its discretion

by denying UTICo's three motions to amend.                 We address each

argument in turn, beginning with UTICo's contention that the

district court erred in limiting its breach-of-contract claim to

those relating to the $15 million of Swiss assets.

                         A. Non-Repatriated Assets

           UTICo    first   takes    issue   with   the    district   court's

discarding of the portion of UTICo's breach-of-contract claim

premised   upon    the   $260    million   of   blocked    assets   that   are

unconnected to the two Swiss court judgments.             But its grievances

can be disposed of quickly because they stem primarily from a

misunderstanding of what exactly occurred at the May 16, 2018

hearing.

           UTICo misinterprets the nature of the district court's

May 16, 2018 order and June 1, 2022 decision.          UTICo asserts that,

during the May 16, 2018 hearing, the district court did not dismiss

the claims premised upon the $260 million of blocked assets not

encompassed in the Swiss assets, but rather it bifurcated the trial

                                    - 22 -
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b).             Under the bifurcated

trial, says UTICo, the parties would first try the case as it

related to the $15 million in Swiss assets and then separately

address the breach-of-contract claim relating to the remaining

$260 million in blocked assets.              UTICo further contends that the

district court then forgot about the bifurcation, thereby denying

UTICo an opportunity to conduct discovery on the $260 million worth

of assets and improperly expanding the scope of the Ukrainian

defendants' second summary judgment motion to include all assets.

               But the district court did no such thing.            At the May

16, 2018 hearing, the district court made no mention of Rule 42(b).

Rather, it noted that UTICo's breach-of-contract claim was not

ripe       insofar   as   it   was   based   on   non-repatriated   assets   and

therefore dismissed the claims relating to the blocked -- but not

yet repatriated -- $260 million.                See Appellant Addendum at 45

("At this point only the Swiss assets are litigable.").               In doing

so, the district court made clear that it was not deciding the

merits of UTICo's breach-of-contract claims as to those assets.8

       8  The Ukrainian defendants also appeared to understand
that UTICo was not foreclosed from bringing an action in the future
based on the blocked, but not yet repatriated, assets should those
assets someday be repatriated. See Transcript of Motion Hearing
at 29-30, Dist. Ct. Docket Item 168 (counsel for the Ukrainian
defendants acknowledging the court's "point" concerning future
repatriation and recognizing that "[d]own the line[,] who knows
what happens [regarding an action] if assets are repatriated in
the future?").

                                       - 23 -
See Transcript of Motion Hearing at 39-40, Dist. Ct. Docket Item

168 (noting that the court was not granting "judgment on the

merits" on the non-Swiss assets).        In other words, it left open

the possibility for UTICo to bring a new lawsuit if those assets

are someday repatriated.

          On appeal, UTICo does not otherwise dispute the district

court's ruling that its breach-of-contract claims relating to the

non-repatriated   assets   are     not     ripe.       In    fact,   its

statute-of-limitations   arguments   are    premised   on   repatriation

being defined as the point at which a breach-of-contract claim

ripens.

          Instead, UTICo attempts to circumvent the ripeness issue

by asserting a different theory as to the non-repatriated assets:

breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

But that theory is notably absent from UTICo's initial complaint,

and, for reasons explained infra, the district court did not abuse

its discretion in denying UTICo's subsequent requests to amend the

complaint to add a claim of breach of the implied covenant of good

faith and fair dealing based on the Ukrainian defendants' alleged

failure to repatriate assets.

          UTICo's arguments that the district court improperly

dismissed and denied UTICo discovery on its breach-of-contract

claim relating to the $260 million non-repatriated assets thus are

without merit. Indeed, its underlying assumption that the district

                                - 24 -
court granted summary judgment on the merits of this claim is

incorrect.   We therefore affirm the district court's dismissal of

the portion of UTICo's breach-of-contract claim relating to the

non-repatriated assets as unripe.

                          B. Swiss Assets

          UTICo next challenges the district court's determination

that the Ukrainian defendants were entitled to summary judgment on

the portion of UTICo's breach-of-contract claim related to the

Swiss assets that have been transferred to the Ukrainian treasury.

It argues that the district court erred in finding that the statute

of limitations barred UTICo's claims connected to tranches one and

three and that equitable tolling was not warranted.     UTICo also

argues that it has raised a genuine issue as to whether it assisted

the Ukrainian defendants in recovering the three tranches.9

     9    UTICo additionally contends that the district court
erred in dividing the assets at issue in this litigation for
purposes of determining accrual into the "Swiss assets" and other
non-repatriated assets. In pressing this contention, UTICo argues
that the contract does not contemplate divisibility but instead
contemplates that the "worldwide assets," with respect to which
UTICo's services were contracted, are to be treated as a "whole."
The upshot of this contention, it seems, is that any claim to a
commission owed on the Swiss assets, so defined, is also unripe
insofar as the whole package of assets contemplated by the parties'
contract has not been repatriated. And accordingly, there is no
basis for the district court to have passed on the statute of
limitations and merits questions with respect to any claims based
on the Swiss assets. However, aside from asserting that there is
no basis on the face of the contract for concluding that the
contract is divisible, UTICo fails to develop any argument that
the district court erred in its application of Massachusetts law
when it concluded that the contract was divisible for

                              - 25 -
            We review a district court's grant of summary judgment

de novo.    Potvin v. Speedway LLC, 891 F.3d 410, 413-14 (1st Cir.

2018); see Barraford v. T & N Ltd., 778 F.3d 258, 263 (1st Cir.

2015)      (review        of     grant      of       summary         judgment    on

statute-of-limitations grounds is de novo).                  "We will affirm the

entry of summary judgment if -- and only if -- the facts," as

viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, "show beyond

any legitimate question the movant's entitlement to judgment as a

matter of law."      Cabán Hernández v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 486

F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2007); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).                  Although we

must draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to

the   nonmovant,     we    are    not    obligated     "to    draw    unreasonable

inferences or credit bald assertions, empty conclusions, [or] rank

conjecture."      Cabán Hernández, 486 F.3d at 8 (emphasis omitted).

                          1. Statute of Limitations

            The    parties       agree    that   the    relevant       statute   of

limitations is six years and that UTICo's cause of action began to

accrue when the assets were returned to Ukraine.                  On appeal, the

parties also agree that assets are not "returned" until they are

statute-of-limitations purposes.   We therefore fail to see any
error in the district court's ruling.

                                        - 26 -
transferred into the Ukrainian treasury; mere transfer to UPGO's

escrow account is not enough.10

            UTICo commenced this action on November 26, 2010.         Thus,

unless tolling is warranted, any cause of action that accrued

before November 26, 2004, is barred by the statute of limitations.

Tranches one and three were transferred to the Ukrainian treasury

in March 2001 and April 2002, respectively, and therefore, unless

tolling is appropriate, any claims relating to these tranches are

time-barred.      The   district    court    concluded   tolling    was   not

warranted because the return of funds to Ukraine was not inherently

unknowable, the Ukrainian defendants did not have an affirmative

duty to disclose to UTICo the return of funds to the Ukrainian

treasury,   and   the   Ukrainian    defendants   did    not   intentionally

     10   Before the district court, the Ukrainian defendants
argued that the assets were "returned" once transferred to UPGO's
escrow account.   See UTICo III, 605 F. Supp. 3d at 291.       The
district court concluded that no reasonable factfinder could agree
with the Ukrainian defendants' interpretation of the contract and
that assets were not "returned" until they were transferred to the
Ukrainian treasury.    Id. at 292-93.   On appeal, the Ukrainian
defendants have not argued that the district court erred in
concluding that the assets needed to be transferred to the
Ukrainian treasury for them to qualify as "returned."
          Nevertheless, on appeal, UTICo rehashes its argument
that assets are not "returned" until they reach the Ukrainian
treasury, and, at various points, chastises the district court for
finding that a cause of action accrues when assets are merely
blocked. These arguments are puzzling, to say the least, as the
district court found that a cause of action does not accrue until
the funds reach the Ukrainian treasury, see id., and the Ukrainian
defendants do not dispute this point on appeal.

                                    - 27 -
deceive or conceal the fact that tranches one and three had been

returned.       See UTICo III, 605 F. Supp. 3d at 293-95.

            On appeal, UTICo makes much of the fact that it presented

evidence showing that it typically takes five to seven years to

recover expatriated assets once they are blocked.                It accuses the

district court of overlooking UTICo's expert affidavits to that

effect in determining that the statute of limitations had run on

tranches one and three.

            UTICo's     arguments     about    the     precise   impact    these

affidavits should have on the statute of limitations are not the

model of clarity.        To the extent that UTICo is arguing that the

statute of limitations should automatically be tolled by five to

seven years, its argument misses the mark.              As the district court

aptly     noted,    that   the   typical       asset    recovery     period   is

five-to-seven years "does not change the fact that tranche [one]

and tranche [three] were actually adjudicated and returned to the

Ukrainian [t]reasury by 2003," and thus, the actions premised on

tranches one and three accrued more than six years before the

commencement of this litigation.           UTICo III, 605 F. Supp. 3d at

293.

            UTICo next argues that it should be permitted to seek

recourse under the discovery rule.              The discovery rule permits

tolling    of    the   statute   of   limitations      "until    a   prospective

plaintiff learns or should have learned that [it] has been injured

                                      - 28 -
. . . in three circumstances: where a misrepresentation concerns

a fact that was 'inherently unknowable' to the injured party, where

a wrongdoer breached some duty of disclosure, or where a wrongdoer

concealed   the     existence   of     a     cause   of    action   through    some

affirmative act done with the intent to deceive."               Patsos v. First

Albany Corp., 741 N.E.2d 841, 846 (Mass. 2001).

            UTICo claims that the statute of limitations should have

been tolled for two separate reasons: (1) the fact of repatriation

was   "inherently    unknowable"       and    (2)    the   Ukrainian   defendants

fraudulently concealed the transfer of tranches one and three to

the Ukrainian treasury.       To the extent that UTICo again falls back

on its expert affidavits to argue that a reasonable person would

not have asked about the recovery of funds until five to seven

years after assets were blocked, we are unconvinced.                A reasonable

juror could not sign onto that line of logic in light of the

evidence    that    several     news       organizations      had   reported    on

interactions between Swiss authorities and UPGO.                Moreover, as the

district court noted, UTICo was in regular communication with UPGO

and could have asked UPGO whether Ukraine had fully repatriated

the assets from the accounts implicated in the June 2000 Swiss

court judgment and August 2000 Swiss court judgment.                   See UTICo

III, 605 F. Supp. 3d at 294.         Although UTICo contests the accuracy

of the news articles and suggests they referred to the transfer of

funds to UPGO's escrow account rather than the Ukrainian treasury,

                                     - 29 -
those stories, at a minimum, put UTICo on notice that it should

have been asking the Ukrainian defendants about the repatriation

of the specific Swiss accounts implicated in tranches one and three

if it truly thought it had a claim to a commission on those returned

funds.

               UTICo asserts it did just that, but that UPGO denied any

recovery of Swiss assets.             Therefore, UTICo argues, a reasonable

juror could find that UPGO concealed the repatriation of tranches

one and three.        To demonstrate a genuine issue of fact as to

whether    the     Ukrainian     defendants      concealed      the   transfer   of

tranches one and three to the Ukrainian treasury, UTICo relies on

Lambert's affidavit and his 2019 deposition.

               The Lambert affidavit and 2019 deposition suggest that

UTICo asked representatives of UPGO whether any assets had been

returned to the Ukrainian treasury.              For example, Lambert attests

that at meetings in 2003 with representatives of UPGO, he inquired

about    the     recovery   of    frozen      assets,    including    those   from

Switzerland, and that UPGO representatives denied that any assets

had been repatriated.         During his 2019 Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on

behalf of UTICo, Lambert similarly stated that at the 2003 and

2004 meetings, UTICo "raised the question about the recovery of

the various accounts.         [UTICo] went through various jurisdictions.

And it was never disclosed to [UTICo] that any assets had been

actually       repatriated,      in   terms    that     the   Ukrainian   treasury

                                       - 30 -
obtained those funds."         Relying on this evidence, UTICo contends

that the district court erred in concluding that "there is no

cognizable fraudulent concealment to be found in the record" and

thereby granting summary judgment for the Ukrainian defendants on

statute-of-limitations grounds.

              Under Massachusetts law, the rule governing equitable

tolling    of   a    statute   of   limitations     because   of    fraudulent

concealment is codified at Massachusetts General Laws ch. 260 § 12.

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has held that, in the

absence of a fiduciary relationship, the statute of limitations

may be tolled because of fraudulent concealment only "if the

wrongdoer . . . concealed the existence of a cause of action

through some affirmative act done with intent to deceive." Epstein

v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 460 F.3d 183, 189 (1st Cir. 2006) (quoting

Puritan Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Cashman, 596 N.E.2d 1004, 1010 (Mass.

1992)    (citation    and    internal   quotation    marks    omitted));   see

Abdallah v. Bain Capital LLC, 752 F.3d 114, 119-20 (1st Cir. 2014).

In challenging the district court's ruling that there was no

factual basis in the record from which a reasonable factfinder

could "conclude that Ukraine intentionally concealed any cause of

action," UTICo has failed to develop any argument or cite any case

law in support of the proposition that Lambert's statements in his

affidavit and 2019 deposition in and of themselves suffice to

permit    a     reasonable     juror    to   find    that     the   Ukrainian

                                    - 31 -
defendants    --   through   the     representations   of   the   UPGO's

representatives -- acted with an intent to deceive UTICo.            See

United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990) ("[I]ssues

adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort

at developed argumentation, are deemed waived.").

            Whether Lambert's attestations create a genuine issue of

material fact as to whether the repatriation of tranche three was

unknowable or concealed by the Ukrainian defendants is a closer

question.    But we need not wade any further and decide whether

UTICo has created a genuine issue of fact as to the timeliness of

this claim because, as we next explain, the breach-of-contract

claim relating to tranche three fails on the merits.

                2. Recovery of Tranches Two and Three

            We turn now to the district court's ruling that the

Ukrainian defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the

merits of UTICo's breach-of-contract claim relating to tranche

two.   The district court concluded that UTICo has not demonstrated

a genuine issue of fact as to whether it was helpful in the recovery

of the accounts listed in the August 2000 Swiss court judgment

which comprise tranche two.    UTICo III, 605 F. Supp. 3d at 298-99.

Tranche three, like tranche two, implicates the August 2000 Swiss

court judgment.    Thus, we find that the district court's analysis

on the merits of the breach-of-contract claim relating to tranche

two applies equally to the claim relating to tranche three.

                                   - 32 -
           As the district court explained, a reasonable juror

certainly could find that UTICo assisted the Ukrainian defendants

in locating and blocking assets.         See id. at 296-98.       But the

question before us is not merely whether UTICo assisted the

Ukrainian defendants in a broad sense.        To defeat the Ukrainian

defendants' motion for summary judgment, UTICo had to show that a

reasonable juror could infer that the $4.058 million returned to

Ukraine in tranche two and the $1.744 million in tranche three

were returned to Ukraine "in connection with"           the   powers of

attorney executed by UPGO.     Like the district court, for purposes

of   considering   the   Ukrainian   defendants'   motion   for   summary

judgment, we will adopt UTICo's definition of "in connection with"

and ask whether UTICo was "helpful" in recovering the assets.         See

UTICo III, 605 F. Supp. 3d at 295-96.      The precise question before

us therefore is whether a reasonable juror could infer that UTICo's

work under the powers of attorney was helpful in recovering the

assets returned pursuant to the August 2000 Swiss court judgment.

We agree with the district court that a reasonable juror could

not.

           UTICo argues that summary judgment should not have been

granted to the Ukrainian defendants on the merits because it has

raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether it was helpful in

recovering tranches two and three.          The Ukrainian defendants

respond that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to

                                - 33 -
UTICo's helpfulness in the recovery of tranches two and three

because     the     record   establishes     that   the   Swiss    authorities

recovered these assets without meaningful help from UTICo.

            Before diving deeper into UTICo's arguments on appeal,

we find it useful to pause and lay out the summary judgment

standard in more detail.          Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

56(a), a "court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows

that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."                 The party

seeking summary judgment "bears the initial burden of showing that

no genuine issue of material fact exists."                Feliciano-Muñoz v.

Rebarber-Ocasio, 970 F.3d 53, 62 (1st Cir. 2020).              If the moving

party meets this burden, the nonmovant must then put forth specific

facts to establish the existence of a genuine dispute of material

fact.    See Pleasantdale Condos., LLC, 37 F.4th at 733.             And "[o]n

issues where the nonmovant bears the ultimate burden of proof,"

id.     (citation     omitted),   "conclusory       allegations,    improbable

inferences, and unsupported speculation" will not suffice, Balser

v. Int'l Union of Elec., Elec., Salaried, Mach. & Furniture Workers

(IUE) Loc. 201, 661 F.3d 109, 118 (1st Cir. 2011) (citation

omitted).    Instead, the nonmovant must come forth with "definite,

competent evidence to rebut the motion for summary judgment."

Pleasantdale Condos., LLC, 37 F.4th at 733 (citation and internal

quotation marks omitted).

                                    - 34 -
          As an initial matter, UTICo's argument on appeal largely

boils down to: (1) we recovered hundreds of documents; (2) we sent

these to UPGO at some point; (3) UPGO shared the documents with

the Swiss authorities; and (4) therefore, we must have been helpful

to Ukraine in its efforts to recover the Swiss assets mentioned in

the August 2000 Swiss court judgment.    But UTICo does little to

connect the dots and explain how it knows that the documents made

their way to Switzerland and why the documents would have been

critical to the Swiss authorities succeeding in their prosecution

of Kiritchenko.

          UTICo's effusiveness and lack of developed argumentation

before us and the district court may well mean its argument that

it assisted in the recovery of tranches two and three is waived.

See Zannino, 895 F.2d at 17 ("It is not enough merely to mention

a possible argument in the most skeletal way, leaving the court to

do counsel's work, create the ossature for the argument, and put

flesh on its bones."); Rivera-Gomez v. de Castro, 843 F.2d 631,

635 (1st Cir. 1988) ("Judges are not expected to be mindreaders.

Consequently, a litigant has an obligation to spell out its

arguments squarely and distinctly, or else forever hold its peace."

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).     The district

court should not be expected "to ferret out . . . evanescent

needle[s] from . . . outsized paper haystack[s]."    Rivera-Gomez,

843 F.2d at 635.   Nonetheless, the district court patiently waded

                              - 35 -
through UTICo's submissions, paying particular attention to the

Lambert affidavit and the exhibits referenced in it.              After its

careful   review,   it    concluded   the    Ukrainian     defendants   were

entitled to summary judgment.

           This court also has reviewed UTICo's submissions and has

reached the same conclusion: UTICo has failed to show that a

reasonable juror could conclude that UTICo's work in connection

with the May 1998 Agreement and related powers of attorney helped

Ukraine recover the Swiss assets in tranches two and three.

           A quick recap of the Swiss authorities' knowledge at the

time UTICo and Ukraine entered the May 1998 agreement demonstrates

why   UTICo's   arguments   on   appeal    lack   merit.     As   previously

mentioned, by the time May 15, 1998, rolled around, the Swiss

authorities already knew the names of several companies associated

with Kiritchenko, had identified accounts related to the companies

at Credit Suisse and SCS Alliance, and had some awareness of the

connection      between     those     accounts       and      Kiritchenko's

money-laundering scheme. The names of those companies and accounts

later would reappear in the August 2000 Swiss court judgment.             In

addition, in the months leading up to the May 1998 Agreement, the

Swiss investigating judge exchanged information with Ukraine and

requested information regarding Kiritchenko and his companies'

                                  - 36 -
accounts from banks within its jurisdiction.11             What is more, the

information    obtained     by        Switzerland   was     apparently    not

insubstantial as it was enough to result in the seizure and

compulsory administration of the bulk of the accounts that later

were named in the August 2000 Swiss court judgment.

          UTICo is correct that it would be an additional two years

before Kiritchenko would plead guilty to the Swiss charges.               But

its suggestion that UTICo was the one to tip the scales and secure

Kiritchenko's plea with the evidence it gathered and the threat of

its California litigation amounts to little more than conjecture

that cannot defeat summary judgment.             See Pleasantdale Condos.,

LLC, 37 F.4th at 733 ("Evidence that is conjectural or problematic

will not suffice to forestall summary judgment." (citation and

internal quotation marks omitted)); Cabán Hernández, 486 F.3d at

8 (emphasizing that on summary judgment we do not have "to draw

unreasonable   inferences        or     credit   bald     assertions,    empty

conclusions, [or] rank conjecture").

          There are a few problems with UTICo's suggestion that it

provided evidence that helped Ukraine recover the assets and caused

     11   We note that this information exchange was not a one-way
street.   The Swiss investigating judge also shared information
with the Ukrainian authorities. For example, at a March 27, 1998
meeting, the Swiss investigating judge alerted a Ukrainian
investigating judge to the names of several accounts and entities
for which Kiritchenko was the beneficiary but that Ukraine had
failed to mention in its requests to Switzerland.

                                      - 37 -
Kiritchenko to plead to the Swiss charges.                First, although UTICo

establishes that it sent hundreds of pages of documents to UPGO,

it is unclear exactly what they sent to UPGO and when.                        Although

the    powers    of    attorney   are   dated,     the   hundreds       of    pages    of

documents lack dates, and Lambert's affidavit does not fill that

gap.

            Similarly, UTICo has not put forth evidence establishing

that these documents were crucial to the Swiss authorities in

securing the August 2000 Swiss court judgment or Kiritchenko's

plea.    Although it asserts that its expert declarations explain

the importance of certain documents -- in particular, the recovery

of Kiritchenko's passport -- to proving up a money-laundering

charge, we have reviewed its expert declaration and found nothing

to that effect.           Indeed, UTICo's experts say little about the

specific    types       of   evidence    needed    to    secure    the       return    of

expatriated assets after a money-laundering conviction.                       Instead,

UTICo's experts opine about the length of the typical asset

recovery cycle, the documents related to asset recovery that UTICo

believes    the       Ukrainian   government      possesses,      the    veracity      of

documents       relating     to   the    California       litigation,         and     the

interpretation and translation of UTICo's agreements with UPGO.

None of these things bear on the importance of the documents UTICo

sent to UPGO to send to the Swiss.

                                        - 38 -
          This   once    again    forces    UTICo    to    rely    on   Lambert's

statements to fill the gap.         But neither his affidavit nor his

2019 deposition testimony rises to the occasion.                 As the district

court noted, UTICo's argument that it assisted in the recovery of

the Swiss assets suffers from issues of "vagueness" and is often

"conclusory."    UTICo III, 605 F. Supp. 3d at 296, 298.                Lambert's

affidavit and 2019 deposition suffer from these same defects.

Although Lambert's affidavit and deposition testimony recount the

entities about which UTICo gathered evidence and the evidence

recovered, they fail to include specific details from which one

might infer how that evidence landed in Switzerland's hands, how

it was crucial to obtaining the August 2000 Swiss court judgment,

and why Switzerland could not obtain this information during its

own investigation.12

          Finally,      UTICo's   suggestion        that   its    evidence    and

parallel litigation in California caused Kiritchenko to plea and

provide the information to get Swiss recovery over the finish line

overlooks the additional evidence obtained by Switzerland during

     12   At times, UTICo's reply brief suggests that without
UTICo, the Swiss authorities would not have known of the companies
and accounts implicated in the money-laundering scheme. But this
assertion   is  at   odds   with  the   non-speculative   evidence
establishing that the Swiss authorities knew of the relevant
accounts and companies before the May 1998 Agreement's execution.
What is more, such a contention cannot be taken seriously where
Lambert, in his 2019 deposition testimony, acknowledged that the
Swiss authorities knew of the existence of these companies.

                                   - 39 -
its investigation.       In particular, the Swiss investigating judge

deposed Kiritchenko and Lazarenko.            In his deposition, Lazarenko

offered the Swiss authorities details on the money-laundering

scheme and the entities implicated in it.            And, in June 2000, two

months   before    the    August    2000   Swiss   court   judgment   against

Kiritchenko, Lazarenko pled guilty to the offenses against him,

including the factual details underlying his offenses.

           UTICo's strongest support for its assertion that UPGO

forwarded helpful documents from UTICo to Switzerland are two

December 12, 1998 letters from UPGO to the Swiss investigating

judge.   The two letters indicate that UPGO sent several volumes of

documents to Switzerland that included, among other things, the

following: (1) "[d]ocumentation on transfers of funds from the

accounts   of   [United    Energy    International    Ltd.]   . . .   to   the

accounts of various firms in Swiss banks"; (2) "[c]opies of the

documents on the owners and principals of [Bainfield, Paddox, and

Bassington]"; and (3) information concerning Somolli.            Even so, it

remains unclear what information UTICo transmitted to Ukraine,

whether those mailings both pre-date the December 12, 1998 letters

and post-date the May 1998 agreement, and why the transmitted

information was crucial to the success of the Swiss investigation.

Without those details, we are left only to speculate on the

usefulness of the information and whether it was forwarded to

Switzerland.      And speculation and surmise cannot carry the day at

                                     - 40 -
the summary-judgment stage.         See Gomez v. Stop & Shop Supermarket

Co., 670 F.3d 395, 398 (1st Cir. 2012) ("Assumptions are not a

substitute for evidence," we will not "pile[] inference upon

inference" at the summary-judgment stage in a manner that "elevates

assumption over proof."); Cadle Co. v. Hayes, 116 F.3d 957, 960

(1st Cir. 1997) ("[E]stablishing a genuine issue of material fact

requires more than effusive rhetoric and optimistic surmise.").

Nor can "'[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence' in favor

of   the   nonmoving    party   .     .   .   defeat   summary   judgment."

Barreto-Rosa v. Varona-Mendez, 470 F.3d 42, 45 (1st Cir. 2006)

(quoting Anderson      v. Liberty Lobby,       Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252

(1986)).

           Accordingly, we agree with the district court that the

Ukrainian defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the

portion of UTICo's breach-of-contract claim related to the Swiss

assets that have been transferred to the Ukrainian treasury.

                          C. Motions to Amend

           Finally, UTICo takes issue with the district court's

denial of UTICo's three motions to amend.

           "We review a district court's denial of a motion to amend

for abuse of discretion."       Mulder v. Kohl's Dep't Stores, Inc.,

865 F.3d 17, 20 (1st Cir. 2017).          Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

15(a) instructs that leave to amend be "freely give[n] when justice

so requires."   Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).         "But this does not mean

                                    - 41 -
. . . that a trial court must mindlessly grant every request for

leave to amend."      Nikitine v. Wilmington Tr. Co., 715 F.3d 388,

390 (1st Cir. 2013) (omission in original) (citation and internal

quotation marks omitted). Indeed, "a district court may deny leave

to amend when the request is characterized by undue delay, bad

faith, futility, [or] the absence of due diligence on the movant's

part."     Id.   (alteration     in    original)   (citation     and    internal

quotation marks omitted).             And where "the record evinces an

arguably adequate basis for the [district] court's decision," we

will affirm the denial of a motion to amend.             Hatch v. Dep't for

Child., Youth & Their Fams., 274 F.3d 12, 19 (1st Cir. 2001).

           We quickly dispose of UTICo's appeal of the denials of

the first and second motions to amend.               In its first motion to

amend, UTICo sought leave to add an unfair and deceptive trade

practices claim under Massachusetts General Laws ch. 93A.                    The

district court denied this motion without prejudice to UTICo

refiling   the   motion   after   this     court   resolved     the    Ukrainian

defendants' interlocutory appeal.          Certainly, we see no abuse in

the district court's decision to defer consideration of the motion

to amend until our resolution of an appeal that may have dispensed

of the case in full.      UTICo remained free to refile its motion to

amend    after   we   affirmed    the     district    court's    exercise    of

jurisdiction over the breach-of-contract claims and mandate issued

on September 4, 2013.

                                      - 42 -
            For some reason, UTICo never refiled its first motion to

amend. Instead, UTICo waited over a year to file its second motion

to amend.    That motion made no mention of an unfair and deceptive

trade practices claim.    The precise amendments that UTICo sought

to make were less than clear.      At a minimum, it appears UTICo

sought to add additional factual allegations it believed related

to the tolling of the statute of limitations.    During the May 16,

2018 hearing, UTICo also suggested that it sought to amend the

complaint to add a claim that the Ukrainian defendants breached

the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, but the motion

itself makes no mention of a good faith and fair dealing claim.

At the conclusion of that hearing, the district court denied

UTICo's second motion to amend because it was not "well-founded"

and because the amendments that UTICo sought to make did not relate

to the remaining breach-of-contract claims.13

     13    The district court also emphasized that UTICo had failed
to include a proposed amended complaint with its motion to amend.
See UTICo III, 605 F. Supp. 3d at 285. On appeal, UTICo makes
much of the fact that the Local Rules for the District of
Massachusetts do not require a party to attach a copy of its
proposed pleading to a motion to amend.      UTICo is correct that
neither Local Rule 15.1 nor Rule 15 require a proposed pleading,
but the point still stands that a party must set forth some basis
on which the district court can distill how and why a party seeks
to amend a complaint -- whether that be done in the motion to amend
or in a proposed complaint attached to the motion. UTICo failed
to do so, particularly with respect to its claim that the Ukrainian
defendants breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.

                               - 43 -
            Again, we see no abuse of discretion in the district

court's denial of the second motion to amend.                     The proposed

amendments included in UTICo's motion did not relate to the Swiss

assets -- the only claim remaining after the May 16, 2018 hearing.

Nor did the proposed amendments relate to the reasoning on which

the   district    court    predicated      its    decision      to   limit    the

breach-of-contract     claim     to     the     repatriated      Swiss   assets.

Instead, the proposed amendments merely identified funds which had

yet to be repatriated and attempted to buttress UTICo's already

dismissed claims that related to the California litigation.

            Finally, we turn to the denial of UTICo's third motion

to amend.    UTICo moved to amend the complaint a third time late in

this litigation. It sought to add several claims to the complaint,

including claims for fraudulent concealment, breach of the implied

covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and misrepresentation.

The district court denied the motion to amend both because of undue

delay and because UTICo's proposed amendments would have been

futile.     See UTICo III, 605 F. Supp. 3d at 286-87.

            The   district    court     acted    within   its    discretion   in

denying the third motion to amend based on undue delay.                  By the

time UTICo filed its third motion to amend, discovery had closed,

the deadline for summary judgment motions had passed, and the

Ukrainian    defendants'     second    motion    for   summary    judgment    was

pending before the court.        In addition, over a year had passed

                                      - 44 -
since the district court denied UTICo's second motion to amend

for, among other reasons, its failure to meaningfully articulate

a claim based on a theory of breach of the implied covenant of

good faith and fair dealing.   We have upheld the denial of motions

to amend for undue delay based on even shorter time frames at

earlier stages of the litigation.       See, e.g., Calderón-Serra v.

Wilmington Tr. Co., 715 F.3d 14, 20 (1st Cir. 2013) (affirming

denial of motion to amend "filed . . . nearly a year after the

commencement of the action and many months after the . . . motions

to dismiss had been taken under advisement"); Villanueva v. United

States, 662 F.3d 124, 127 (1st Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (affirming

denial based on undue delay when plaintiff was aware of facts

underlying proposed claim before filing suit yet waited four months

to request to amend); Kay v. N.H. Dem. Party, 821 F.2d 31, 34 (1st

Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (affirming a finding of undue delay when

plaintiff moved to amend three months after granting of motion to

dismiss relevant claims).

          UTICo contends that its delay in filing the third motion

to amend should not be held against it where the district court

took nearly three years to rule on the motion and previously took

over three years to rule on the second motion to amend.          But

UTICo's frustration about the pace of this litigation misses the

point.   For various reasons, the pace of this case's proceedings

may have been slow.   Nevertheless, UTICo still had ample time to

                               - 45 -
seek leave to amend for a third time to try and remedy the flaws

in its second motion to amend.

            It also is unclear why UTICo could not have requested

leave to make the amendments set forth in its third motion to amend

at an earlier stage of the litigation.         Although UTICo asserts in

a conclusory manner that its proposed amendments were "based on

new evidence and facts showing UTICo's assistance in the recovery

by [the d]efendants of the assets in Switzerland and elsewhere,"

it does not explain why it had to wait until four months after the

close of discovery to add these allegations and why it could not

discover those facts earlier.        Nor does it make any effort to

explain what the "new evidence and facts" are and why they are

critical.    What is more, it does not appear that the proposed

amendments   actually   further    elucidate    UTICo's    assistance   in

recovery of the $15 million of Swiss assets.              Indeed, at oral

argument, UTICo conceded that its proposed amendments to the

complaint did not affect the claims remaining at that point, that

is, the breach-of-contract claims relating to the $15 million in

Swiss assets, but rather focused on pleading additional claims.

Given the delay in moving to amend for the third time and the lack

of explanation for why UTICo failed to propose these amendments

earlier, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its

                                  - 46 -
discretion   in   denying    the    third   motion   to   amend.14      See

Calderón-Serra, 715 F.3d at 20 ("Appreciable delay alone, in the

absence of good reason for it, is enough to justify denying a

motion for leave to amend.").

                            III. Conclusion

          For the reasons stated above, we affirm the district

court's dismissal of UTICo's breach-of-contract claim insofar as

it relates to blocked but not yet repatriated assets, its grant of

summary   judgment   to     the    Ukrainian   defendants    on      UTICo's

breach-of-contract claim related to the Swiss assets, and its

denial of UTICo's three motions to amend.

     14   Because the district court did not abuse its discretion
in denying the third motion to amend for undue delay, we need not
pass judgment on whether the proposed amendments would have been
futile. It does appear that many of UTICo's proposed amendments,
such as its claims related to the California assignment and
fraudulent concealment claim, are futile. But we pause to make
clear that we decline to address the futility of UTICo's claim for
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
today. The district court concluded that although our decision in
UTICo II approved of the exercise of jurisdiction over UTICo's
breach-of-contract claims, its reasoning foreclosed the exercise
of jurisdiction over a claim for breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing that rested on the theory that Ukraine
has failed to repatriate assets. UTICo III, 605 F. Supp. 3d at
286-87. That may well be the case, but we find it best to leave
this question of foreign sovereign immunity for another day.

                                   - 47 -